Rossi: 1 Week E-Cat QuarkX Test to Start at End of May with Potential Cutomer/Partner (Update #3: News About Testing on Monday )

UPDATE #3 (Jun 10, 2016)

It looks like we can expect news about the E-Cat QuarkX on Monday when the current round of testing will be over. Here are a couple of Q&As on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Q: Has the QuarkX testing with your customer ended now — and what happens next?

Andrea Rossi
June 10, 2016 at 8:24 PM
Frank Acland: no, we are working today and tomorrow too.
Monday I will give information about the situation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Q: You confirm that Monday we will have information about the QuarkX ?

Andrea Rossi
June 10, 2016 at 8:21 PM
Saul:
Yes, good or bad as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE #2 (June 7, 2016)

Here are a couple of rather general comments from Andrea Rossi from today and yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the QuarkX testing that has been going on for about a week now, according to AR:

Q: Without going into specific data (F8), how would you describe the reactions so far of your testing partners to what they are seeing in the E-Cat QuarkX testing? A: Optimistic

Q: Today was an important day in the testing for you, and we all are hoping that things went smoothly. Did the QuarkX(3) perform carefree for you today? A: Still very promising. We are working very hard and very well.

UPDATE #1 (May 31, 2016)

Here are some more questions about the testing (which apparently starts today) from Hank Mills, along with Rossi’s responses:

Hank Mills
May 30, 2016 at 8:55 PM
Dear Andrea,

1) Will there be an ERV or third party involved with the one week test of the Quark? 1- no

2) Are there specific goals or benchmarks that need to be met by this test? If so, what are they? 2- reliability, performance, safety

3) Will there be a comprehensive test report generated either by you, the customer, or the third party (if there is one)? 3- yes, obviously, but it will not be public

4) If a comprehensive test report is produced, when will it be shared with the public? 4- eventually, after an official certification-validation which will be also the “GO” to the manufacturing (F8)

5) How many Quarks will be utilized in the one week test? 5- three

6) Will photographs or videos be taken during the test? If so, will they be shared with the public? 6- no

7) How will the heat produced by the Quarks be measured? 7- putting on the hot surface the finger of somebody and see how loudly he cries ( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)

8) How will the electricity produced by the Quarks be measured? 8- same as above ( disconnecting the earth cable)

9) If the test is a complete and total success, what are your next steps forward in the near future? 9- see point 4

10) Will the Quark be ran in self sustain mode during the test for significant periods of time — for example a half hour or longer? 10- yes

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Hank Mills

Obviously some humor in there; it seems that there won’t be a third party independent tester, so I would assume that the potential partner will have their own people there to make measurements, as well as Rossi. Which would only make sense if you were checking out the E-Cat and considering making a commitment to use it. I think if the QuarkX can run in self-sustain mode while continuing to produce heat and electricity it would be quite an impressive achievement. Rossi says the QuarkX can run at above 1400 C, and if it can continue to run at those temperatures without any input (let along producing electricity), something unusual must be going on.

*********************************

Andrea Rossi has stated on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that he planned to do some important testing of the E-Cat QuarkX in June. Yesterday he made another comment about this test on the JONP:

Andrea Rossi
May 28, 2016 at 8:20 PM
Giovanni:
As I said, At the end of May we will have a confined test that will close the preliminary R&D of the QuarkX. It will last a further week.
After that, we will prepare consequently.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In responses to some follow-up questions Rossi provided a little more detail

Q: Can you clarify what you mean by a “confined test” that will last a week? By this do you mean an enclosed test methodology where the System input energy and output energy are precisely measured with the test run continuously over a week duration?”

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 11:56 AM
Steven N. Karels:
Not at all: I just mean not public, restricted to a Partner and few of us.
WarmRegards,
A.R.

Q: You say at the end of May you will start a confined test with the QuarkX that will last a week. Is this the test you mentioned that will take place with a potential partner/customer?

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 11:54 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So according to Rossi the test will start at the end of May — which means if it hasn’t started today it will apparently begin on Monday or Tuesday and run for a week. Rossi has previously said that the potential customer/partner is a group that could help them with production of the QuarkX, which makes me think it could be a Swedish company, since Rossi has said he is planning his first QuarkX production factory in Sweden.

I don’t think we can expect any kind of formal report to come out of this testing, so it may be a while to get any kind of third-party report about what went on. Rossi has said that details about the QuarkX will be provided after the conclusion of the R&D period — maybe this test will signal the ending of the preliminary testing. So maybe we’ll get some new information in some form or another.

UPDATE: Ross responded to a JONP reader about getting some information about this test:

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 2:39 PM
Robert Dorr:
Thank you for your comment.
I agree: I will communcate the results, within the possible limits.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Buck

    Off-topic question: am I the only one showing that http://www.rosilivecat.com is down/unavailable?

    • Jon

      Same for me, unavailable

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I have been having trouble with the site for a week. Hackers?

    • LarryJ

      rossilivecat has no official connection with Rossi. Rossi only discovered it himself around a year ago so I am assuming that their server either hung or crashed on the weekend and will be started up again on Monday. Maybe make that Tuesday. I don’t know if the site is in the US or not but I think Monday is a holiday there.

  • Buck

    Off-topic question: am I the only one showing that http://www.rosilivecat.com is down/unavailable?

    • Jon

      Same for me, unavailable

    • coolabuelo
    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I have been having trouble with the site for a week. Hackers?

    • LarryJ

      rossilivecat has no official connection with Rossi. Rossi only discovered it himself around a year ago so I am assuming that their server either hung or crashed on the weekend and will be started up again on Monday. Maybe make that Tuesday. I don’t know if the site is in the US or not but I think Monday is a holiday there.

  • Buck

    Very Good/Great News ! ! !

    A successful business begins with being there for assuaging the concerns of your potential customers, answering their questions, demonstrating your product.

  • спаситель русских
  • pg

    cooool!!!

  • Billy Jackson

    congratz i guess. but i think i am loosing my taste for secret undisclosed test.

    • Chris Marshalk

      Yep. Another test with no results & no final product. Another year goes past & still nothing. I’m visiting less, I guess I’m growing tired.

  • Billy Jackson

    congratz i guess. but i think i am loosing my taste for secret undisclosed test.

    • Chris Marshalk

      Yep. Another test with no results & no final product. Another year goes past & still nothing. I’m visiting less, I guess I’m growing tired.

  • Stephen Taylor

    IMPORTANT: A. Rossi wins the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500.
    (off topic)

  • Stephen Taylor

    IMPORTANT: A. Rossi wins the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500.
    (off topic)

  • clovis ray

    Great news,
    Thanks Dr.R, your the best, please keep us informed as much as you can here at E-CAT WORLD, we know that you have to be careful, but still, we need a bone with a little meat, so we don’t go mad, as a hat’er.
    The skeptics are having a field day, mostly lies, fabrication, half trues and the like,i’m sure you know, it’s been a long time now, for us old timers it will be nice, to at last see one of your kitty’s, in operation, is it possible that some of us to be invited to watch, in person, and to meet you and your team, this would be great, if maybe Frank A,, could go and see it first hand,
    I personally will see you at the noble prize party. big smile,

  • Luca Meli

    Come on ROSSI… If you want you can show your proof without disclosing anything.
    Showdown Rossi.

  • Luca Meli

    Come on ROSSI… If you want you can show your proof without disclosing anything.
    Showdown Rossi.

  • Niaga Dennab

    I am curious as to why individuals here would consider yet another closed door private test in which Rossi will “communcate the results, within the possible limits” good news. Not only does this seem to remove a bit more credit from Rossi as the test is again unnecessarily private, but definitely lends more understandable ammo to skeptics. It would be so easy for Rossi to demonstrate proof of operation without exposing the “customer” at this point. The can continues to be kicked down the LENR road……

    • kdk

      It means that the person he’s demoing to wants to keep their competitors guessing, which means they’re serious to me. Hopefully, finally a real capitalist rather than another crony bunch.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “It means that the person he’s demoing to wants to keep their competitors guessing, which means they’re serious to me.”

        Sure.

        We the public have NO IDEA what it means. Lack of information is Rossi’s stock in trade.

        Bugs me.

        • Zeddicus23

          “Lack of information is Rossi’s stock in trade.” This is total B.S. He signed an agreement with IH in 2012 and informed us about this (although he’s been under NDA about some of the details). He informed us about the 1-year test as it was being carried out. He informed us (and Mats Lewan) about the results of the test. He informed us that he was suing IH for non-payment. He informed us about his plans to pursue manufacturing in Sweden – a territory allowed by his agreement with IH. He informed us about progress with the QuarkX and is now informing us about an important test of the QuarkX, which is clearly related to investors in Sweden, which may allow him to pursue agreements there. The test is presumably ongoing and/or about to begin, so he obviously doesn’t know yet the results of the test (a year or so ago a test he carried out with Hydrofusion failed and they withdrew their offer at the time, but apparently they are now again working with him). He has informed us that he will let us know as much as possible about the 1-week test. He has also said that he is not interested in scientific demonstrations but only in commercial products. A lot of this is “Rossi says” but in many cases “Rossi says” have been verified by actual events. He has no obligation to reveal any information to you, unless perhaps you’re an investor. Feel free to ignore him if you are frustrated by this or don’t believe his statement that there will be an important test of the QuarkX.

          • Anon2012_2014

            ‘A lot of this is “Rossi says” … He has no obligation to reveal any information to you … Feel free to ignore him if you are frustrated’

            Bingo! I’m frustrated. (Beyond that I don’t care to debate you.)

          • Albert D. Kallal

            It is your above points that keeps the ecat alive.

            The above does not fit the pattern of someone without the real deal. The “actions” of Rossi in this regards helps his case a lot. And when you connect the dots, then Rossi again looks like the real deal.

            However, the less than ideal verifications, behaviours of IH, and questions about the 1 yearlong customer don’t help Rossi case. If one could eliminate some of these questions and confusions, then the ecat case becomes strong.

            And quite much at a point in time when we expected some great information (the ERV), the can was kicked down the road along with questions about the customer.

            So we have two sides of a coin here, and thus reserved caution is still the order of the day until one side of this coin becomes larger then the other side.
            I like everyone has high hopes we will see a commercial working device in the not too distant future, but some uncertainties exist at this point in time.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • LarryJ

      This is a paradigm shifting technology. That means we are waiting for a shift in reality. That does not happen easily or without a lot of protest. The only test that matters in a situation like this is the one you do in your living room when you plug in your quarkx and see how it affects your power bill. Nothing less will suffice and whether or not the skeptics believe it is totally irrelevant. It is not possible to devise an irrefutable test so Rossi’s course of action makes perfect sense to me.

      For myself I believe the ERV report. The idea that an experienced nuclear physicist with experience testing nuclear power plants cannot tell cop 50 from cop 1 makes no sense in my reality so add that to all the other people he is presumed to have fooled and I have to assume Rossi has the goods. This test of the quarkx is good news because it puts us one step closer to the day I can plug one into my wall plug and test it for myself.

      • Pweet

        Or it could mean that according to the measured parameters as per the initial agreement, the ERV report shows a positive result, but by taking into account some other factors which were not mentioned or included in the initially agreed test procedures, the real COP is about 1.
        The fact is, something has severely dampened the enthusiasm of IH to continue in the “partnership” and I don’t believe it is because they can’t find the money. They have clearly stated they could not substantiate the claims of Rossi. It’s a very simple statement and it should not be hard to prove one way or the other when the time comes to do so. It will not be disproved merely by pointing to some previous statement which they might have made which said they were happy with progress. That can be rationalized in many ways other than the device having a high COP.
        If Mr Rossi wants, he can prove them to be in error by undeniably proving his device works as claimed. Apparently he has failed to do that with IH, they say.

        • LarryJ

          IH could not pay Rossi because that would have meant their confirmation of the technology and Rossi’s right to the IP. Who owns the IP is a question they want left open and argued about for a very long time.

        • Gerard McEk

          Assume that the test results this week are such that AR’s new partner will join in. Do you then still maintain your scepitical view and also assume this new partner does not know how to judge a proper test?

          • Pweet

            In light of the fact that IH initially put a lot of money on the table but have now backed away saying they could not get the results Mr Rossi did, I would not place much significance on yet another partner buying into it, specially if they have done so on the basis of a short demonstration by Mr Rossi. Keep in mind IH is not the first partner to bail out of this world changing technical revolution. Does Mr Rossi have some strange ability to continually pick partners who can’t recognize the opportunity of the century when it comes their way? I don’t think so.
            I have no doubt Mr Rossi can put on a very convincing demonstration so long as it is done strictly in accordance with his previously scripted act. This is exactly what has happened in all previous demonstrations and tests even though the test methods used have been selected against the advice of Rossi’s friends and associates.
            If it ever happens that one of his devices is offered for a truly independent third party to devise a test procedure and then run the tests, and they come up with a positive result, then I will be at the head of procession blowing trumpets and banging drums.
            Sorry to say, that has not happened yet, even though five years ago I was expecting it to happen within the year.

          • LarryJ

            Probably this new potential customer is totally unaware of the IH controversy and so will be that much more easily duped. lol

          • kdk

            Any due diligence will lead them here.

          • Engineer48

            What you think the customer & his engineers don’t have internet access or don’t know how to use Google?

          • LarryJ

            Tongue in cheek sarcasm 🙂

          • Omega Z

            Rossi owes us nothing.
            Some skeptics will not believe any test that proves positive.

            The fact is, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks beyond those who will be directly involved in bring a product to market.

          • Engineer48

            Did you ever try to buy a 1MWt ECat reactor? Well I have and while my potential client has decided to wait out the court case, nothing Rossi said was in anyway unusual. He even understood their desire to delay.

            He would allow my potential clients very experienced thermal power steam engineers to examine a working plant prior to signing the purchase contract.

            While the contract would require money to be placed in Escrow, no money would change hands until the installed at the potential clients site reactors passed a mutually agreed test.

            Rossi was 100% ready to execute this pathway

            As Rossi told me, he is only interested in doing tests for paying customers. Why would he seek to do 3rd party tests so they could reverse engineer his trade secrets?

          • Sorry to drone on about this, but unfortunately there is the non-trivial matter of safety certification of devices that produce energy from a new class of nuclear reactions that are not fully described (in fact barely recognised) by the academic world.

            An industrial prototype or two will probably not be too difficult to build and test, as there are exemptions in the safety legislation for prototypes operated solely by manufacturer’s employees. But bulk manufacture will require a whole new ‘Standard’ to be commissioned (from BS, DIN or other internationally recognised institution in Europe), and the reactors as built must also conform to all existing EU Standards for thermal, electrical, pressure etc. legislation. With enough weight behind it (e.g., ABB, Vattenfall or another big boy) the process from finalisation of an industrial design (after more testing) to first product might take several years.

        • Engineer48

          Pweet wrote:
          Or it could mean that according to the measured parameters as per the initial agreement, the ERV report shows a positive result, but by taking into account some other factors which were not mentioned or included in the initially agreed test procedures, the real COP is about 1.

          Please explain the “other factors” and understand you are talking to a engineer who understands superheated steam.

          • Pweet

            Because nobody here has seen the test setup or any accurate schematics of it, you ask an impossible question.
            If the same question was asked about the previous tests and demonstrations it would also be impossible to answer, except for the fact that videos were taken and dialogue given which made the “other factors” immediately obvious.
            The one I keep referring to regarding the earlier demo of October 2011 should have been obvious to all who were at the demo, but for some reason nothing was said about it at the time. That point is the grossly incorrect placement of the thermocouple to measure the output temperature of the coolant. It was placed on a brass fitting at the hot end of the heat exchange. This one glaring error made all the test results meaningless because the required COP could simply be arranged by increasing the flow rate of the coolant until the desired results were achieved. With the thermocouple on the hot end of the heat exchange, it will always be hotter that he coolant even if the coolant flow rate is raised to infinity.
            It just has to be because the thermal conductivity of brass is much higher than the thermal conductivity of the brass/water interface.
            This long after the event it is all ignored because it was so long ago and things have moved on since then etc, old technology, now we have the hot cat, the new magnificent 1MW plant, the ecat Quack X etc, and on we go,…. but leaving a string of defective tests and demos behind us with never a repeat test done to eliminate the sometimes very obvious errors in procedure in the original tests.
            That has been the script so far.
            So, regarding the “other factors” relevant to the most recent 1MW test, it is impossible to answer without a detailed examination of the setup, what measurements were taken and where they were taken from and what measures were put in place to ensure none of these could be fiddled during the many long nights the operator was locked up alone with the equipment.
            I will point out that IH believe (they say) the performance claims were not met, even though the report of the ERV is claimed to show the performance claims were met. That would strongly indicate there is some serious defect in the test procedure which allows for this to occur. Can I say what that defect might be? Of course not. At this point we’ve only read vague and now disputed reports of the results. How can anyone analyse for for procedural defects with this? That’s the thing with magician’s magic. We only get to see the performance at a distance and only from one angle. And in case you think you see how it’s being done, the trick is never repeated under any conditions you might impose to negate the possibility of how you think it might actually be performed.
            However, IH now believe they have been tricked and on the basis of photos and data which they have, and we don’t have, can win a court case on the matter.
            If and when all this comes out in court, we will be better informed and can then make better assessments of how it has all been effected. But by then, I think it will all be swept under the carpet as being of little importance now because we have something even better; the Quack X, and a new partner to finance yet another year or two of the saga.

  • Niaga Dennab

    I am curious as to why individuals here would consider yet another closed door private test in which Rossi will “communcate the results, within the possible limits” good news. Not only does this seem to remove a bit more credit from Rossi as the test is again unnecessarily private, but definitely lends more understandable ammo to skeptics. It would be so easy for Rossi to demonstrate proof of operation without exposing the “customer” at this point. The can continues to be kicked down the LENR road……

    • kdk

      It means that the person he’s demoing to wants to keep their competitors guessing, which means they’re serious to me. Hopefully, finally a real capitalist rather than another crony bunch.

      • Niaga Dennab

        Again KDK, as I mentioned, Rossi could absolutely demonstrate proof of operation WITHOUT exposing the customer in any way. There is absolutely no way anyone would know the customer especially if this was demoed via a videostream. Respectfully, I believe my point still stands.

        • kdk

          Maybe the people he’s demoing to want to get every leg up on competition possible (and that’s how serious they are) by not letting others know any more about it until it’s being released or about to be released? People who want to surprise potential competition don’t advertise any more about the product unless they’re about to release it.

          • Niaga Dennab

            What I believe you are misunderstanding here is that the QuarkX itself could be easily demo’d without anyone watching or observing even knowing what the customer does as a business, so therefore it is a moot point. Remember, Rossi is claiming the QuarkX can produce electricity, so there would be no need to see the “customer” equipment or plant, all he would need to show off is the QuarkX via electrical output. Very simple..my point still stands.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “It means that the person he’s demoing to wants to keep their competitors guessing, which means they’re serious to me.”

        Sure.

        We the public have NO IDEA what it means. Lack of information is Rossi’s stock in trade.

        Bugs me.

        • Zeddicus23

          “Lack of information is Rossi’s stock in trade.” This is total B.S. He signed an agreement with IH in 2012 and informed us about this (although he’s been under NDA about some of the details). He informed us about the 1-year test as it was being carried out. He informed us (and Mats Lewan) about the results of the test. He informed us that he was suing IH for non-payment. He informed us about his plans to pursue manufacturing in Sweden – a territory allowed by his agreement with IH. He informed us about progress with the QuarkX and is now informing us about an important test of the QuarkX, which is clearly related to investors in Sweden, which may allow him to pursue agreements there. The test is presumably ongoing and/or about to begin, so he obviously doesn’t know yet the results of the test (a year or so ago a test he carried out with Hydrofusion failed and they withdrew their offer at the time, but apparently they are now again working with him). He has informed us that he will let us know as much as possible about the 1-week test. He has also said that he is not interested in scientific demonstrations but only in commercial products. A lot of this is “Rossi says” but in many cases “Rossi says” have been verified by actual events. He has no obligation to reveal any information to you, unless perhaps you’re an investor. Feel free to ignore him if you are frustrated by this or don’t believe his statement that there will be an important test of the QuarkX.

          • Anon2012_2014

            ‘A lot of this is “Rossi says” … He has no obligation to reveal any information to you … Feel free to ignore him if you are frustrated’

            Bingo! I’m frustrated. (Beyond that I don’t care to debate you.)

          • Albert D. Kallal

            It is your above points that keeps the ecat alive.

            The above does not fit the pattern of someone without the real deal. The “actions” of Rossi in this regards helps his case a lot. And when you connect the dots, then Rossi again looks like the real deal.

            However, the less than ideal verifications, behaviours of IH, and questions about the 1 yearlong customer don’t help Rossi case. If one could eliminate some of these questions and confusions, then the ecat case becomes strong.

            And quite much at a point in time when we expected some great information (the ERV), the can was kicked down the road along with questions about the customer.

            So we have two sides of a coin here, and thus reserved caution is still the order of the day until one side of this coin becomes larger then the other side.
            I like everyone has high hopes we will see a commercial working device in the not too distant future, but some uncertainties exist at this point in time.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Steve Swatman

          then why are you watching the situation, you know this is how its going to be, Rossi has gone through a lot of tests, worked mostly alone, been accused, vilified and general put down for every thing he has done, he owes no one nothing, least of all the internet, why would you people bother wasting time and effort, writing negative comments and accusations, if you do not believe in Rossi and and hit inventions, just walk away.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “then why are you watching the situation”.

            @Swatman, I will read what I want thank you.

            I read all the stuff here, there and everywhere because I hope against hope that Rossi has it.

            Rossi just tortures people like me with his snippets. (I.e. Rossi, throw me a bone here…)

            And then the friendly crowd of Rossi supporters here on ECW just dumps on any comment that questions Rossi’s lack of transparency with various “rational” “reasons”. I have come to expect those responses like I have come to expect the repetitious noise from the pathoskeptics on ECN. But at least they have a different point of view, as does Dewey, Alaine, Sifferkol, etc… I try and synthesize it all to take a guess as to what is really happening. As in any divorce there are always three sides: his, hers, and the truth. Trying to efficiently skim the verbiage for small elements of the truth is what I am doing.

    • LarryJ

      This is a paradigm shifting technology. That means we are waiting for a shift in reality. That does not happen easily or without a lot of protest. The only test that matters in a situation like this is the one you do in your living room when you plug in your quarkx and see how it affects your power bill. Nothing less will suffice and whether or not the skeptics believe it is totally irrelevant. It is not possible to devise an irrefutable test so Rossi’s march to production makes perfect sense to me.

      For myself I believe the ERV report. The idea that an experienced nuclear physicist with experience testing nuclear power plants cannot tell cop 50 from cop 1 makes no sense in my reality so add that to all the other people Rossi is presumed to have fooled and I have to assume Rossi has the goods. This test of the quarkx is good news because it puts us one step closer to the day I can plug one into my living room wall and test it for myself.

      • Pweet

        Or it could mean that according to the measured parameters as per the initial agreement, the ERV report shows a positive result, but by taking into account some other factors which were not mentioned or included in the initially agreed test procedures, the real COP is about 1.
        The fact is, something has severely dampened the enthusiasm of IH to continue in the “partnership” and I don’t believe it is because they can’t find the money. They have clearly stated they could not substantiate the claims of Rossi. It’s a very simple statement and it should not be hard to prove one way or the other when the time comes to do so. It will not be disproved merely by pointing to some previous statement which they might have made which said they were happy with progress. That can be rationalized in many ways other than the device having a high COP.
        If Mr Rossi wants, he can prove them to be in error by undeniably proving his device works as claimed. Apparently he has failed to do that with IH, they say.

        • LarryJ

          IH could not pay Rossi because that would have meant their confirmation of the technology and Rossi’s right to the IP. Who owns the IP is a question they want left open and argued about for a very long time.

          • Pweet

            Why don’t they just say it works and reap the billion dollar reward right now?
            Why risk losing the lot as they seem to have done by bailing out now?
            Why have their name dragged through the courts and lose the good will and association of the worlds most prolific and successful inventor in power generation of the 21st century?
            So many questions where the most probable and logical answer points to the the high probability that what IH says is true; they cannot substantiate the claims of Mr Rossi.
            Now, that might be because they are simpletons with no technical abilities at all and therefore have trouble even turning on an electric light. Or it could be that the claims made by Mr Rossi cannot be substantiated using more accurate and realistic test procedures.
            Different people will see different probabilities attached to both of these statements. It may even be that both are right.

          • LarryJ

            Because the IP is worth a lot more than a license for the IP.

        • Gerard McEk

          Assume that the test results this week are such that AR’s new partner will join in. Do you then still maintain your scepitical view and also assume this new partner does not know how to judge a proper test?

          • Pweet

            In light of the fact that IH initially put a lot of money on the table but have now backed away saying they could not get the results Mr Rossi did, I would not place much significance on yet another partner buying into it, specially if they have done so on the basis of a short demonstration by Mr Rossi. Keep in mind IH is not the first partner to bail out of this world changing technical revolution. Does Mr Rossi have some strange ability to continually pick partners who can’t recognize the opportunity of the century when it comes their way? I don’t think so.
            I have no doubt Mr Rossi can put on a very convincing demonstration so long as it is done strictly in accordance with his previously scripted act. This is exactly what has happened in all previous demonstrations and tests even though the test methods used have been selected against the advice of Rossi’s friends and associates.
            If it ever happens that one of his devices is offered for a truly independent third party to devise a test procedure and then run the tests, and they come up with a positive result, then I will be at the head of procession blowing trumpets and banging drums.
            Sorry to say, that has not happened yet, even though five years ago I was expecting it to happen within the year.

          • LarryJ

            Probably this new potential customer is totally unaware of the IH controversy and so will be that much more easily duped. lol

          • kdk

            Any due diligence will lead them here.

          • Engineer48

            What you think the customer & his engineers don’t have internet access or don’t know how to use Google?

          • LarryJ

            Tongue in cheek sarcasm 🙂

          • Omega Z

            Rossi owes us nothing.
            Some skeptics will not believe any test that proves positive.

            The fact is, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks beyond those who will be directly involved in bring a product to market.

          • Engineer48

            Did you ever try to buy a 1MWt ECat reactor? Well I have and while my potential client has decided to wait out the court case, nothing Rossi said was in anyway unusual. He even understood their desire to delay.

            He would allow my potential clients very experienced thermal power steam engineers to examine a working plant prior to signing the purchase contract.

            While the contract would require money to be placed in Escrow, no money would change hands until the installed at the potential clients site reactors passed a mutually agreed test.

            Rossi was 100% ready to execute this pathway

            As Rossi told me, he is only interested in doing tests for paying customers. Why would he seek to do 3rd party tests so they could reverse engineer his trade secrets?

        • Engineer48

          Pweet wrote:
          Or it could mean that according to the measured parameters as per the initial agreement, the ERV report shows a positive result, but by taking into account some other factors which were not mentioned or included in the initially agreed test procedures, the real COP is about 1.

          Please explain the “other factors” and understand you are talking to a engineer who understands superheated steam.

          • Pweet

            Because nobody here has seen the test setup or any accurate schematics of it, you ask an impossible question.
            If the same question was asked about the previous tests and demonstrations it would also be impossible to answer, except for the fact that videos were taken and dialogue given which made the “other factors” immediately obvious.
            The one I keep referring to regarding the earlier demo of October 2011 should have been obvious to all who were at the demo, but for some reason nothing was said about it at the time. That point is the grossly incorrect placement of the thermocouple to measure the output temperature of the coolant. It was placed on a brass fitting at the hot end of the heat exchange. This one glaring error made all the test results meaningless because the required COP could simply be arranged by increasing the flow rate of the coolant until the desired results were achieved. With the thermocouple on the hot end of the heat exchange, it will always be hotter that he coolant even if the coolant flow rate is raised to infinity.
            It just has to be because the thermal conductivity of brass is much higher than the thermal conductivity of the brass/water interface.
            This long after the event it is all ignored because it was so long ago and things have moved on since then etc, old technology, now we have the hot cat, the new magnificent 1MW plant, the ecat Quack X etc, and on we go,…. but leaving a string of defective tests and demos behind us with never a repeat test done to eliminate the sometimes very obvious errors in procedure in the original tests.
            That has been the script so far.
            So, regarding the “other factors” relevant to the most recent 1MW test, it is impossible to answer without a detailed examination of the setup, what measurements were taken and where they were taken from and what measures were put in place to ensure none of these could be fiddled during the many long nights the operator was locked up alone with the equipment.
            I will point out that IH believe (they say) the performance claims were not met, even though the report of the ERV is claimed to show the performance claims were met. That would strongly indicate there is some serious defect in the test procedure which allows for this to occur. Can I say what that defect might be? Of course not. At this point we’ve only read vague and now disputed reports of the results. How can anyone analyse for for procedural defects with this? That’s the thing with magician’s magic. We only get to see the performance at a distance and only from one angle. And in case you think you see how it’s being done, the trick is never repeated under any conditions you might impose to negate the possibility of how you think it might actually be performed.
            However, IH now believe they have been tricked and on the basis of photos and data which they have, and we don’t have, can win a court case on the matter.
            If and when all this comes out in court, we will be better informed and can then make better assessments of how it has all been effected. But by then, I think it will all be swept under the carpet as being of little importance now because we have something even better; the Quack X, and a new partner to finance yet another year or two of the saga.

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Larry
        My sentiments exactly,

      • Niaga Dennab

        Thank you for responding Larry. Respectfully, I see it quite differently. I would agree with you if the QuarkX was being developed by a team of nuclear physicists who had credibility and a historical track record in the field, but I feel Andrea Rossi’s lack of scientific credentials combined with a lack of any previous successful technologies or devices puts him in a position requiring a bit more proof than just promises. If the QuarkX proves to work, it will be many years before it is approved for use in homes I would think. So very many certifications and regulations to deal with when gaining governmental approval. I suppose only time will tell as Rossi has again chosen to keep yet another test secret. Such a shame for the field of LENR. Hopefully we hear from ME356 soon!! Thanks for your perspective though Larry, I enjoy listening to both sides of this drama.

    • clovis ray

      niaga, hi.
      This question has been ask a # of times over the years, Dr.R has many tries at satisfying the public, with little to no effect, and it does not matter to him, really .
      he has always said he will let the market prove what is real and what is not, so now you’re in the same boat with us, just be patient , it will soon be out there, this is much much more important,than anything that has came before, we must get it right, our world is depending on it, he/we need help, not condemnation, once the the E-CAT is triggered,
      then we can relax some,

      • Niaga Dennab

        Just such a shame to have waited all these years on promises only to be let down by yet another closed door test. One would think that Rossi would at least throw a bone (excuse the pun) to his followers with a little video of QuarkX operation as it would not expose the customer at all (the video could be focused on the device and not customers rig). Something rather than just promises for those who have been following him for years. Shame for LENR.

  • Rene

    Rossi: “Not at all: I just mean not public, restricted to a Partner and few of us.” aka no comment.
    More non-news, The e-cat is both dead and alive. The waveform collapses upon delivery of e-cat XYQ units TBD.
    https://ourdailyfred.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/schrodingers-cat-artwork-500×500.png

  • kdk

    Maybe the people he’s demoing to want to get every leg up on competition possible (and that’s how serious they are) by not letting others know any more about it until it’s being released or about to be released?

  • AdrianAshfield

    The peanut gallery is getting restless. Is it that difficult to understand Rossi owes us nothing?

    His prime objective is to get funding for production of the QuarkX.
    As usual, I expect he will give us some news and some figures. As we know nothing about it except that it is about the size of a pen and produces both heat and electricity, any more information would be good.

    The pathological skeptics would never believe a public test anyway. They can’t accept a one year test reported by the independent ERV.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, and in fact, we know a lot more about the QuarkX than
      we did just a few months ago. For example:

      “Variations in the ratio of reactants and catalyst tend to govern reaction rate and are not critical. However, it has been found that a suitable mixture would include a starting mixture of 50% nickel, 20% lithium, and 30% LAH. Within this mixture,
      nickel acts as a catalyst for the reaction, and is not itself a reagent.”
      http://coldfusionnow.org/analysis-of-new-rossi-pct-filing-based-on-us-patent-9115913-issued-25aug15/

  • Engineer48

    If Rossi demonstrates QuarkX 600C steam at an acceptable COP, then he has opened the door to replacing every fossil boiler in every thermal power plant on the planet.

    That market is worth trillions of $$.

    ABB is very much into thermal power plants:
    http://new.abb.com/power-generation (be sure to click on Plants)

    So maybe Leonadro builts QuarkX 600C fossil boiler replacement modules in Sweden (on an ABB designed & installed robotic line) and supplies them to ABB to install & commission them in fossil based thermal power plants all over the planet?

    Why ABB?

    ABB has been in the power genereration industry for more than 125 years.

    ABB is a leading supplier of power and automation products and systems for utility and industry customers.

    ABB covers the complete scope of power and automation systems and offers a full portfolio of life cycle management services.

    Sounds like a deal?

    • DrD

      You’re absolutely correct of course but he keeps suggesting that the production of electrical power by all conventional methods isn’t as efficient as the direct output MWe from the E-CatX. Pity he won’t give us the numbers yet.
      I aprreciate that might not be so attractive on the face of it simply because their existing investment in conventional power plants will have to write off.
      But why hold back from the better option just to “save face”.

      • Engineer48

        As an engineer with some experience of large scale solid state generation of 50Hz power, it will be, IMO, a LONG time until QuarkX direct electrical generation can match what a modern thermal plant generator can deliver.

        Additionally there are trillions of $$ worth of existing perfectly OK & reliable steam turbines with coupled generators that can very significantly benefit from removing the fossil boilers & replacing them with QuarkX boilers. Benefit in zero emissions, lower operating cost & almost zero fuel costs, with the almost zero fuel costs paying for the QuarkX refit.

        If my suspection is correct, the Leonadro, HydroFusion & ABB QuarkX deal was what Rossi intended to announce in Sweden this June.

        • Pweet

          A looong time ago when I was at uni, a very capable and well educated lecturer of long standing said that semiconductors would never replace the thermionic valve. He referred amongst other things to the high voltage and power capacity of thyratrons and various other high voltage and power valves which had capabilities far and away greater than the power handling capacity of any semiconductors even on the drawing board. He was wrong of course. These days semiconductors do pretty much everything.
          I have no doubt that if something is ever invented with the capabilities claimed of the QuackX , it will quickly be made to do almost everything. My problem right now though, is that I have a lot of trouble believing the Quack X does anything at all other than to impress some prospective investors sufficient to put some money on the table. I would really like to be proven wrong but so far I haven’t been. Oh well. . . . . I will still be very interested to see a demo.

          • Engineer48

            Sounds like we had the same lecturer!

          • Ciaranjay

            I have no expertise in this field, but my guesses are that the quickest route to getting such a device into the market would be to sell/license it to the generating companies.
            Generating companies would be very interested in a cheaper way to get power onto the grid and they have, or can get, the expertise to manage a new technology through its early adoption.
            Also some large industrial or state entites might suit this profile.

            IMHO the idea of selling for home use would take at least a year or two, possibly longer, to get through the health and safety and other hoops necessary to jump through.

            The idea of selling the device for powering aircraft would likely, I think, take many years of testing. I know the jet engine was adopted quickly but things have changed a lot since then and the aircraft business is very conservative and safety focussed.

            Interested in other views if I have got anything wrong.

          • Pweet

            Keep in mind, after five years of procrastination we still don’t have the very simple and intrinsically safe, low temperature ecat certified for home use, even though the need for such a device has not diminished at all. To suggest that the new Quack X which runs at very much higher temperatures and produces electricity, would obtain certification in a faster time frame is supremely optimistic. Going on past performance, the process of certification will be used to delay the release of any product for ten years. By then it will be forgotten in much the same way as the original ecat is now. Who is talking about that now or inquiring as to it’s progress? It’s long gone.

          • Ciaranjay

            Yes Pweet, I am aware of that. This was more of a thought experment and I was careful to say “such a device” whether it comes from Rossi or not.
            My point is even if we ignore the debate on whether Rossi has the goods. Even if we ignore the debate on a clandestine establishment plot to stop LENR.
            If such an LENR device appeared tomorrow it would still not do what some on here are hoping for. Some posters are hoping for a domestic device that produces light and heat and can also be used to propel cars, aircraft and spaceships. Every technology has limitations and generally they go through an evolution over many years.
            I am not saying that such a device will never be available for domestic use but to my mind the quickest and simplest route to market is to have generating companies plug it into the already exisiting grid.
            Any domestic device needs to be seen to be safe from an electrical, fire, and radioactive point of view, otherwise how do you insure with it in your house?
            I also agree with what Andrew says above. If large organizations such as defense and government and large private bodies start to go off grid via LENR then it will put a heavy burden on the ones who are stuck with the grid. I guess that would likely speed up domestic LENR.

        • Karl Venter

          Hi Eng48

          Why would you want to go for a centralized system.
          Why not decentralize the power distribution
          Each house and factory have their own power
          Centralized is control which is not very beneficial to developement
          Just buy a rossi unit coming in various sizes and stick them together and you particular application runs for a long time
          Why ugly overhead power lines etc
          yes I know I am dreaming – but until we have it verified we are all hopeful its true

          • Andrew

            Because this would be the most logical choice for governments to maintain control and economy. If we’re to decentralize (each building/residence) were to produce its own electricity it would be fine for the first adopters but as more and more people got off the grid it would also increase the costs to the people that couldn’t afford to get off the grid, catch22. The grid would still need to be maintained for many decades to come. By starting at power generation plants they can slowly phase this in by expanding their power generation into smaller and smaller transfer substations, lowering the cost of delivery. Getting down to the point where neighbourhoods are being powered locally. Only then would the power your own home be viable for everyone.

          • Andrew

            Do I like this? No but it would be the least disruptive way of introducing this to the world.

          • Chapman

            AND it would allow the incorporation of the tech for the first years to be in supervised and controlled conditions. It is the logical way to introduce new tech that just MIGHT have long term side effects or be subject to some unforeseen instability after prolonged operation.

            Power station integration provides a safe environment for immediate social and environmental benefit, as well as monetary gain.

            Your logic on this is impecable. Folks want pocket reactors for the home NOW and “SCREW the UTILITY COMPANIES”, but that is not realistic – or safe.

          • Engineer48

            VERY NOT SAFE.

            No grid = we are screwed. It all stops.

          • Observer

            The grid of the future will not be centralized, but consist of distributed sources at each location that can transfer excess capacity to locations that require it.

            The beauty of the internet is that it has no center location, that when taken out brings down the whole system. Power distribution will follow the model established by information distribution.

          • Rene

            The decentralization process is well underway, has been for the last decade. Corporations are going off the electrical grid because they can get better quality power, better fuel deals, can co-generate HVAC, and can clam greenie points too. The biggest off-griders in the U.S. is the U.S. military. Their bases have been getting off the grid for security reasons. So, the phase-out of the grid is already happening and much to the consternation of the big power generation corps. Practical LENR, when/if it happens just hastens the inevitable process.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, just like early computers were centralized, the “low” hanging fruit and money would be in selling to utility companies.

            And such industrial certification is far easier than say consumer certification.

            So like computers, I think over time the trend will be to smaller and portable units. However, today, we see companies embracing cloud computing and one reason is why take care of 25 computers when you can just consume that resource from a “utility” provider that takes care of all the updates and maintains.

            I mean, every house with a generator or pump for water was beat out by the practical adoption of centralized electricity and water systems.

            So industrial uses, then perhaps commercial heating, apartments etc., and THEN the home market would be the logical progression of such a technology. So this is quite much a “normal” progression of technology.

            However, when LENR is commercialized, it likely will give rise to a hodge podge of start-ups much like we saw in the personal computer industry.
            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • cashmemorz

            Many people do not want to bother with their own installation. Some are artistically inclined without a technical bone in their head. Much as I understand how a computer and code works its OK for me to play around with Information technology and computer hardware. My wife on the other hand mentioned that computers are black magic for her, she has trouble with passwords to turn on the computer. Same with power supplies of any kind in ones home. A plug in the wall is sufficient despite the large financial savings to be had using in home LENR devices. This attitude may change when each device such as a coffee maker has its own built in LENR/E-Cat x electrical power supply. Some people don’t want or cannot understand to be concerned with more than an on-off switch.

        • “Jag bara undrar?”

          They use the magnetic field of the ouarkX and made a engine /generator….

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I should point out that Rossi stated he is NOT using the Seebeck effect.

          And Rossi also stated that output can be tweaked to produce more electricity and less heat output – this would not be possible if this was a thermoelectric generator in the traditional sense.

          So how Rossi is producing the electricity remains a mystery, and it not a heat to electric conversion in the traditional sense.

          It not clear, but it seems Rossi noted currents being produced in the ecat, and then looked at a way to harness such current.

          It possible that we talking about a light to electricity (solar cell), but that don’t seem practical either.

          So unless Rossi is using some kind of play on words, he has stated that the electricity produced is not based on the Seebeck effect and has suggested the energy conversion is higher than the Seebeck effect.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Observer

            You have to ask yourself “What is generating the heat?”.

      • Engineer48

        Why write off several 10s of trillions of $$ of perfectly good thermal plants and the grid at the same time when they can be progressively fitted with QuarkX boilers? Who would wear the loss? Every investment / pension fund on the planet? Might make the biggest stock market crashes look like child’s play.

        I really suggest to wait on the specs of direct QuarkX electricity and not expect it to generate 1,000s of thrillions of AC kWh as if that is easy.

        • DrD

          Yes, I agree. It would be the easiest route and as we said, we don’t know much about the electical capabilty. It’s no mean achievement, converting xMW DC into AC.
          I still suspect that pure economics might favour writing off the investements in favour of purely Quark generated e-power but we don’t know that and I still agree with you because integration of this new technology would be smoother with your approach and faster!

          BTW, I keep thinking that if IH try to get the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that it’s a scam, your testimony might be very useful.

        • Anon2012_2014

          “Why write off trillions of dollars”
          Stuff goes obsolete all the time. It’s going to happen to coal, crude and natural gas one day. It’s called creative destruction and is economically necessary.

          With regard to the electric grid (i.e. the wires, transformers, and generation assets), I believe that most of this will be economically reused as it is cheaper than local storage, particularly for redundancy. Sure some hermits will want to be “off grid”, but most people will want a combination of on-grid and off-grid, with the ability to run an independent “off-grid” setup for both power failures, and to keep the electric utility monopoly honest in their pricing. Decentralization effectively eliminates the monopoly, so that the electric utility must now compete on value (instead of raising prices by public service commission fiat).

          If only we can get the same anti-monopoly going for high speed data WAN networking…

    • Gerard McEk

      As far as I know QuarkX runs at temperatures over 1400 C. Obviously that can provide 600C steam. But I think his main goal is driving a jet with it, as well as providing direct current. The latter may also be used to start the jet. The jet can generate electricity or thrust for flying, a huge market indeed. I am extremely interested to see what will happen in the next weeks.

      • Engineer48

        Rossi told me the QuarkX can deliver the 600C my potential clients need.

        Past airborne nuclear reactor cores were designed to operate around 2,800 to 3,100C as the available heat energy transfer to the passing gas increases with the t^4.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, the higher the temperature difference the better. When the QuarkX provides bright light, then I would assume it is between 2700k and 3000K, so perhaps it is in a similar range as you mention and has AR developed it further than many of us expected.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I do not expect that the light is produced by incandescence. More likely it is emitted from the plasma/gas phase, or by SPPs at the fuel’s surface. 3000K bulk temperature would be extreme. Although some metals or alloys have a melting point above that value, you have to consider that the reactor has a complex structure, not all components of which can be made from tungsten or similar materials. You would also have to face problems with oxidation if you use air as a heat transmitter.

        • Warthog

          One word…..tungsten.

          Langmuir, Nobel laureate (nominated for both the physics and chemistry prizes…got chemistry) and one of the premier experimentalists of his day thought that his experimental work had shown “overunity” results in a W/H2 system…correspondence on the subject with Niels Bohr convinced him that that was “theoretically impossible” (where have we heard THAT before?), so he ceased to pursue the evidence.

          • Mark Underwood

            Coincidentally I heard it again just two days ago from Randell Mills on his Classical Physics discussion list, when someone obliquely mentioned LENR. Mills replied in part:

            “Any comment on cold fusion is irrelevant since it is not even theoretically possible.”

            The earth is rich in irony ore.

          • Steve Savage

            I have no evidence but, it is within the realm of possibility that perhaps, R Mills (or his investor group) is involved in some of the FUD being perpetrated vs. LENR. Brilliant Light Power seems to have a path to commercialization as does Rossi. One of these paths will win and one will lose (probably). It will depend on economics for sure but, first to market with a reliable product will also be huge, think of the MSM hype when a real product hits the market.

          • MorganMck

            So far, Dr. Mills has by far the longest record as a certified loser. Why he has one scintilla of credibility left with investors or the public is a mystery of the highest order. Saying LENR is impossible is rich indeed coming from someone who is on the receiving end of such comments from those who should know.

          • Mark Underwood

            I suppose it is possible, but I for one am pretty sure that Mills isn’t the type to stoop to those tactics. But what do I know. He isn’t so saintly that he is beyond saying unbecoming things about Rossi.

            About commercialization. Even if a commercial product came out tomorrow, it would be a decade before it made significant market penetration, with the new replacing the old. So to me there is ample room and time for both Ecat and SunCell technologies to get established. What a time to be alive.

          • cashmemorz

            Not necessarily FUD. Just propaganda wording to promote Mills’ own technology. Its called competition. Notice how, not what, Mills said what he said. “It not ..theoretically possible”. Anything can or can be not in “theory”. Mills did not categorically state that what AR has is completely impossible. Just enough spin to put Mills tech above AR’s tech in some sense of Mills’ strong opinion.

          • Many physicists would say that hydrinos are ‘not theoretically possible’, of course.

          • Jouni Tuomela

            Regarding Langmuirs work, he would be interested in this:
            http://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/7942.full
            “Promotion of atomic hydrogen recombination as an alternative to electron trapping for the role of metals in the photocatalytic production of H2”

  • Steve Swatman

    One might conclude that the E-cat has finished all of its R&D and is now a finished item as far as Rossi is concerned. Substantiated or not.

    The Quark has become the new project, and a customer test is all that will be required for real manufacturing to begin, no more 3rd party interference, no more proof tests, no more public vilifying, just a straight forward “Here it is, here is what it does, do we join up and go into full manufacturing or not?”

    The customer will either like what he sees and manufacturing will begin this year, or it will not.

    • Sorry to drone on about this, but unfortunately there is the non-trivial matter of safety certification of devices that produce energy from a new class of nuclear reactions that are not fully described (in fact barely recognised) by the academic world.

      An industrial prototype or two will probably not be too difficult to build and test, as there are exemptions in the safety legislation for prototypes operated solely by manufacturer’s employees who are aware of all the risks. But bulk manufacture will require a whole new safety ‘Standard’ to be commissioned and prepared (from BS, DIN or other internationally recognised European safety standards institution), and the reactors as built must also conform to all existing EU Standards for thermal, electrical, pressure etc. legislation. With enough weight behind it (e.g., ABB, Vattenfall or some other big boy) the process from finalisation of an industrial design (after more testing) to first product might take as little as 3 years or so, but could easily take considerably longer.

      • Steve Swatman

        I agree 100% with your EU certification schedule.

        I would doubt the manufacturing process itself would require much above normal safety standards, especially if its mostly done by robots.

        The potential customer could easily (as you state) run two prototype industrial boilers by the end of the year, (if the test is successful and the Factory goes into operation)

        They could simply use decommissioned boilers with the “Qx” as a heat source, given a successful test this would very quickly justify massive investment, mass production and provide absolute proof of concept. which I think, is the plan.

        The factory could produce enough “Qx’s” to run tests in a number of countries within the first 12 months.

        The 1yr test and the ERV report on the e-cat may go a long way to provide safety records.

        As the Boiler would be standard, only the Replacement source of heat is at question, one could hope that certification will be very fast, if not in Europe, most certainly In Russia, India, China.

  • I expect nothing, unless ABB or another very big company announces the results.

  • artefact

    Ecco wrote on lenr-forum:

    “Patent possibly related with Rossi – claims Focardi performed some calculations”

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3300-Patent-possibly-related-with-Rossi-claims-Focardi-performed-some-calculations/?postID=22274#post22274

  • artefact

    Ecco wrote on lenr-forum:

    “Patent possibly related with Rossi – claims Focardi performed some calculations”

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3300-Patent-possibly-related-with-Rossi-claims-Focardi-performed-some-calculations/?postID=22274#post22274

  • LukeK1

    How long before another 1 year test is announced? Thanks god for MFMP, really hoping they will crack it eventually.

    • help_lenr

      MFMP did nothing and apparently will never do.

      Don’t be fooled by high words, only true replication counts (they failed)..

      I don’t believe that Rossi want to repeat the story 0f 1 year test. If the investors don’t give immediately money, they are not serious.

      • Bruce__H

        MFMP did not fail. They found what they found and described it in a transparent manner. This is not failing, it is science.

        You are, perhaps unintentionally, giving the impression that something is a failure if it doesn’t confirm your preconceptions. I hope that is not true.

        I suppose you could say that MFMP failed to replicate other’s findings. But this could be because the earlier findings weren’t true. In that case the MFMP findings should be regarded as a resounding success.

        • psi2u2

          Well put.

          • It is very cleverly put. The superficial message is one of praise for MFMP, but the one the reader is intended to take away from this apparent accolade is that MFMP have proven that previous claims for LENR ‘weren’t true’.

      • psi2u2

        ‘Nothing will come of nothing’, King Lear says.

        It’s a dangerous word to use. Don’t be fooled by it, especially when used in such a nonsensical formula as the one above.

    • cashmemorz

      Some comments have to be balanced out by other comments or sites such as the following which has put my faith in LENR on a solid footing:

      https://kuleuvencongres.be/eps2016/important-dates

  • I spent some time browsing through ECN comments … And found some interesting examples on astroturfing. First our new friend the very aggressive Fred Zoepfl as I mentioned yesterday, but also a real Apco? operative. On ECN he calls himself “Frank” and is a slippery guy.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/and-now-lets-have-a-closer-look-at-a-real-apco-astroturfing-professional/

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/meet-fred-zoepfl-the-secret-weapon-of-ihapco-or-a-physisist-malfunctioning/

    • Ged

      Exposing such machinations is really fun and defangs them. I know it is common at times, but it always smacks me of desperation.

    • Bruce__H

      Nothing there. It just sounds like someone with different opinions than you.

      Do you have evidence that this is anything more than someone who disagrees with you? Evidence that is better than that he sounds consistent?

      • psi2u2

        It is not just *that* he “disagrees.” It is *how* he disagrees that is very telling. I think Sifferkol has a point.

        What kind of a moron still doesn’t realize that LENR is a real phenomenon? Only someone a lot stupider than “Frank.”

        • Bruce__H

          I don’t find the Sifferkol’s “how” evidence very impressive. So far it is just guesswork that seems to be coloured by a conspiracist slant.

          In my opinion there is no solid evidence that LENR is a real phenomenon. Only initial, unreplicated indications. The whole thing could still go either way. So I guess I am the kind of moron who still doesn’t think that LENR is real. In arriving at this opinion I am doing nothing more than what scientists (like me) normally do in their regular research lives. In my experience most people do not know how to be open minded and skeptical at the same time. . It takes training and that is a good chunk of what happens during a graduate degree.

          • Well, it’s obvious that you don’t agree…

            No conspiracy at all really. Only quoting and arguing that Fred and Frank show very clear signs working from the same virtual office space. Fred is the aggressive guy, Frank is the smart anonymous one. Reading Fred only makes you feel somewhat sick. Reading Frank is actually interesting from a astroturf perspective. He (the team) does an excellent job feeding small new pieces of information to the crowd on regular basis, but without getting into any debate; mostly inducing/amplifying opinions of others, sometimes bullying a little, but letting others do the dirty work … ie. creating consensus.

            If you never seen astroturfing in action, this is an excellent case study. A little bothersom to click through ECN though.

          • Bruce__H

            So you have no real evidence then?

          • Chapman

            He just gave you the source of the evidence that any reasonable person would interpret the same way he has done.

            Scan through ECN yourself. Compare the posts. Identify the common phrases that signify coordinated misinformation scripts and multiple aliases.

            Sifferkoll has subjected himself to hours and DAYS of sifting through piles of crap in order to report to us the severity of the stench, so we don’t have to. Rather than criticize, we should take up a collection for him in thanks. I can only take a few minutes exposure to that cesspit before my BS filter plugs up and I have to exit for fresh air. I don’t know how he stands it, but better him than me!

            He is just reporting the facts. Don’t beat up on the messenger.

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t find his case anywhere near convincing. Can you point to a particular bit that you think is persuasive?

          • psi2u2

            “In my opinion there is no solid evidence that LENR is a real phenomenon.”

            If that is what you really believe you are probably in the wrong sector of the internet. Almost everyone here is quite aware that the evidence for the existence of LENR is beyond reasonable dispute by this point in time. You might want to do some research as you are merely exposing how little you understand.

          • Bruce__H

            I think I am in exactly the right sector of the internet. What I see here are people who are taking the usual sort of mixed results one gets in amost any empirical investigation and turning it into certainty. I don’t think this is a good idea. My advice to everyone, based on a career in research, is stay curious and be patient. Don’t go calling something “true” before you really have good evidence.

          • roseland67

            Bruce,
            Welcome,
            You are in the correct “sector on the Internet”, Your opinions are as valid as anyone’s here.
            Make no mistake, there is no one anywhere that can tell you if Rossi’s Ecat works as stated, no one.
            We all hope it works, but we have been waiting for 5+ years and so far nada.

          • ivan Idso

            Bruce__H, if its alll the same to you, I have a mind of my own and I will believe what I want to believe. I have been following lenr for several years and I believe it is true, and I use my real name and many people know that I live in Rochester, MN so I am not hiding behind anything. Who are you really?

          • Engineer48

            I have as of yet no hard evidence that Rossi’s 1MWt ECat works as claimed but so far engaging with the man in an effort to purchase 10 x 1MWt 105C superheated steam ECats, nothing has occurred in the process that would cause this 40+ years of real world engineer’s gut to question the device.

            What I do see is a series of poster on several forums that I would classify as proporting to be knowledgeable, yet spinning disinformation, especially about the physics of superheated steam, which as you should know is a phase change process that needs a lot of thermal energy applied for no change in temperature.

          • Bruce__H

            This sounds like a fair summary. The speculation is intense and most people are drawing conclusions on subjects way beyond their regions of expertise.

            I simply don’t think it is a good idea to assert that something is true until it has been thoroughly checked out in a transparent fashion. For this I am often called a pathological skeptic but I don’t see any difference in how I am acting here and how I act in my usual scientific career.

          • Engineer48

            What I do know is Rossi was willing to engage my potential client’s very experienced engineers and my due diligence checking before any order was placed but after an MOU was signed, which as highly proprietary IP is involved is perfectly understandable.

            Why he would engage this process and not have the deliverables is difficult to understand, especially as a bad outcome from the due diligence process would not be stopped, internally to the international company management, by any NDA.

            The engineers gut feel in the group is Rossi does have what he claims but maybe it is in beta test release to selected customers that will provide a high level of feedback to rapidly improve all aspects of the product, which may include documentation.

            Did the engineers expect the same level of documentation & traceability as if they were buying a new GE steam turbine or Siemens generator or ABB recirculation system? Of course not. They recognise Leonardo is a start up and were willing to be flexible as what 600C LENR steam could offer them would outweighed what they would expect from a normal 100+ year old supplier.

          • Steve Swatman

            it is equally speculation to claim that something is untrue when YOU have not experimented in the field, have not been able substantiate the truth of the experiment and do not have information on the process and equipment used by the inventor, you are drawing conclusions by using outdated accepted theories, in order to claim a scam, a fake, an impossible invention.t
            The point about this, why would anyone spend so much time arguing against this, either you accept and join in the fun or you do not accept and leave. what is the point in wasting so much time on a forum that you do think has no potential.

            Its rather like going to a football game to watch a team that you do not like, just so you can tell all the fans how bad their team is.

          • Bruce__H

            I am open minded on the subject of LENR. It might be true and it might not. I await the evidence with interest.

            As a researcher almost everything I work on is the same. I mean it wouldn’t be research if I only worked on what was known, would it.

          • Pweet

            None of the early demonstrations produced superheated steam, and yet the tests were still all seriously flawed.
            None of the procedural defects were related to whether the steam was superheated or not. They simply related to whether the input water was all converted to steam or not, and from the videos, it was not.
            Even if the output is now superheated, the methods to determine the energy content are very old and well tested. It will not be a convincing argument to simply claim the output is superheated and thus at a higher energy state than if it was ordinary low pressure steam. It will have to be proven that ALL the input water was converted to superheated steam and exactly what the temperature of all of it was.
            This is where the original demonstrations failed.
            The claim was that all the input water was converted to dry steam whereas all video evidence and the design of the heater chamber and outlet indicated that most of it was just hot water.
            Look at the videos. They are still on You Tube. You are looking for evidence of 5 kilowatts of steam bubbling into a bucket of water. It simply is not there.
            Now, it might be argued that the early tests are unrelated to the latest 1MW test because there has been more development since then. But Mr. Rossi has confirmed that the 1MW plant tested is of the same low temperature ecat design as the original reactors.

          • Engineer48

            With respect Bruce, you have not done your research.

            Yes no major Journal has ever published a LENR paper. Why? Because they refuse to do so.

            Yes there are no US LENR patents. Why? Because the USPTO will not accept any patent application mentioning or claiming “Cold Fusion” pr LENR effects.

            There are plenty of peer reviewed LENR papers in other Journals and LENR patents that are very carefully worded to get around the restrictions.

            You might ask yourself you would a scientists engage in LENR research when they can’t get published or gain patents for their employer?

          • Bruce__H

            The evidence I was talking about was regarding Skifferkol’s claim that there are a group of people, supposedly paid by PR firms, who post on forums like this in a clandestine effort to shape public opinion. I don’t think that Skifferol has much of a case.

            Added in edit: Oh … I see that you meant to be addressing the second part of my post and I answered as if you were addressing the first part. Sorry. I’ll address your remarks presently..

          • I never see evidence of massive sockpuppets or astroturfing agains E-cat or LENR.

            there are clear opponents, and clear supporters, who seems to have sincere motivations, even if some militant behaviors.

            however in the 2011 I have observed some clear astroturfing efforst to support E-cat… not sure it was sincere or vested.

            I have doubt on the vested motivation of one known actor, but after all recent stories support a sincere, yet activist, motivation.

            I am among those activist, like Mary &co.

            I defend like many what I judge fair.

            Finally the only sockpuppets master I suspect are … is … forget APCO, it is simpler and clearer.

          • Alain, your relatively recent disparagement of Rossi and those who support him seems sudden and rather puzzling, along with your apparent support of those who find reason to oppose him through ridicule, disinformation and ad hominem attacks. Clearly neither side in the current dispute is white as the driven snow, but can you say exactly which recent development(s) or revelation(s) have brought about this change of heart on your part?

          • Right. Since long I tolerated ambiguous evidence, from Rossi, failures , incompetence, seeing people who were near Rossi, and still supporting him.
            As I say often, you know there is blood when you see the sharks turning.

            IH today is giving me clear information, by their silence, by their non-payment.
            They are endangering the relation with who should be their goose with the golden eggs…

            That is all.
            Jed is also, as frequently, well informed.
            Dewey is Dewey, but his behavior is clear, and giving many information.

            I’ve taken it badly when Defkalion manipulated Luca, who anyway debunked the tricks.
            I felt it bad when I heard what Xanthoulis the naive said on the impossibility to partner with Rossi, even if I suspect he was not snowwhite.
            I felt it bad when I heard serious Aldo Proia share his painful experience.
            I was happy reading lugano, then I understood the emissibity problem and was wondering who screwed up, hoping it was just the Nth case of incompetence around rossi.

            Hard to say, but maybe many critics of ECN and Krivit were correct.

            I have always considerd those hypotheis, but until recently it was among the low probability conspiracy theories.

            It is still hard to understand how so many people may have been either driven to be incompetent or involved in bad behaviors…

            After all E-cat is maybe still real, and maybe the pile of bad experiments is just bad to hide reality…

            What IH say with its silence and non-payment is simply that they cannot make it work at required performance, even in a lab at watt level.

            I understand this language, more than the sourcewatch innuendo that spread in social networks on every serious subjects, which fog our perception of geopolitic, economic policies, and technology progress.

            Things are public, simple, and uncoordinated.

          • Thanks for the explanation. I’m sorry you have arrived at your conclusions, but I can understand why. I share some of your reservations but could never align with the kind of personal attacks and disinformation that characterises the ECN bigots and the likes of Fred Zoepfl and Dewey Weaver. To me it’s clear that at least some of these individuals are professional web trolls who are attempting to spread disinformation and to create an atmosphere that repels casual readers.Their words tell me exactly what kind of people they are.

            In general I try to remain neutral but hopeful, but I have to admit it’s not always easy.

          • Pweet

            That makes a very interesting read.
            It’s interesting the way different people have different levels of tolerance to the levels of discrepancy between what people say compared to what they actually do.
            If all that is mentioned in the above list came on the background of great test results using impeccable test procedures then my level of tolerance would still enable a confidence that Mr Rossi might have what he claims. However, that is not the case. It comes on top of a series of badly performed tests and demonstrations which did more to damage my confidence than it ever did to reinforce it. That being the case, the very first failure to maintain a partner in the development of the ecat, that is with Defkalion, became the only failure needed to indicate the failures in test procedures was not accidental but rather an intentional action planned specifically to mislead and deceive. Every point mentioned above acted as further confirmation of this view. The latest falling out with IH has been just one of a now long list. Worse still, there have been no exceptions. So far there have been no long term happy partnerships or licensees or customers to act as counter evidence to contradict a well established precedent of failures. Every relationship ends in what is now a very predictable failure and eventual abandonment. For a supposedly revolutionary world saving technology, that is well beyond the bounds of believable reason.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            AlainCo, I really can’t believe that a person that is informed like you has still has doubts that the e-cat works or not. You are right, there is not a conclusive piece where you can point to that it works. But if you lay out all the information on the table, there almost no possibility that Rossi doesn’t have a working reactor.

            To check the input/output of Kw reactor isn’t difficult. It’s strange that you have bought the idea that doing calorimetry of a Kw reactor is hard. The idea that they didn’t know the performance of Lugano Dog-Bone in advance just doesn’t make any logical sense.

            The 1MW test is a performance test, not a test to check that reaction works or not. Offcourse they knew by then that it works.

            Tom Darden or JT Vaughn never said that the e-cat technology doesn’t work.

            A piece from an interview with Aldo Proia(2012) to refresh your memories:

            “What kind of assistance have you had in checking to make sure that the E-Cat is indeed the revolutionary technology that Andrea Rossi claims?

            We have used, since the beginning, qualified consultants, including engineers and physicists. Moreover, we had access to essential information through confidential channels, and we made very careful assessments before investing our money. We knew that the maximum COP of the apparatus – when led to extreme conditions which cannot be proposed commercially because unstable – was about 200, a tremendous value. This means that even if Rossi had missed a measure of energy in input or in output by a factor of 2, there would be no particular problems to ensure the customer the guaranteed COP 6.

            Which E-Cat systems have you personally witnessed in operation? What is your personal assessment of the technology?

            I often see the E-Cat running when I go to meet Rossi in his R&D laboratory. Usually, I saw the small version of the E-Cat unit working in self-sustained mode for hours or days, depending on the type of research they performed. On the computer screen it was possible to see the performance, looking at the temperature, the absorbed energy, and so on. Now, in the new laboratories of Rossi, I have seen more times the Hot Cat, which in the old labs worked in self-sustaining mode for several months without interruption. I find this type of running simply surprising, for its obvious implications on the COP.”

          • First of all, I don’t trust my own judgement so much.
            I trust what people do more than what people say or what I think. It is not absolute (sometime some arguments are really convincing).
            I also trust more networks of evidence than reports.

            Rossi have numerously produced bad test and refused good testers that could not be blamed. He is reported to have dismantle good testing gears, and his latest test have strange contraints that raise my concerns.

            I’ve put that on paranoid temperament, but there is others interpretations.

            I’m not sure, but IH move is the greates evidenc, like their past support was a good evidence.

            as you say they have good advisors.
            however maybe, like me, they tolerated too much ambiguity in test results, too many constraints, just because missing that opportunity woul be expensive, and acceptingthe demande of “the diva” is worth the concert.

            only if there is no song it is time to stop accepting and start demanding.

            I see two possibilities :
            – Rossi stop playing and give evidence and allows IH to replicate his work, as said in the contract
            – IH and others will play openbusiness with people like Brillouin&al, , LENRG, Parkhomov and al, Songsheng&al, Etiam Oy, Clean planet&al

          • – IH refuse to pay the Goose With the Golden Eggs, risking to lose all… (reliable data)
            – Jed who is a great LENr reporter with enough wealth and not enough time to be forever honest, start to report shocking and precise things (may be wrong, over interpreted)
            – Dewey who is an enthusiaskic VC, start to say he have been cooked with precise point (may be wrong, over interpreted)
            – reanalysing old data it seems no test is reliable, except Ferrara (maybe we missed a credible problem)

            – no recent Parkhomov-style replication is failproof, and none is astounding and documented
            – the patent are bunk as I read them (some find interesting details in descriptions… maybe I’m wrong).

            each of those details individually, except IH behavior, can be relativised. all together it propose a new version of history.

            about conspiracy theory, it is long time that I don’t buy conpiracy theories.
            My experience is that local stupidity, selfish personal interest, selfish fear, selfish greed, allows at worst emerging organizational stupidity and groupthink… No governement is enough coherent to do something coherent that is not public, leaked, self-evident… Governments and even corporate HQ are just bag or rats, who sometime push the same boat in the same direction, for some time.

            If organisation are stupid, individual have often deep comitment in ideology and beliefs, allowing groupthink, blindness, horrific behaviors, and suicidal decisions.

            if you look at something to coordinate people, it is not conspiracy, but ideology.

          • Pweet

            You can apply for a patent on perpetual motion machines and LENR devices. However, there is a requirement that the application must include a working prototype. It’s this requirement that has so far made it impossible to patent a perpetual motion machine. It also seems to be a stumbling block so far, for a cold fusion reactor. I don’t know why, because Mr Rossi was heating his factory with one for two years. He could just submit that reactor and the very first patent for a LENR device would be his. I don’t think the patent office would care if it was not the most up to date version of the technology. All they require is proof that the concept actually works.

          • Engineer48

            Sorry but that is just spin and is not correct.

            Applying for and having it granted are very different actions. It is only granted patents that have any value.

            Rossi has a granted LENR like patent but it needed very careful wordsmithing to get around the USPTO “Cold Fusion” land mines:
            http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/United%20States%20Patent%20-%20Andrea%20Rossi.pdf

            IH has also applied for Rossi LENR tech patents in the US and the EU.

          • Pweet

            Yes I know. You can apply for a patent for Santa’s sleigh, but it will not be granted without proof that you can produce it. Or more accurately, that someone else can produce it from the information described in the application. That’s where Mr Rossi is having trouble. He can only get a patent approved for the parts of his invention which can be reproduced, and those parts are, for an electric water heater.

            The application needed ‘very careful wordsmithing’ as you rightly call it, to get the patent past the examiners, but the result is, it does not cover LENR.
            He could also have done this by calling it what he claims, LENR, and submitting a working prototype. That then would have covered his LENR technology, but he didn’t do that. Well, to be more accurate, he initially did but it was rejected because he failed to describe it accurately enough to be reproduce. He missed out critical ingredients, and he didn’t include a working prototype.
            Now, if he had what he said, none of these omissions would have been difficult to rectify, but for some reason he did not. Protecting his IP maybe? Well, a granted patent would go some way towards doing that.
            The result of the wordsmithing is that he still does not have a patent on a LENR device. He has a patent on an elaborate electric water heater.
            The patent for a LENR device is still available to be claimed when someone can produce one. That’s got to be good news for anyone who can come up with one.

          • kdk

            You’re joking right? What in the world causes a thermal runaway that makes the electrode melt through the container with limited input energy?

          • Bruce__H

            All sorts of chemical reactions would fit the bill. Have you ever seen thermite burn?

          • Engineer48

            A LENR reactor does not contain chemicals with enough deliverable chemical energy to do that.

            Not fair to quote a thermite burn.

            Please watch ALL of these videos:
            https://youtu.be/QxBJjWzlKl0
            https://youtu.be/VymhJCcNBBc

          • Bruce__H

            kdk asked me what in the world would cause a thermal runaway with limited input energy. I replied that a chemical reaction can do this. Every time I light a fire in my fireplace a thermal runaway occurs having used limited input energy. This is the sort of explanation that that needs to be eliminated before one progresses to more exotic ones.

            So now I repeat a question I asked earlier … where are the papers on these runaway reactions? If they can be replicated they would be the perfect test bed.for a persuasive demonstration of the existence of LENR. Can you suggest to me a good paper with a first-hand report of this phenomena, carefully characterizing it showing how to obtain it at will, and then replicated by other groups? I ask nothing more than I would for any empirical phenomenon that is supposed to exist.

            Thank you for posting the videos to watch.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            No paper, only an eyewitness account without sufficient measurements (particularly regarding temperature) – so not yet “science”. But if true, hardly explainable by any known chemical reaction:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/19/account-of-thermacore-1996-runaway-incident-jones-beene-vortex-l/

          • Bruce__H

            Exactly. I see third-hand anecdotes being taken as proof of the existence of LENR. Better evidence than this is required

          • Engineer48

            If you watched the videos you would have heard the Navy scientists saying they could not easily replicate the thermal runaways but they did show the physical runaway results.

            I sense you are picking holes to attack and have yet to comment on the 29 peer reviewed published papers by the US Navy scientists.

            Here is a bit more recent info to digest:
            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/

            Please note they are claiming 100% reliable reaction startups.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d01453f76a4c334ebbbea884ba842ba4a39b116fa3d4c9d5479ec081fd41a0a5.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b74cd708782eb510b41f03da53246971e3c7785c1a4abe697494a0f898af7284.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31fb76281aa6f7e2c23e34e745fbfe52bcfab2e9645827e18339a83f44438522.png

          • Bruce__H

            Of course I am picking holes. You should be too. But you will find that I respond to good data.

            Give me a little time for perusing the references.

          • Bruce__H

            I have been looking at the first co-deposition paper by Szpak, Mosier-Boss and Smith (1991) J Electroanalytical Chemistry 302:255-260. I am on the one hand disappointed and on the other hand potentially impressed.

            What impresses me is the reported difference between the behaviour of the system when using heavy water and when using light water. What disappoints me is the terrible quality of the description of methods. How many runs were made? Do the presented results reflect an average of many runs? — Maybe this is nothing more that a difference in expectations in different academic fields, but such a sketchy description would never fly in my field (electrophysiology).

            Also, I don’t understand the difference between the dashed and solid lines in Fig. 3? I can’t find it explained. Do you know what is going on there?

          • Bruce__H

            Thank you once again for lists of reference sources. I have begun looking at some of the more recent references from

            http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php

            I am afraid my explorations so far don’t give me much confidence in LENR as a real and replicable phenomenon. For instance one reference on the list is a February 2016 report from the US Naval Research Laboratory (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDasummaryof.pdf#page=2 ) attempting to replicate the findings from its own early work on Deuterium/Palladium systems and finding no evidence for excess heat, tritium formation, or other things that were originally claimed. This despite quite a lot of work apparently.

            I will keep looking, but one thing is certain already and that is that the field is not yet settled. This is a scientific field that is still young to the point that many basic findings cannot be replicated securely as one would expect after 25 years of research.

            It sounds as though you and I have a similar depth of experience in our fields but your experience is in engineering and mine is in basic science. I think you may have not realized how common it is in basic science for early discoveries not to be upheld. That isn’t a reflection on the quality of the scientists, it is just the nature of the game.

          • Engineer48

            As an engineer, I don’t need to know the theory of why some effect works, just how to use it to deliver a desired outcome.

            From Rossi’s corro with me in regard to my potential clients purchasing 10 x 1MWt 105C superheated steam reactors, nothing occurred to make me concerned he could not deliver. Of course nnormal due diligence checks would be in place.

            Was reassuring my potential clients enginerrs & myself could visit a working 1MWt plant to do some tests PRIOR to order placing and no money would change hands until the delivered and installed plants passed mutually agreed test conditions.

            Really hard to understand why this would happen if there were no usable tech to deliver, especially as my potential client is a very large owner & operator of large thermal power plants.

          • Bruce__H

            It’s certainly a conundrum isn’t it? You have an actual stake in this game whereas I don’t and I don’t envy your position in that you must now take into account the suspicion of Rossi’s work being fraudulent even if you think that possibility is small. It must be hard to know how to undertake due diligence when the possibility has arisen that what you will be shown is a carefully staged illusion.

            One thing I wonder about is the US patent Rossi was awarded last August. This is supposed to be a version of his ecat device and supposedly should produce abundant excess heat. An engineer should be able to follow the description and make the thing work .. if not then the patent is invalid. I think this would be a good way to understand if Rossi really has anything (just as long as Rossi is physically kept away from the device). I don’t understand why no one has tried this yet.

          • Bruce__H

            I made a mistake when reading one of the references you directed me to. The report from the US Naval Research Laboratory describing their unsuccessful attempts to replicate the results of their own researchers (including those of Szpak) was released in February 2016 but was originally written 20 years ago.

          • Bruce__H

            Thanks for posting the second video in particular. This is the type of concerted scientific research program that is needed. The CR-39 work is of particular interest because the other approaches are so susceptible to contamination and error.

            So now we are in the realm of science. But what I am seeing are first steps. I attend something like 100 hour-long talks a year and I know that the results in about 1/3 of them turn out later to be blind alleys or not quite what the investigators thought at the time. What has been the informed critical reaction to this LENR work? I can look it up myself but you seem well informed and I thought asking you might be a shortcut.

          • Engineer48

            Bruce,

            Try http://www.lenr-canr.org for the best published paper resource I know of.
            This is a bit old but still good data http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
            Most recent papers here: http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php

          • Bruce__H

            I never did figure out why you think it not fair to quote a thermite burn.

          • kdk

            I have indeed seen thermite burn, and cut.

            The first video that Engineer48 posted below contains one of the thermal runaways where we’re clearly talking about light water and co-deposited palladium on an electrode.

          • Bruce__H

            You asked about a runaway reaction following a limited energy input and I answered. These are the sorts of explanations that need to be checked out when you hear of runaway thermal processes supposedly due to cold fusion.

    • psi2u2

      Very interesting documentation.

  • jbundrar

    Did something happen to Rossi’s blog? http://rossilivecat.com/ doesn’t seem to be working today.

    • Frank Acland

      The site has been down for over a day now — but it is not Rossi’s blog. It’s an independent site that copies comments over from the JONP, all the comments are still on the JONP however in many different threads.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Usually Rossi’s (and most everyone else’s) time schedules get pushed forward, but now the test starts already in May although it was originally planned to be in June. AR++.

    • Andy Kumar

      AR++ does not capture Rossi’s modus operandi correctly. AR++ would imply use (market) the technology you have NOW and improve (++) LATER. Rossi believes in ++AR. He improves (++) first and uses LATER (never -:)

  • Frank Acland

    The site has been down for over a day now — but it is not Rossi’s blog. It’s an independent site that copies comments over from the JONP, all the comments are still on the JONP however in many different threads.

  • Josh G

    Does anyone know if this test is just of one quarkX (or several separately) or is it a test of an array/system of quarks designed to work together like the multiple Ecats of the 1MW unit? If the latter, what output in terms of watts are they aiming for? Also is the test to produce heat or are they looking at direct energy production or both?

    • Roland

      There is little to go on aside from this; the Quark has no integrated control system.

      Conjecturally we could surmise that the control system, input/output connectors, power exchange mechanisms and structural architecture comprise a durable unit that hosts multiple semi disposable Quarks. System scaling might be accomplished through designing a few modules at useful output ratings that all integrate into industrial scale ‘backbone’ architecture suited to specific tasks.

      Again conjecturally; ideally all the optional output modalities would be tested for, this might, in turn, require specific module architectures.

      The simplest test would involve an apparatus that allowed individual Quarks to be put through all their paces.

      Alternatively, a test involving modules hosting multiple Quarks implies that a production ready design is already close at hand.

      These do seem like the kind of questions we might get an answer to in the not to distant future.

  • Josh G

    Does anyone know if this test is just of one quarkX (or several separately) or is it a test of an array/system of quarks designed to work together like the multiple Ecats of the 1MW unit? If the latter, what output in terms of watts are they aiming for? Also is the test to produce heat or are they looking at direct energy production or both?

    • Roland

      There is little to go on aside from this; the Quark has no integrated control system.

      Conjecturally we could surmise that the control system, input/output connectors, power exchange mechanisms and structural architecture comprise a durable unit that hosts multiple semi disposable Quarks. System scaling might be accomplished through designing a few modules at useful output ratings that all integrate into industrial scale ‘backbone’ architecture suited to specific tasks.

      Again conjecturally; ideally all the optional output modalities would be tested for, this might, in turn, require specific module architectures.

      The simplest test would involve an apparatus that allowed individual Quarks to be put through all their paces.

      Alternatively, a test involving modules hosting multiple Quarks implies that a production ready design is already close at hand.

      These do seem like the kind of questions we might get an answer to in the not to distant future.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Godspeed, Dr Rossi.

    • Private Citizen

      Eng. Rossi is a “doctor” from a now unacredited mail-order diploma mill Kensington University

      Rossi holds a laurea (a final degree at an Italian University with an obligatory doctorate) in philosophy from the University of Milan.[12] Rossi claims a second laurea title in “Ingegneria Chimica” (chemical engineering) at Kensington University in California, a known diploma mill which was shut down by court order in 2003.[13] source:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

      • Ged

        And a doctorate from University of Milan it seems. Forgot about that one.

        Edit: Oddly of the now defunct Kensington, “If an applicant’s degree is pre-1994, then it is a legal California degree.” There are also notable alumni with degrees from there (can’t blame the students), so seems it was maybe ok at one time, but got corrupted into a degree mill later? Be fascinating to study its history and path as a case study for such things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_University

        • sam

          It is the Degree A.R should get from the school
          of hard knocks when he studied cold fusion when
          in prison in Italy that I like

          • Roland

            Going head to head with the Italian mob over, literally, garbage and losing pretty big (despite having a functioning technology to turn garbage into synthetic oil that, later, made money in the US of A when oil was sub $20US/bbl) prepared Rossi for the dirty low down cowardly tactics currently in play.

            If you haven’t noticed, yet, the main goal of the boat load of negativity coming Rossi’s way is failing to manifest; I have seen no evidence that all the ugliness heaped upon him (by profoundly unworthy people who show no inclination to learn information, or manners, or, in some cases, find a nobler livelihood) has visibly failed to moved him to anger.

            What would Norman do; rage, rage against the darkness, or plot the demise of the hopes of his foes with devastating effectiveness right there before their uncomprehending eyes?

            P.S. Soon it’ll be appropriate to drop a ‘quote’ or two from way behind the scenes; for amusement only, of course.

          • sam

            A.R sure can keep his composure even with
            his temper.

          • sam
          • sam

            An interesting link about A.R
            past technology.
            I wonder if past President
            Jimmy Carter follows A.R

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

          • roseland67

            Sam,
            If it works as stated, yes, Rossi will be extolled to the heights of Tesla and Edison, no one would argue this due, however,
            Does it work as stated?
            5+ years now with the same ever increasing claims of “excess heat”, existing customers, lowered energy bills, robotized production lines etc, and nada, hopefully soon, but now?
            Nothing

          • Ged

            Nada? We have plenty of data and documents and details and tests by numerous parties. Perhaps reading comprehension has taken a turn for the worst lately? I am certainly tired of willful ignorance of data if it turns out you are informed after all. You may challenge the data, but you are egregiously wrong to claim we have nada.

        • Bruce__H

          The doctorate from Milan was mentioned by Private Citizen.

          • Ged

            Then he was wrong to use quotations around “doctor” and the basis of his arguments in challenging Fredda’s use of the honorific. Besides, he just copy pasted that whole block of text; but I wasn’t talking to him in that sentence, but remarking vaguely on how I had forgotten his Milan doctorate.

          • Bruce__H

            He wasn’t wrong. The “doctor” with quotations around it refers to the degree from Kensington University. The mention of Milan is in a separate paragraph.

          • Ged

            No, that would be true if specifying “doctorate from” the specific place, but he put the general honorific in quotes, not the specific case rid challenging the title in full. Doctor is the honorific appropriate due to Milan. So yes, he is wrong in implication as written, right out of the gate.

            However, he later makes the much more founded argument about how “doctor” translated between the Italian and US systems. While I don’t agree, it is a valid argument.

          • Bruce__H

            Private Citizen said:

            “Eng. Rossi is a “doctor” from a now unacredited mail-order diploma mill Kensington University”

            Could you please explain what you think this means? I haven’t been able to follow what you said before.

          • Bruce__H

            Please restate this. I don’t follow your argument.

          • Bruce__H

            I have been unable to determine what your argument is here. Can you give me no guidance? I’ve asked a couple of times.

            This matters to me because I am wondering if I am missing something or if there was no real centre to the point you were making. In a previous conversation with you I had the same feeling. If I’ve missed something I would be glad to hear about it and to try to understand your reasoning.

        • Private Citizen

          “And a doctorate from University of Milan it seems. Forgot about that one.”

          Did i? Who is the forgetful one?

          Edit: Would you go to an M.D. whose credential was from a diploma mill later shut down for malfeasance? Maybe qualified like the notable alumnus, late North Korean “eternal President” Kim Il-sung?

          • Ged

            You put “doctor” in quotes in challenging the use of Dr. by Fredda, that is disingenuous of you, and you only focused on the second degree not the first. Again, misleading and disingenuous. Fredda is correct in his use of the honorific.

            There are a large number of lawyers with degrees from there that passed BAR and get plenty of work, but no medical doctors (impossible as that requires hospital experience and hands on training). Again, you make fallacious and disingenuous comparisons that are unrelated in an attempt to support poor arguments.

            As long as Rossi has a degree from there prior to 1994, it is valid and legally so. But it is also just icing as he already has a doctorate, which you conveniently gloss over.

            Edit: And I guess you have a problem with Liebefeld Steinhölzli school where Kim Jong-Un went? Or perhaps we should dismiss all degrees from Leeds School of Medicine since Dr. Harold Fredrick Shipman got his degree there? See, I can throw endless logical fallicies like yours right back at you all day long.

          • Private Citizen

            Italian degree is not officially called a “doctor,” the US phony birdcage liner is

          • Ged

            It is equivilent (pre-mid 1980s) so not an inaccurate translation, unless you wish to discriminate against an entire nation.

            Edit: Albeit, -that- is a valid line of argumentation, so I give full recognition of your reasoning there.

        • Observer

          “In 1979, Rossi was awarded a degree in Chemical Engineering from Kensington University, California (USA), thanks to the numerous professional credits earned there for the many registered patents he acquired since the first years of his professional career.”

          • Ged

            Wow, that long ago, and well within the legally approved and valid frame. Still, I wouldn’t put much stock in that degree if that is the case, only Milan, but that is my bias while law is law. Pretty quick after they opened; wonder if records of what was done still exist (i.e.a body of research work or dissertation as is typical now, or as equivilent to 1970s). Sad thing is they asked for a ton of money from students, so they are the folks who paid and suffered.

          • MIke

            Rossi is born in 1950. Then he was awarded this degree at the age of 29 for many patents. Has anyone tried to find these patents which he must have applied for several years before 1979?

        • Albert Nilsson

          Is the Milan degree an Italian Dottore, or a PhD?

          From wikipedia:
          “Italy uses the three levels degree system. The first level degree, called (Diploma Accademico di) laurea (Bachelor’s degree), is obtained after 3 years of study and a short thesis on a specific subject. ”

          “The title for Laureati is, regardless of the field of study, Dottore/Dottoressa (abbrev. Dott./Dott.ssa, meaning Doctor) or Dottore/ Dottoressa Magistrale, not to be confused with the title for the PhD level graduate, which is Dottore/ Dottoressa di Ricerca.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_degree#Italy

          • Ged

            It was back before the mid 1980s when the Dottorato di ricerca degree was created and the Laurea was depreciated somewhat. But before then, it was the same level. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurea

            Excerpt:
            “Until very recently, lauree (plural for laurea) took longer to earn than undergraduate degrees elsewhere in Europe and North America. To earn a laurea, the student had to complete 4 to 6 years of university courses, and also complete a thesis, which in most cases required experimental work. Laureati are customarily addressed as dottore (for a man) or dottoressa (for a woman), i.e. “doctor”.

            Until the introduction of the Dottorato di ricerca (PhD-level education) in the mid-1980s, the laurea constituted the highest academic degree obtainable in Italy and allowed the holder to access the highest academic careers. Famous scientists Nobel prize winners such as for example Enrico Fermi, Emilio Segrè, Giulio Natta and Carlo Rubbia held a laurea as their highest degree. The reason is that the Italian laurea included high-level courses and thesis work which normally were sufficient to prepare for a career in research and academia.”

            So, that counts for Rossi as he got his degree before the mid 1980s, just like it does those Nobel Laureates.

            I hope this puts the issue to bed? Calling Rossi “Dr.” is correct.

          • Albert Nilsson

            Thanks! But I also found this part on wikipedia interesting:
            “The pre-Bologna Laurea degree (known as Laurea di Dottore in and formally named Diploma di laurea), is now equivalent by law[1] to the new Italian Master’s degree named Laurea Magistrale. In other countries, the old Laurea is usually considered as equivalent to a Bachelor’s plus Master’s degree because of the work carried out for the thesis.”

            But if it makes people happy I will call him an “Italian PhD, according to the old system when there was no difference between that and a master’s”.

          • Ged

            It is a valid argument point. However, notice that people like Fermi had a Laurea. It was Italy’s highest degree back then. Should we honestly argue Fermi should not be considered a doctor? I guess you should make sure whenever you talk about the man who fathered the nuclear age, along with so much more, that you make the same caveat you do with Rossi there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

          • Albert Nilsson

            Fermi did win a Nobel price. Weather he has something comparable to a PhD or not is at that point totally moot.

          • Ged

            Nope, not moot at all, but a nice try. This is a matter of definition. A Nobel prize is Not a degree conference and has no barring on such matters. Instead, it points out the horrible illogic and flaws of your attempted reasoning. Rossi and Fermi have the same degree, the highest available in Italy at the time, along with all other Italian doctors of their era and before.

            If anyone wishes to continue looking for ways to discriminate against an entire nation/people and history, just because you or others don’t like one guy and wish to use logical fallacies to undermine him, be my guest. But this is my stop off the crazy train before it heads into insanity valley. Have fun :).

          • Albert Nilsson

            Totall moot, especially as he was also a professor. When you have that title, you are never anymore presented as Dr. NN, but as Professor NN. And whether a nobel price winner is a PhD or not is also moot, as he will be able to build a career on the price itself.

            It is somewhat important to keep track of the different systems in different countries when you meet people early in their careers and is evaluating their CVs. Later, after they have gotten other positions (such as Prof.) and eventual prizes, the earlier degrees looses their importance.

            A Laurea from Italy is saying less of the accomplishment than a PhD from many other places. But you should never judge a person on only the name of the degree. The difference between Fermi and Rossi is what they have done after their degree, and not the degree itself.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            This ‘degree’ hou-ha is reminiscent of the ‘birther’ discussions…
            So many people with degrees are incompetent. So many without degrees have become self-made success stories.
            But humans beings feel safety in categorizing, and that, sadly, sometimes leads to discrimination.
            Even amongst the brightest minds.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

      • kdk

        rational wiki is a joke.

        • Private Citizen

          Certainly there are those who think that E-CatWorld or unwashed commenters like you or i might be a “joke.”

          Search engine “Andrea Rossi Kensington University” if you want other sources.

          • kdk

            I’m just going to let time be the judge of rational wiki and not waste any more breath on it, besides to say that it’s ironic you bring up ad hominem since that’s basically the foundation of half their arguments. You won’t have to wait long.

          • Private Citizen

            I’ll just let reality be the judge of weather Rossi has touted the mail order diploma in his credentials and there are scores of references beyond the messenger service you choose to attack.

          • kdk

            I don’t care about whatever degrees Rossi has or where they came from. I mean, his Husserl and relativity paper sounds interesting, but what I care about is that he has clearly made progress, and whatever knowledge he has isn’t dependent on having a degree to back it up, it only serves to show people that he has one. People can learn plenty w/o having some degree to point to for the rest of the world to look at. For example, if you study with a renowned physicist, but never take any classes or get a degree, it hardly means that you know nothing of physics. Such is the case with Rossi and Focardi.

          • timycelyn

            Yup. There are many of us that think precisely this.

            A very sick joke.

      • Steve Swatman

        well, thanks for that wonderfullly articulate and useless piece of information, why on earth you felt the compulsion to post it I cannot imagine, does it matter? no, will it ever matter? no, Once he launches one of his products he will be receiving honourary doctorates and degrees from establishments worldwide, and lets be honest, they will be worth nothing either. All that matters, is whether or not his inventions work, so far the evidence suggests that the E-cat works and the Quark might. Simple really!

        • I would argue the evidence to date is inconclusive that the e-cat works.

          • Observer

            And yours is an opinion of consequence?

          • Steve Swatman

            How can could you possibly validate such an argument?

            Unless you have seen the report on the 1MW test, or IH’s report, or the customers report, or indeed Rossi’s personal data, If you have not been privy to that information then have no basis to argue your case.

            Whereas the simple fact that test ran for the whole 350 days, with quarterly reports and a final summation by, IH on site staff, Rossi, the customer and the ERV, would indicate that there was sufficient conclusive data to keep test running for the whole period.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            Sometimes I admire Dr Rossi; he manages some down to earth kindness, notwithstanding a silver jubilee of insults.
            Well worth a degree, honoris causa.

            http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-profit-education-has-been-shortchanging-the-public-for-centuries-author-says-2016-03-16

        • roseland67

          Steve,
          you are correct.
          “Once he launches one of his products”,
          but as off yet he has not, and Rossi has missed every production date that he has suggested.
          Simple really

          • Steve Swatman

            I believe you can buy/rent an E-cat 1MW plant, should you contact leonado, Engineer48 may be able to give you details.

            Which suggests he has launched a product, the e-cat 1MW.

            Missing dead lines and production dates is not a problem with brand new inventions, certifications etc etc… and of course, we now have the ongoing quarkx test, only a week long and possibly with a manufacturing partner.

            So yes, maybe, possibly, you never know, but he is trying, he is working and he has kept us all interested, even the sceptics are interested, in fact the sceptics seem more interested now than they have been over the last 5yrs. I find that quite interesting myself.

          • roseland67

            Steve,
            You can’t order or rent or lease an Ecat, if you fill out the online form, someone from somewhere will “get back to you”.
            The Ecat has not been launched, according to Rossi, it is still under development.
            But, if Engineer 48 has ordered and received one, I am definitely wrong

      • Roger Roger

        Rational Wiki :DDD
        They are as much trustworthy and rational as Galactic Ishtar Fleet cultists and as nice and level-headed as Ku Klux Klan members
        Topkek m8

      • Barbierir

        It’s an honorary degree that K. university gave to Rossi on their own initiative in 1978 (if I remember correctly) at the time Rossi was an accomplished entrepreneur and he made
        some trips to the USA because there was interest in his Thermal depolymerization tech. K. university probably did it for publicity and Rossi never boasted nor seemed to care about it.

        • Private Citizen

          Here is a link to Rossi’s actual CV, where he claims a laura in Chemical Engineering from diploma mill Kensington University, from his website March 4, 2011: link

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Rationalwiki is a totally unreliable source for anything. It is essentially a joke wiki for juveniles of all ages. I’m an administrator there…. Which means nothing. The community there is largely insane, and relishes it.

        The Kensington University degree was “honorary,” probably not solicited by him. It is meaningless, and what part of “meaningless” is not understood here? Rossi is called the rough equivalent of “doctor” in Italian, but it means something quite different than a PhD in English. That’s all. This piece of “information” was trolling fluff here.

        The information about Kensington University, though, could be highly misleading. See http://www.degreeinfo.com/accreditation-discussions-ra-detc-state-approval-unaccredited-schools/41456-kensington-unversity-ever-accredited.html .

        If what is claimed there is true, Kensington was state Approved at the time. That is not the same as “accredited,” but they may also not have been a “diploma mill.”

        From the Wikipedia article, the claims about Kensington are completely incorrect. Degrees from Kensington at that point are, apparently, legally valid, at least in some contexts.

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

        I find this all hilarious, and a clear sign of how far down the hole pseudoskeptics go. There is genuine skepticism, but it would not wave “diploma mill” around without, at least, verifying the matter *and* it being relevant. This is what pseudoskeptics do, put together a pile of appearances and assert them as fact. Believers do the same, by the way. Birds of a feather, in a way, though, frankly, I’d rather hang out with believers than pseudoskeps. Believers are usually nicer people, even if sometimes a bit deluded.

        Me and Marcello Truzzi. Nice company.

        • Private Citizen

          Mark Twain said

          “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

          Am still hopeful Rossi is not a fake and will save the world. However, my skeptical pendulum is swinging away after 5 years of “Rossi says,” flaky test results and finally his partner claiming ECat unverifiable.

          Mentioned the bogus degree mill to balance the holy reverence true believers manifest, incapable of healthy skepticism over near-miraculous claims. If it turns out Rossi is a fake, at least one heretic has pointed out the emperor’s cloths are at a minimum frayed around the edges.

          If it turns out real, i’ve still got a 5-yr old bottle of champagne in the fridge.

          In science, distrust yet verify.

          • Jouni Tuomela

            Rossi is Rossi,
            but we cannot discard all the others who have done experiments, and found energy being produced.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        And the E-Cat works. So,“school’s been blown to pieces.”
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnds9HKiMdQ

    • Private Citizen

      Here is a link to Rossi’s actual CV, where he claims a laura in Chemical Engineering from diploma mill Kensington University, from his website March 4, 2011: link

      Later Rossi will claim to know nothing of Kensington University and sock puppets will claim it was a mere “honorary” degree.

  • LarryJ

    Because the IP is worth a lot more than a license for the IP.

  • Well, it’s obvious that you don’t agree…

    No conspiracy at all really. Only quoting and arguing that Fred and Frank show very clear signs working from the same virtual office space. Fred is the aggressive guy, Frank is the smart anonymous one. Reading Fred only makes you feel somewhat sick. Reading Frank is actually interesting from a astroturf perspective. He (the team) does an excellent job feeding small new pieces of information to the crowd on regular basis, but without getting into any debate; mostly inducing/amplifying opinions of others, sometimes bullying a little, but letting others do the dirty work …

    If you never seen astroturfing in action, this is an excellent case study. A little bothersom to click through ECN though.

  • Niaga Dennab

    Forgive me if I have missed it, but has Rossi posted any actual info about the QuarkX (I have seen much on the E-Cat)? I haven’t even been able to find a photo of it yet. Seems a bit strange to me.

    • Size of a pen. Power density 10 W/cm³. Each pen-sized device maybe 100 W.

    • DrD

      F8

  • Niaga Dennab

    Forgive me if I have missed it, but has Rossi posted any actual info about the QuarkX (I have seen much on the E-Cat)? I haven’t even been able to find a photo of it yet. Seems a bit strange to me.

    • Size of a pen. Power density 10 W/cm³. Each pen-sized device maybe 100 W.

    • standby

      A MICROLENR that can be stacked up to form a MICROLENR at any size

    • standby

      MACROLENR correction!

    • DrD

      F8

  • Engineer48

    What I do know is Rossi was willing to engage my potential client’s very experienced engineers and my due diligence checking before any order was placed but after an MOU was signed, which as highly proprietary IP is involved is perfectly understandable.

    Why he would engage this process and not have the deliverables is difficult to understand, especially as a bad outcome from the due diligence process would not be stopped, internally to the international company management, by any NDA.

    The engineers gut feel in the group is Rossi does have what he claims but maybe it is in beta test release to selected customers that will provide a high level of feedback to rapidly improve all aspects of the product, which may include documentation.

    Did the engineers expect the same level of documentation & traceability as if they were buying a new GE steam turbine or Siemens generator or ABB recirculation system? Of course not. They recognise Leonardo is a start up and were willing to be flexible as what 600C LENR steam could offer them would outweighed what they would expect from a normal 100+ year old supplier.

  • Engineer48

    A LENR reactor does not contain chemicals with enough deliverable chemical energy to do that.

    Not fair to quote a thermite burn.

    Please watch ALL of this video:
    https://youtu.be/QxBJjWzlKl0

    • Bruce__H

      kdk asked me what in the world would cause a thermal runaway with limited input energy. I replied that a chemical reaction can do this. Every time I light a fire in my fireplace a thermal runaway occurs having used limited input energy. This is the sort of explanation that that needs to be eliminated before one progresses to more exotic ones.

      So now I repeat a question I asked earlier … where are the papers on these runaway reactions? If they can be replicated they would be the perfect test bed.for a persuasive demonstration of the existence of LENR. Can you suggest to me a good paper with a first-hand report of this phenomena carefully characterizing it showing how to obtain it at will? I ask nothing more than I would for any empirical phenomenon that is supposed to exist.

      Thank you for posting the videos to watch.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        No paper, only an eyewitness account without sufficient measurements (particularly regarding temperature) – so not yet “science”. But if true, hardly explainable by any known chemical reaction:

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/19/account-of-thermacore-1996-runaway-incident-jones-beene-vortex-l/

      • Engineer48

        If you watched the videos you would have heard the Navy scientists saying they could not easily replicate the thermal runaways but they did show the physical runaway results.

        I sense you are picking holes to attack and have yet to comment on the 29 peer reviewed published papers by the US Navy scientists.

        Here is a bit more recent info to digest:
        http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/

        Please note they are claiming 100% reliable reaction startups.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d01453f76a4c334ebbbea884ba842ba4a39b116fa3d4c9d5479ec081fd41a0a5.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b74cd708782eb510b41f03da53246971e3c7785c1a4abe697494a0f898af7284.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31fb76281aa6f7e2c23e34e745fbfe52bcfab2e9645827e18339a83f44438522.png

        • Bruce__H

          Of course I am picking holes. You should be too. But you will find that I respond to good data.

          Give me a little time for perusing the references.

          • Engineer48

            Bruce,

            Try http://www.lenr-canr.org for the best published paper resource I know of.
            This is a bit old but still good data http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

          • wizkid

            Why does everybody thing the QuarkX is 100w? I think that it was a rumor that caught on. My notes indicate that as of 4/3/16 the QuarkX being tested was 500w and the preliminary R&D is (or was) to validate functionality for the “QuarkX Jet”, based on your reply to Gerard on April 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM. Please let me know if I am mistaken. I scanned the entire Rossi Blog for 100w (and 100 w) and found no statements from Rossi, but several from visitors that mention 100w. (Hank and Frank I think …) I’d personally rather see a 500 instead of a 100w unit, wouldn’t you guys? It really doesn’t matter very much, Que Sera, Sera …

          • wizkid

            500 W is found here on JoNP: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=85#comments
            This reference is 3 months newer than your reference, am I correct?

            Andrea Rossi

            April 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM

            (Gerard McEk:)

          • Roland

            You are, of course, correct about the reference; it remains to be seen what the output of the tested Quarks are and to what degree the basic design is scalable and what the engineering tradeoffs are at various scalings.

            I had the sense that the 100W Quark was an experiment in miniaturization to see if the desired performance parameters could be maintained in such a small form factor.

            The potential usefulness of much smaller Quarks than the one rated at 100W is also intriguing.

            There have been no remarks, to date, from the inventor on the upper limits of the output from a single Quark.

          • wizkid

            Thank you all for the replies! “Is the QuarkX developed far enough for this applications?” Rossi must be convinced that it is, Otherwise he would not speak of the preliminary R&D phase being closed. I think his secret customer is the QuarkX Jet guy, Peter Beck. Or with Peters backers, DARPA. He is THE Jet guy that works when you compare his work with Rossi’s QuarkX potential. Rocket Lab aka Peter Beck has a contract with US military agency Darpa. http://www.nbr.co.nz/ask-peter-beck

          • Your 500 W reference is to QuarkX Jet. But anyway, the final value remains to be seen.

          • DrD

            He has said repeatedly that his approach is based on the smallest unit being a 100W and therefore was gong to name it a “Quark” and explained why. The 500W and greater will be made by combining multiple Quarks. He said this many times.
            It’s all in the link Seppo quoted http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=66#comment-1155271.

          • DrD

            It has obvious manufacturing benefits (mass production – “robotisation”) if he only manufactures a single unit – being the Quark with a nominal 100Wt output.

          • US_Citizen71

            He was listening to the steam and water flowing in the plant. Doing so can help find obstructions or areas with cavitation.

          • Roland

            I’m somewhat surprised that the most immediate implication of there being 3 Quarks under test has gone unmentioned; there are 3 output modalities the Quark can be configured for and I suspect that all 3 are being tested for simultaneously.

          • wizkid

            I think Rossi uses the 3 Quarks to maintain SSM behavior, as he commented on frequently during the improvements phase of the 1MW plant. Just saying, Rossi has talked about cluster control with the 1MW plant.

          • Axil Axil

            You are correct.

          • Pweet

            And yet he didn’t do that during the one year test of the 1MW plant. That was one thing I found astounding and I have previously commented on it.
            You may recall that whenever he was asked for a running report on the test he would often reply it was operating in ssm. I take that to mean the whole plant in ssm otherwise the comment makes no sense. I always thought the purpose of multiple reactors was to always have the plant operating partially in ssm and partially not. I watched for the reports to see if this ever changed but after many months it did not so I mentioned it on this site, probably more than once.

          • wizkid

            If the 1MW plant is running in 90-99% SSM, it still saves 90-99% of the power to drive it. If it goes up from COP of 3 to a COP of 50 using SSM methods, why would you quibble about sipping a few watts now and again? IT’S STILL COP increase of 47 compared to without the SSM… I suspect Rossi has a COP of 50 on the QuarkX(n) model, too. That would be very nice indeed!

          • Pweet

            My point is not about COP.
            My point is, with four reactors, (originally a hundred reactors) the logical thing would be to run reactor 1 in driven mode while the other three were in ssm.
            Then run reactor 2 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Then run reactor 3 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Then run reactor 4 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Thus there would always be just one reactors in driven mode while the rest would be in ssm.
            This would keep the input power level at a continuous low level and the output power would also be at a more stable level.
            Running the whole plant in either ‘all reactors driven mode’ and then ‘all reactors in ssm’ would result in huge variations of both input power and output power levels.
            From what I can see the only way it would be considered a suitable method of operation would be if the results were all just being made up, in which case it doesn’t matter how it is operated.
            Now it might be that Mr Rossi doesn’t care how his results are perceived in the public arena but if that is the case, people should hardly be surprised when some others look at these reports and conclude “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”, even though the 1MW plant was nowhere near Denmark.

          • wizkid

            You are thinking about a piston engine that uses spark plugs and a distributor, I am pretty sure that Andrea is working with atomic theory. It makes a bit of difference, but I can appreciate your dilemma.

          • Steve Swatman

            Indeed “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” .

        • Bruce__H

          Thank you once again for lists of reference sources. I have begun looking at some of the more recent references from

          http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php

          I am afraid my explorations so far don’t give me much confidence in LENR as a real and replicable phenomenon. For instance one reference on the list is a February 2016 report from the US Naval Research Laboratory attempting to replicate the findings from its own early work on Deuterium/Palladium systems and finding no evidence for excess heat, tritium formation, or other things that were originally claimed. This despite quite a lot of work apparently.

          I will keep looking, but one thing is certain already and that is that the field is not yet settled. This is a scientific field that is still young to the point that many basic findings cannot be replicated securely as one would expect after 25 years of research.

          It sounds as though you and I have a similar depth of experience in our fields but your experience is in engineering and mine is in basic science. I think you may have not realized how common it is in basic science for early discoveries not to be upheld. That isn’t a reflection on the quality of the scientists, it is just the nature of the game.

          • Engineer48

            As an engineer, I don’t need to know the theory of why some effect works, just how to use it to deliver a desired outcome.

            From Rossi’s corro with me in regard to my potential clients purchasing 10 x 1MWt 105C superheated steam reactors, nothing occurred to make me concerned he could not deliver. Of course nnormal due diligence checks would be in place.

            Was reassuring my potential clients enginerrs & myself could visit a working 1MWt plant to do some tests PRIOR to order placing and no money would change hands until the delivered and installed plants passed mutually agreed test conditions.

            Really hard to understand why this would happen if there were no usable tech to deliver, especially as my potential client is a very large owner & operator of large thermal power plants.

          • Bruce__H

            It’s certainly a conundrum isn’t it? You have an actual stake in this game whereas I don’t and I don’t envy your position in that you must now take into account the suspicion of Rossi’s work being fraudulent even if you think that possibility is small. It must be hard to know how to undertake due diligence when the possibility has arisen that what you will be shown is a carefully staged illusion.

            One thing I wonder about is the US patent Rossi was awarded last August. This is supposed to be a version of his ecat device and supposedly should produce abundant excess heat. An engineer should be able to follow the description and make the thing work .. if not then the patent is invalid. I think this would be a good way to understand if Rossi really has anything (just as long as Rossi is physically kept away from the device). I don’t understand why no one has tried this yet.

  • kdk

    I have indeed seen thermite burn, and cut. I’ve also fuel-air explosives completely demolish a car in the Siberian wilderness.

    The first video that Engineer48 posted below contains one of the thermal runaways where we’re clearly talking about light water and co-deposited palladium on an electrode.

    • pelgrim108

      The Rossi vs. IH link on the top of the site is working fine for me. Win 8.1 Firefox.

  • roseland67

    Steve,
    you are correct.
    “Once he launches one of his products”,
    but as off yet he has not, and Rossi has missed every production date that he has suggested.
    Simple really

    • Steve Swatman

      I believe you can buy/rent an E-cat 1MW plant, should you contact leonado, Engineer48 may be able to give you details.

      Which suggests he has launched a product, the e-cat 1MW.

      Missing dead lines and production dates is not a problem with brand new inventions, certifications etc etc… and of course, we now have the ongoing quarkx test, only a week long and possibly with a manufacturing partner.

      So yes, maybe, possibly, you never know, but he is trying, he is working and he has kept us all interested, even the sceptics are interested, in fact the sceptics seem more interested now than they have been over the last 5yrs. I find that quite interesting myself.

      • roseland67

        Steve,
        You can’t order or rent or lease an Ecat, if you fill out the online form, someone from somewhere will “get back to you”.
        The Ecat has not been launched, according to Rossi, it is still under development.
        But, if Engineer 48 has ordered and received one, I am definitely wrong

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope AR’s patented neural audio feedback heat measuring system is properly calibrated, otherwise the patho-sceptics continue moaning…. 😉

    • Brokeeper

      He’s having way too much fun with our friend Hank Mills. That could be a positive sign.

      • sam

        Thanks to Hank we got some
        Positve information about the
        test

    • Rene

      The stethoscope is prior art 🙂
      But it is interesting he may be using audio metrics for control feedback instead of heat. That is one way to get around the IH patent. And, it probably has much lower measurement lag too.

      • wpj

        You can buy ones which are specifically designed for diagnostics of car engines, so nothing too strange.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope AR’s patented neural audio feedback heat measuring system is properly calibrated, otherwise the patho-sceptics continue moaning…. 😉

    • Brokeeper

      He’s having way too much fun with our friend Hank Mills. That could be a positive sign.

      • sam

        Thanks to Hank we got some
        Positve information about the
        test

    • Rene

      The stethoscope is prior art 🙂
      But it is interesting he may be using audio metrics for control feedback instead of heat. That is one way to get around the IH patent. And, it probably has much lower measurement lag too.

      • wpj

        You can buy ones which are specifically designed for diagnostics of car engines, so nothing too strange.

  • Ged

    Nada? We have plenty of data and documents and details and tests by numerous parties. Perhaps reading comprehension has taken a turn for the worst lately? I am certainly tired of willful ignorance of data if it turns out you are informed after all. You may challenge the data, but you are egregiously wrong to claim we have nada.

  • Bob

    Sorry for the OT..
    Is the Rossi vs IH Thread link broken on the site header or is it my computer? I click it and the page does not come up. This has been the case for several weeks now on my system, so it possibly is something to do with my antivirus?
    .
    Frank listed an alternative link a few weeks back that worked fine, but permanent link is still not working on my system. Is it OK on others?
    .
    Thanks,

  • Frank Acland

    This is the link for that thread, which is working for me — maybe something in your cache? http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/01/rossileonardo-vs-industrial-heat/

  • Steve Swatman

    How can could you possibly validate such an argument?

    Unless you have seen the report on the 1MW test, or IH’s report, or the customers report, or indeed Rossi’s personal data, If you have not been privy to that information then have no basis to argue your case.

    Whereas the simple fact that test ran for the whole 350 days, with quarterly reports and a final summation by, IH on site staff, Rossi, the customer and the ERV, would indicate that there was sufficient conclusive data to keep test running for the whole period.

  • LuFong

    I’ve been having sporadic problems accessing ECW (along with rossilivecat.com). Last night and then again this morning.

  • kasom

    is a.r. in sweden today?

    3 of these little 100W toys plus electronics should well be transportable in a beautycase.
    so look out for a thin elderly man with 3 cats in a beautycase….

  • kasom

    is a.r. in sweden today?

    3 of these little 100W toys plus electronics should well be transportable in a beautycase.
    so look out for a thin elderly man with 3 cats in a beautycase….

  • Bruce__H

    I am open minded on the subject of LENR. It might be true and it might not. I await the evidence with interest.

    As a researcher almost everything I work on is the same. I mean it wouldn’t be research if I only worked on what was known, would it.

    • Rene

      The takeaway is 1,3,4: no public involvement, not disclosing anything, and wait until he makes it available for sale (maybe even at Home Depot). There’s not much more to say about the quarky e-cat.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Three, wouldnt 4 fit better;

    OO
    O

    O O
    O
    O

    the one in the center being the Mouse?

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Three, wouldnt 4 fit better;

    OO
    O

    O O
    O
    O

    the one in the center being the Mouse?

  • theBuckWheat

    The end of May will be upon us in a few hours.

  • sam

    Andrea Rossi | 4 hours ago
    Frank Acland:
    The test is starting now.
    I will talk about it within 10 days from now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Frank Acland | 4 hours ago
    Dear Andrea,
    Did the QuarkX test already start? If so, how is it going?
    Best wishes,
    Frank Acland

  • sam

    Andrea Rossi | 4 hours ago
    Frank Acland:
    The test is starting now.
    I will talk about it within 10 days from now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Frank Acland | 4 hours ago
    Dear Andrea,
    Did the QuarkX test already start? If so, how is it going?
    Best wishes,
    Frank Acland

  • Albert D. Kallal

    and if it can
    continue to run at those temperatures without any input (let along producing
    electricity

    I saw nothing stated by Rossi that the device would not require input power. However, for electric OUTPUT testing he is suggesting the ground (earth) cable can be disconnected to show that the electricity is indeed coming from the device. This statement and concept has ZERO to do
    with no input power being required. So SSM mode and that of disconnecting the
    ground cable to test for electric output are rather different concepts.

    Hint: You don’t need the ground cable unless one has never seen a two prong plug vs a 3 prong plug.

    However, without a ground, then electric shock is a possibility (and with a ground, that’s a nice way to “let” power into the unit!!!).

    On the other hand, some have suggested that the ground cable is a rather sneaky way to sneak power into the device – removing the ground will eliminate this issue. So removing the ground (earth)
    cable is a grand canyon of a difference then removing input power.

    Regardless, SSM mode will be used. And hopefully the customer is impressed.

    While Rossi likely won’t spill much beans – hopefully we get another COP. Due to a “smaller” unit and output, then the effects of multiple units working together may well result in a different COP.

    I do find it interesting that no photos to be released regardless of any reason.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Frank Acland

      I meant self-sustain mode when the input is turned off. In AR’s response to Hank, he indicates it can run in SSM for at least half an hour.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Thanks kindly. However, I take the term “ground” or “earth” cable to mean the ground cable, not input power. It’s possible Rossi means actual power supply (input) power, but use of the term “ground” or “earth” usually suggests a different context and meaning.
        Rossi certainly seems in good spirts and still can joke about a heat test with fingers and screaming! This is a good sign!
        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    • Alan Smith

      Albert. It is possible that Rossi has confused the terms ‘ground’ and ‘neutral/negative’. I have come across apparent confusion about this before when discussing electricity with native Italian speakers. They know the difference of course, but the words seem to be used interchangeably.

      • Pweet

        I think the missing earth wire statement in point 8 needs to be read in conjunction with point 7 regarding the test apparatus consisting of a finger. To be really effective the finger test requires the earth wire to be removed. I don’t think he meant anything more than that. Well, I thought it was funny.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, there is some irony here!. As noted, Alan points out Rossi may have meant the standard wall input power since due to Italian. It likely is a minor point in the scope of things, but I took the statement as to removing the ground wire – not pulling the plug.

        • Pweet

          Oops, I think I’ve still missed part of Andrea’s little joke. I think the whole of point 7 is a bit of ‘taking the pith’ out of us, followed by a bit more of the same in point 8.
          The above statement 7 of “( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)” is a reference to his wandering around listening with his stethoscope. I don’t think there’s any intention that it be taken seriously.
          Sorry Andrea, I’m right onto it now, and yes, it is funny. 🙂

        • clovis ray

          Hi,Pweet
          I’v seen lots of race car mechanics, take their spit wet fingers and check the header tubes, to test for a malfunctioning cylinder, it will be a few degrees cooler.

    • Pweet

      If the test comes up with a positive COP, and I believe it will, it will have nothing to do with power being fed in via an earth wire. The secret of the positive COP is contained in the statement at point 7 above, regarding how the test will be measured, which will be by way of;- “( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)”
      That point alone will guarantee an impressively positive COP.
      It will be interesting to see how the new customer/partner sees that.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Using the “ground” lead is often a way to dump RF emissions in order to meet the FCC interference criteria. Given that some AC emissions (perhaps in the GigaHertz range) have been hinted at, it might be advisable to use the ground lead.

      Of course, it also can be used to bleed off static charge the might arise as well, minimizing shock hazards.

      • clovis ray

        it’s a earth ground for God sake, just check and if no wires are going to it, leave it be, he is not trying to prove anything to the public, he is proving his device to ABB, and you can bet your as- they ABB knows what they are looking at and will not be taken in. this deal is as much as done,

  • Albert D. Kallal

    and if it can
    continue to run at those temperatures without any input (let along producing
    electricity

    I saw nothing stated by Rossi that the device would not require input power. However, for electric OUTPUT testing he is suggesting the ground (earth) cable can be disconnected to show that the electricity is indeed coming from the device. This statement and concept has ZERO to do
    with no input power being required. So SSM mode and that of disconnecting the
    ground cable to test for electric output are rather different concepts.

    Hint: You don’t need the ground cable unless one has never seen a two prong plug vs a 3 prong plug.

    However, without a ground, then electric shock is a possibility (and with a ground, that’s a nice way to “let” power into the unit!!!).

    On the other hand, some have suggested that the ground cable is a rather sneaky way to sneak power into the device – removing the ground will eliminate this issue. So removing the ground (earth)
    cable is a grand canyon of a difference then removing input power.

    Regardless, SSM mode will be used. And hopefully the customer is impressed.

    While Rossi likely won’t spill much beans – hopefully we get another COP. Due to a “smaller” unit and output, then the effects of multiple units working together may well result in a different COP.

    I do find it interesting that no photos to be released regardless of any reason.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Frank Acland

      I meant self-sustain mode when the input is turned off. In AR’s response to Hank, he indicates it can run in SSM for at least half an hour.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Thanks kindly. However, I take the term “ground” or “earth” cable to mean the ground cable, not input power. It’s possible Rossi means actual power supply (input) power, but use of the term “ground” or “earth” usually suggests a different context and meaning.
        Rossi certainly seems in good spirts and still can joke about a heat test with fingers and screaming! This is a good sign!
        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

        • clovis ray

          HI, Buddy,
          remember when he did the first test in bolonia, afterwards, the first thing the sceptics said was oooh it was being fed through the ground cable. Remember, they made a big deal of it.

    • Alan Smith

      Albert. It is possible that Rossi has confused the terms ‘ground’ and ‘neutral/negative’. I have come across apparent confusion about this before when discussing electricity with native Italian speakers. They know the difference of course, but the words seem to be used interchangeably.

      • Pweet

        I think the missing earth wire statement in point 8 needs to be read in conjunction with point 7 regarding the test apparatus consisting of a finger. To be really effective the finger test requires the earth wire to be removed. I don’t think he meant anything more than that. Well, I thought it was funny.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, there is some irony here!. As noted, Alan points out Rossi may have meant the standard wall input power since due to Italian. It likely is a minor point in the scope of things, but I took the statement as to removing the ground wire – not pulling the plug.

        • Pweet

          Oops, I think I’ve still missed part of Andrea’s little joke. I think the whole of point 7 is a bit of ‘taking the pith’ out of us, followed by a bit more of the same in point 8.
          The above statement 7 of “( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)” is a reference to his wandering around listening with his stethoscope. I don’t think there’s any intention that it be taken seriously.
          Sorry Andrea, I’m right onto it now, and yes, it is funny. 🙂

        • clovis ray

          Hi,Pweet
          I’v seen lots of race car mechanics, take their spit wet fingers and check the header tubes, to test for a malfunctioning cylinder, it will be a few degrees cooler.

    • Pweet

      If the test comes up with a positive COP, and I believe it will, it will have nothing to do with power being fed in via an earth wire. The secret of the positive COP is contained in the statement at point 7 above, regarding how the test will be measured, which will be by way of;- “( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)”
      That point alone will guarantee an impressively positive COP.
      It will be interesting to see how the new customer/partner sees that.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Using the “ground” lead is often a way to dump RF emissions in order to meet the FCC interference criteria. Given that some AC emissions (perhaps in the GigaHertz range) have been hinted at, it might be advisable to use the ground lead.

      Of course, it also can be used to bleed off static charge the might arise as well, minimizing shock hazards.

      • clovis ray

        it’s a earth ground for God sake, just check and if no wires are going to it, leave it be, he is not trying to prove anything to the public, he is proving his device to ABB, and you can bet your as- they ABB knows what they are looking at and will not be taken in. this deal is as much as done,
        No offence Thomas, you are correct in your remarks.

    • Chapman

      His comment about removing the Earth cable was a continuation of his Audiometric joke.

      If you stand barefoot and touch a washing machine that is not grounded you get shocked. He is saying that after the Heat test, and measured Scream/Decibel level recorded from the test victim (Darden?), they will then disconnect the ground wire and trot in second test subject (Weaver?) and have him grab the casing and record the Zap/Decibel ratio.

      Come on. You guys are smart, right? Why can’t you follow a simple joke?

      Rossi is just having a little fun. He is clearly past the point of feeling any great need to prove ANYTHING to the persistent skeptics and naysayers. Good for him.

  • Ged

    It was back before the mid 1980s when the Dottorato di ricerca degree was created and the Laurea was depreciated somewhat. But before then, it was the same level. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurea

    Excerpt:
    “Until very recently, lauree (plural for laurea) took longer to earn than undergraduate degrees elsewhere in Europe and North America. To earn a laurea, the student had to complete 4 to 6 years of university courses, and also complete a thesis, which in most cases required experimental work. Laureati are customarily addressed as dottore (for a man) or dottoressa (for a woman), i.e. “doctor”.

    Until the introduction of the Dottorato di ricerca (PhD-level education) in the mid-1980s, the laurea constituted the highest academic degree obtainable in Italy and allowed the holder to access the highest academic careers. Famous scientists Nobel prize winners such as for example Enrico Fermi, Emilio Segrè, Giulio Natta and Carlo Rubbia held a laurea as their highest degree. The reason is that the Italian laurea included high-level courses and thesis work which normally were sufficient to prepare for a career in research and academia.”

    So, that counts for Rossi as he got his degree before the mid 1980s, just like it does those Nobel Laureates.

    I hope this puts the issue to bed? Calling Rossi “Dr.” is correct.

  • Vance Larkin

    Is the ” audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine” part a joke or serious? If this is indeed serious, it seems extremely odd and completely counter productive to invent/patent your own device to measure energy. First, we already have many different meters to measure almost every type of energy that are certified and well understood. Next there is no way to know the validity of this new metering device, and even if it is found to measure in a correct manner there are issues of precision and/or accuracy. Then the simple matter of why would you use audio for energy measurement as it is probably the least productive and accurate means no matter what Rossi believes he has patented. This sounds very backwards to me….

    • cashmemorz

      Yes, so backward that your attempt at continuing AR joke is a backward compliment to AR. Some body will take you seriously and then we are in another line of comments. At this point Rossi is a true genius who has earned the right to act like a kook when ever he wants. Is he getting too close to the point of it all going to his head? Can he handle the power of the position he could be in? If he turns out to be just saying things to show off like a maniac then many of us will have been greatly disillusioned. All we have is hope and time, but only so much time can be wasted if its all a sham.

    • Pweet

      I’ve just realised it’s a joke. See a few posts below.

    • Rene

      I take it as a joke used to hide a little nugget of truth. It is similar to the days when he was joking about the cat and mouse. That too turned out to have a nugget of truth hidden within.

    • DrD

      Obviously it’s a joke!

    • Bear1145

      I took it as a joke. He was answering a question concerning how he was to measure the heat produced. He stated that one using their finger to touch it and then screaming at the touch would prove how hot it was, this scream is his new audiometric metric measurement,the volume of the scream.

  • Vance Larkin

    Is the ” audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine” part a joke or serious? If this is indeed serious, it seems extremely odd and completely counter productive to invent/patent your own device to measure energy. First, we already have many different meters to measure almost every type of energy that are certified and well understood. Next there is no way to know the validity of this new metering device, and even if it is found to measure in a correct manner there are issues of precision and/or accuracy. Then the simple matter of why would you use audio for energy measurement as it is probably the least productive and accurate means no matter what Rossi believes he has patented. This sounds very backwards to me….

    • cashmemorz

      Yes, so backward that your attempt at continuing AR joke is a backward compliment to AR. Some body will take you seriously and then we are in another line of comments. At this point Rossi is a true genius who has earned the right to act like a kook when ever he wants. Is he getting too close to the point of it all going to his head? Can he handle the power of the position he could be in? If he turns out to be just saying things to show off like a maniac then many of us will have been greatly disillusioned. All we have is hope and time, but only so much time can be wasted if its all a sham.

      • Vance Larkin

        Cash, I was being serious. Obviously I know the “putting on the hot surface the finger of somebody and see how loudly he cries” part is a joke, but “audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine” has nothing to do with a finger and hot surface…so it would make no sense for them to be the same joke…especially since Audiometry is a real thing. Honestly the reason I asked is because I have seen a photo of Rossi actually using a stethososcope…so while I think it is absurd, it kinda made sense. So either way I was not trying to make a joke…it makes no sense that Rossi would combine those two unrelated things as a joke. If it is a joke, it seems to be a very strange misplaced one….it if is not a joke, I believe my points stand.

        • psi2u2

          Rossi has been known to have a sense of humor, so I would anticipate that this is another example of his wit, perhaps relieving some frustration he might feel at the contretemps over the results of the one year test.

          • Vance Larkin

            Yea I suppose had I not seen a photo of him using a stethoscope while working on the ecat plant, I would have gotten it right away. Rossi REALLY doesn’t use a stethoscope to monitor a nuclear reactor does he? LOL It is one thing to listen for a rod knock in an old engine with one, but I would hope he has higher end monitoring gear that a $12 stethoscope.

          • US_Citizen71

            He was listening to the steam and water flowing in the plant. Doing so can help find obstructions or areas with cavitation.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          *rolleys* It’s obviously a joke.

        • clovis ray

          You forget that Dr.R is no dummy, he has built the most important machine in history , And has had the most professional experienced measurement people, in the world working with him, the very largest,
          he could build such a device in his sleep. believe it.

    • Pweet

      I’ve just realised it’s a joke. See a few posts below.

    • Rene

      I take it as a joke used to hide a little nugget of truth. It is similar to the days when he was joking about the cat and mouse. That too turned out to have a nugget of truth hidden within.

      • Vance Larkin

        You are probably right Rene, I guess I was confused by the fact that he evidentally mixed jokes with the hot surface/finger and audiometric measurement which are two completely different things and really don’t make sense combining them. It looks more like a joke about the finger and then in parenthesis the real answer as he has done before. I don’t get it…I guess I am slow today on the humor train.

    • Arve Svendsen

      I laughed hard at audiometric measurement. Also facepalming a little by reading here how many people who did not get the joke. For those who did not get it: If you touch hot stuff you will scream, right?

      • Warthog

        I wouldn’t laugh too hard. Remember the photo of Rossi with a stethoscope, listening to “something” going on in one of the e-Cat reactors in the 1MW setup.

    • Bear1145

      I took it as a joke. He was answering a question concerning how he was to measure the heat produced. He stated that one using their finger to touch it and then screaming at the touch would prove how hot it was, this scream is his new audiometric metric measurement,the volume of the scream.

  • Rene

    The takeaway is 1,3,4: no public involvement, not disclosing anything, and wait until he makes it available for sale (maybe even at Home Depot). There’s not much more to say about the quarky e-cat.

  • Engineer48

    I believe the potential customer/partner is Swedish based ABB.
    http://new.abb.com/power-generation

    Just maybe the QuarkX plant is being built in Sweden so ABB can design the robotic line and can work directly with Rossi on the necessary engineering and certifications required by the thermal power plant industry to allow boiler replacements.

    If Leonardo releases thermal power plant QuarkX boiler replacements, no thermal power plant owner will buy. However if ABB offers them on the market, after declaring they have done extensive testing and were involved in the engineering, well the world’s thermal power plant owners will create a line around the planet.

    While I did place 3 x 10kW home ECats on order the 1st day they were taking orders, I don’t expect to see them for a very long time. It is one thing to sell QuarkX NUCLEAR REACTORS to highly qualified 24/7 on site engineers. It is entirely another thing to offer unattended QuarkX NUCLEAR REACTORS to homes that have no technical experience nor know what to do if a runaway occurs. Yes runaways will happen as things go wrong and break and Murphy is ALWAYS waiting in the wings to make an appearance.

    • DrD

      For that reason (possible runaway) I’m thinking of installing mine outdoors. My understanding is that he ran a quark to destruction and I assume it melted and shut down. A kind of fail safe, unlike conventional fission reactors with too many such disastors.
      Nevertheless I expect quite a long battle before the authorities permit us to use them.

      • Engineer48

        Melted and shut down would be an acceptable event as long as no high energy particles escaped as the reaction goes off axis.

        We are dealing with nuclear energy densities with are many millions of times greater than chemical. So even a very small amount of E = M C^2 will release a very large amount of energy and if the normal LENR reaction is not in control, which would be happening as it is a runaway, the energy release may be in the form of highly energetic not nice to humans particles and a LOT of heat.

        One thing I can safely predict is LENR will be weaponised. There is NO WAY this will not happen. The massive energy release of a very small amount of LENR reaction mass will make chemical based weapons look like toy fire crackers.

        • DrD

          Yes, the possiblity of radiation emerging during melt down occured to me too. I assume he monitored for it, THROUGHLY. As for weapons, it would need a trigger to initaite a very rapid reaction if such is possible and past events seem to indicate it is. Maybe wise not to discuss in more detail but if it’s possible I suppose it will happen anyway.

          • Engineer48

            Not nice to think about something the size of a pack of cigarettes replacing several 1,000t of TNT. So easy to carry, maybe even with a few real cigarettes.

            Yes it will happen. So we need to stop thinking about LENR reactors as 100% nice.

            Lend reactors are NUCLEAR REACTORS! Capable of reaching deep inside matter, causing element transmutations and unleashing vast amounts of energy. Nice if it is SLOW. Not nice if it is FAST. Speed of reaction is just engineering.

          • DrD

            It’s frightening and for that reason I will say no more. Sifferkoll® recent post is interesting.

          • radvar

            Interesting to contemplate. Seems like a question of the basic physics. Fusion bombs depend on the high temperatures of fission bombs to get started. Fission bombs depend on the strong force being overloaded, by implosive compression, the uranium (or plutonium) nuclei splitting, and neutons being ejected at sufficiently high energy to crack other uranium n a chain reaction. The theories that I’ve seen about LENR seem to describe neutrons (or virtual neutrons, or whatever), kind of forgetting which atom they belong to and drifting off into other atoms, which then give off alpha or beta particles. No high speed neutrons, no chain reactions.

            F&P apparently burned a hole through a lab floor in a runaway reaction, however, that’s still not a chain reaction.

            Reports of explosions in LENR tests could all easily be explained by sudden overheating. It’s not clear that energy in those events was released faster than could be achieved with equal weight of chemical explosive.

          • Vance Larkin

            Not only will someone figure out how to make it go bang, but if they are in hands other than that of trained engineers/technicians in locations with proper safety and shielding, accidents and incidents that are not even thought of will most likely occur. Amazing things can happen when the conditions are just right….this would be seriously amplified with a reactor.

          • Engineer48

            We know little of the underlying NUCLEAR process involved in causing LENR fusion transmutations.

            What we do know so far is the current experimental work has shown how they accidently discovered how to make it occur slowly and on occasion how to make it occur fairly rapidly.

            Who can say what the top speed of the fusion transmutation process in LENR is? For sure someone will figure how to remove any fusion transmutation reaction speed breaks that may currently exist.

            To think otherwise is just wishful thinking.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            The easiest way they could use LENR is with the new laser weapons, they are faster, have more accuracy and are more powerful than current projectile based weapons.
            The downside is the energy compsumption so probably they would use LENR reactors to power them.

        • Vance Larkin

          Have to agree with you on all points. I think many are assuming that because Rossi (and others) has not had any situations of danger or harm, that it would not be possible with reactors in homes all over…that is terribly false logic. I hope LENR ends up replacing all forms of non-renewable energy, but I also hope it takes many many years of testing and certification before anyone is allowed to use one in a home.

          Absolutely no question LENR will be weaponized assuming claims are true. To think otherwise would be like thinking that guns and nuclear technology would not have been used as weapons when discovered. Spot on here.

        • BillH

          I think they already invented bombs that explode at a much higher temperature AND give off deadly radiation. LENR might give you a nasty burn or turn your cornflakes to charcoal though, if you’re foolish enough to stay too close for too long, while it heats up.

          • Engineer48

            We know very little about how the underlying LENR reaction works but we do know it is a NUCLEAR reaction that causes fusion or transmutation of the original elements.

            All that is needed to get a BIG explosion is a high speed of fusion transmutations.

      • Vance Larkin

        If Rossi’s claims are in fact true, putting your reactor outdoors will do little to protect you from danger…I think that would be a false sense of safety.

        • DrD

          If Rossi’s claims are true then obviously it is safe indoors.

          • DrD

            If he’s mistaken then a melt down would be better out doors. Obviously, I could cope with a melt down indoors and even if he’s mistaken about the absence of radiation then I could also cope with that indoors but out doors would be safer.
            Nevertheless, this is all theoretical given that I am sure he wouldn’t get domestic certification if there were the slightest chance of these things endagangering life or property, at least not in most 1st world countries.

    • Alain Samoun

      Gas and electricity are responsible for fires and explosions every day,this doesn’t mean they can’t be used at homes.

      • Engineer48

        The energy density available in those chemical explosions is approx 5,000,000 times less than that available in NUCLEAR fusion (transmutation) explosions.

    • Mike

      I doubt it. ABB has left the power generation. Where do you find steam and gas turbines, steam boiler etc among the products? They have focussed on automation and power transmission. Both ASEA and BBC had a lot of products in pure power generation and I think everything has been sold. So, I doubt that ABB will return to the power generation in that sense.

      • psi2u2

        Rossi has several times named ABB as an entity he is in talks with for building robotic production lines, so the guess seems like a good one to me.

        • Bob

          Over the years, several big names keep popping up when customers are announced by Rossi. They never pan out.
          .
          Military customers in the past…many thought Boeing, Lockheed, Nasa. None ever revealed. Perhaps, but they never came forward and evidently Rossi “moved on” from them as they evidently did not pan out.
          .
          2012 customer… many thought Seimens as they had been posted by Rossi as working with him on electricity production. GE and other large companies. None ever revealed and again, Rossi moved on.
          .
          2013 customer… many speculated again on large companies. Turned out to be IH. A company formed to partner with Rossi.
          .
          2015 – 1 year test customer.. Many speculations about large companies, UL and Veritas certifications. Again, customer was a newly formed company headed by Rossi’s lawyer. We have no indication of any other involvement at this time. There could be, but we have no evidence yet. ERV turned out to be a one person consultant.
          .
          Do not get expectations high on this customer either. It almost certainly will not be any major corporation if past history is any indication.
          That does not mean the customer would be invalid or the test invalid.
          If it turns out the customer is another “shell” company however, it would really be disappointing.

          • morse

            The soap continues 🙂 I used to follow Rossi from day to day, now it is every few months….zzzzz

      • Roland

        http://new.abb.com/power-generation/gas-fired-power-plants

        May I suggest searching the ABB site, it’s quite informative.

  • Engineer48

    I believe the potential customer/partner is Swedish based ABB.
    http://new.abb.com/power-generation

    Very applicable ABB video:
    http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/c4f611caf7b1e6afc1257f63003ff094.aspx

    Just maybe the QuarkX plant is being built in Sweden so ABB can design the robotic line and can work directly with Rossi on the necessary engineering and certifications required by the thermal power plant industry to allow QuarkX boiler replacements on existing and new designs.

    If Leonardo releases thermal power plant QuarkX boiler replacements, probably very few thermal power plant owner will buy. However if ABB offers them on the market, after declaring they have done extensive testing and were involved in the engineering, manufacturing and quality control, well the world’s thermal power plant owners could create a line around the planet.

    While I did place 3 x 10kW home ECats on order the 1st day they were taking orders, I don’t expect to see them for a very long time. It is one thing to sell QuarkX NUCLEAR REACTORS to highly qualified 24/7 on site engineers. It is entirely another thing to offer unattended QuarkX NUCLEAR REACTORS to homes that have no technical experience nor know what to do if a runaway occurs. Yes runaways will happen as things go wrong and break and Murphy is ALWAYS waiting in the wings to make an appearance.

    • DrD

      For that reason (possible runaway) I’m thinking of installing mine outdoors. My understanding is that he ran a quark to destruction and I assume it melted and shut down. A kind of fail safe, unlike conventional fission reactors with too many such disastors.
      Nevertheless I expect quite a long battle before the authorities permit us to use them.

      • Engineer48

        Melted and shut down would be an acceptable event as long as no high energy particles escaped as the reaction goes off axis.

        We are dealing with nuclear energy densities with are many millions of times greater than chemical. So even a very small amount of E = M C^2 will release a very large amount of energy and if the normal LENR reaction is not in control, which would be happening as it is a runaway, the energy release may be in the form of highly energetic not nice to humans particles and a LOT of heat.

        One thing I can safely predict is LENR will be weaponised. There is NO WAY this will not happen. The massive energy release of a very small amount of LENR reaction mass will make chemical based weapons look like toy fire crackers.

        • DrD

          Yes, the possiblity of radiation emerging during melt down occured to me too. I assume he monitored for it, THROUGHLY. As for weapons, it would need a trigger to initaite a very rapid reaction if such is possible and past events seem to indicate it is. Maybe wise not to discuss in more detail but if it’s possible I suppose it will happen anyway.

          • Engineer48

            Not nice to think about something the size of a pack of cigarettes replacing several 1,000t of TNT. So easy to carry, maybe even with a few real cigarettes.

            Yes it will happen. So we need to stop thinking about LENR reactors as 100% nice.

            Lenr reactors are NUCLEAR REACTORS! Capable of reaching deep inside matter, causing element transmutations and unleashing vast amounts of energy. Nice if it is SLOW. Not nice if it is FAST. Speed of reaction is just engineering.

          • DrD

            It’s frightening and for that reason I will say no more. Sifferkoll® recent post is interesting.

          • clovis ray

            Hi, E48
            lenr, maybe nuclear, but the E-cats are not nuclear anything,
            lenr whatever that may be can possibly be configured to produce nuclear i supose.
            But i don’t think the cat can be weaponized unless you know something i don’t and i’ve been around here a very long time.
            when the quark is tested we’ll see if it is nuclear, i bet not,
            trying to scare folks with this kind of talk is wrong, and you have NO proof of your claims, when the reactor runs away it simply stops working, failsafe, i have not heard Dr.R say any different, and until he does you might need to stop frightening folks, about something you know nothing about.
            lenr is a cool name but it is still unproven, but the E-CAT is a working product, which is patented, and the word lenr is no where in the text, see the difference, it is neither,lenr, nor is it cold fusion, Dr,R once said that he thought at the time that it was closer to cold fusion than lenr. I say it is neither. what has intrigued
            me is the torque production, my lord, what will be born out of his kitty cats, next, it is a bit overwhelming, but what new invention on this scale isn’t , I love it and we get to see it move into production, go Dr R,

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            The easiest way they could use LENR is with the new laser weapons, they are faster, have more accuracy and are more powerful than current projectile based weapons.
            The downside is the energy compsumption so probably they would use LENR reactors to power them.

        • Vance Larkin

          Have to agree with you on all points. I think many are assuming that because Rossi (and others) has not had any situations of danger or harm, that it would not be possible with reactors in homes all over…that is terribly false logic. I hope LENR ends up replacing all forms of non-renewable energy, but I also hope it takes many many years of testing and certification before anyone is allowed to use one in a home.

          Absolutely no question LENR will be weaponized assuming claims are true. To think otherwise would be like thinking that guns and nuclear technology would not have been used as weapons when discovered. Spot on here.

        • BillH

          I think they already invented bombs that explode at a much higher temperature AND give off deadly radiation. LENR might give you a nasty burn or turn your cornflakes to charcoal though, if you’re foolish enough to stay too close for too long, while it heats up.

          • Engineer48

            We know very little about how the underlying LENR reaction works but we do know it is a NUCLEAR reaction that causes fusion or transmutation of the original elements.

            All that is needed to get a BIG explosion is a high speed of fusion transmutations.

            BTW LENR NUCLEAR bombs do not require expensive to make radioactive materials. So LENR NUCLEAR bombs will be easy and cheap to make and will not emit radiation before detonation or create long lived radiation after detonation.

            So little collateral damage from use. Just a LOT of energy bang for the buck & in a very small package.

      • Vance Larkin

        If Rossi’s claims are in fact true, putting your reactor outdoors will do little to protect you from danger…I think that would be a false sense of safety.

        • DrD

          If Rossi’s claims are true then obviously it is safe indoors.

          • DrD

            If he’s mistaken then a melt down would be better out doors. Obviously, I could cope with a melt down indoors and even if he’s mistaken about the absence of radiation then I could also cope with that indoors but out doors would be safer.
            Nevertheless, this is all theoretical given that I am sure he wouldn’t get domestic certification if there were the slightest chance of these things endagangering life or property, at least not in most 1st world countries.

    • LT

      Note that ABB Robotics is also located in Västerås in Sweden

    • Alain Samoun

      Gas and electricity are responsible for fires and explosions every day,this doesn’t mean they can’t be used at homes.

      • Engineer48

        The energy density available in those chemical explosions is approx 5,000,000 times less than that available in NUCLEAR fusion (transmutation) explosions.

    • Bob

      “… probably very few thermal power plant owner will buy”
      .
      Should not be any issue. Rossi has stated he has $3 Billion dollars in pre-orders of the 1mw plants! Just selling the 1mw plants would make Leo Corp larger than ABB in revenues. $3 Billion is huge for initial sales! In comparison, the 89 million lawsuit is less than 3% of just the pre-orders!
      .
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/17/e-cat-commercial-rollout-leonardo-in-europe-industrial-heat-in-the-usa/
      .
      This was less than a year ago, so he should have even more by now.
      .

      • MasterBlaster7

        So, what is that? like 3000 plants at 1 million a piece?

        If there were 300-3000 potential customers…I would think there would be some rumblings from large corporations about this…at least some leaks…just saying.

      • BillH

        This is, in the world of software, what would be called vapour-ware. For £100+ you can have my spot in the queue for a domestic 10KW Ecat, any takers?

    • Mike

      I doubt it. ABB has left the power generation. Where do you find steam and gas turbines, steam boiler etc among the products? They have focussed on automation and power transmission. Both ASEA and BBC had a lot of products in pure power generation and I think everything has been sold. So, I doubt that ABB will return to the power generation in that sense.

      • psi2u2

        Rossi has several times named ABB as an entity he is in talks with for building robotic production lines, so the guess seems like a good one to me.

        • Mike

          Yes, robots, but not power generation.
          Asea and Brown Boveri both manufactured gas and steam turbines and related stuff…..but not any longer so I doubt that ABB will be interested in manufacturing the QuarkX

          • psi2u2

            Quite plausible scenarios have already been floated here about exactly why ABB would be highly interested in the Quark -X if in fact it performs as Rossi has suggested.

        • Bob

          Over the years, several big names keep popping up when customers are announced by Rossi. They never pan out.
          .
          Military customers in the past…many thought Boeing, Lockheed, Nasa. None ever revealed. Perhaps, but they never came forward and evidently Rossi “moved on” from them as they evidently did not pan out.
          .
          2012 customer… many thought Seimens as they had been posted by Rossi as working with him on electricity production. GE and other large companies. None ever revealed and again, Rossi moved on.
          .
          2013 customer… many speculated again on large companies. Turned out to be IH. A company formed to partner with Rossi.
          .
          2015 – 1 year test customer.. Many speculations about large companies, UL and Veritas certifications. Again, customer was a newly formed company headed by Rossi’s lawyer. We have no indication of any other involvement at this time. There could be, but we have no evidence yet. ERV turned out to be a one person consultant.
          .
          Do not get expectations high on this customer either. It almost certainly will not be any major corporation if past history is any indication.
          That does not mean the customer would be invalid or the test invalid.
          If it turns out the customer is another “shell” company however, it would really be disappointing.

          • morse

            The soap continues 🙂 I used to follow Rossi from day to day, now it is every few months….zzzzz

      • Roland

        http://new.abb.com/power-generation/gas-fired-power-plants

        May I suggest searching the ABB site, it’s quite informative.

    • roseland67

      48

      IF,
      ABB is partner, Rossi just became credible,
      But I have heard/seen nothing to that effect?
      Hope you’re right

  • Eol Awki

    Still waiting for the release of the test results of the year long testing.

    • Ged

      You and us all, but not till court it seems. Optimistically, June 12th with IH’s posting.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        What posting? What will happen on June 12th?

        • SD

          Official deadline for IH and Darden etc to respond to the lawsuit.

          • Teemu Soilamo

            Oh? I thought it was only like 30 days.

        • Ged

          That’s when IH has to post its answer to the lawsuit (if I remember right, too busy to dig it back out at the moment). Since both Rossi and IH (and lawyers and court) have the report, IH could post it then, hopefully.

        • help_lenr

          dead end for reply to court by IH

        • help_lenr

          * deadline

      • SD

        Based on my vague interpretation of Dewey’s posts, I’m expecting a countersuit right before that deadline. I could be wrong, but if I’m right you read it here first.

    • Bruce__H

      Still waiting for the factory production of ecats that was supposed to begin 5 years ago.

    • Pweet

      Perhaps you could ask how is going the production of the three new 1MW plants sold to the customer of the last 1MW test. I think he indicated a three month delivery and the test ended mid February. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

  • Ged

    You and us all, but not till court it seems. Optimistically, June 12th with IH’s posting.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      What posting? What will happen on June 12th?

      • SD

        Official deadline for IH and Darden etc to respond to the lawsuit.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          Oh? I thought it was only like 30 days.

          • akupaku

            Seems to me Rossi is getting more cautious in his comments, that is good in light of all the obviously overoptimistic statements he has made during last years.

      • Ged

        That’s when IH has to post its answer to the lawsuit (if I remember right, too busy to dig it back out at the moment). Since both Rossi and IH (and lawyers and court) have the report, IH could post it then, hopefully.

    • SD

      Based on my vague interpretation of Dewey’s posts, I’m expecting a countersuit right before that deadline. I could be wrong, but if I’m right you read it here first.

  • Ged

    It is a valid argument point. However, notice that people like Fermi had a Laurea. It was Italy’s highest degree back then. Should we honestly argue Fermi should not be considered a doctor? I guess you should make sure whenever you talk about the man who fathered the nuclear age, along with so much more, that you make the same caveat you do with Rossi there.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Rossi just said on the JONP that he will talk about the test “within 10 days from now.”

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      From wich test, the 1 Year test or the Quark test?

      • MorganMck

        Quark

      • SD

        Quark

    • SD

      But is it 10 days or 10’s of days?

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Or 1/10 of days?

        • SD

          I think it is actually tenths of days, as in N/10 days, where N=?

          • US_Citizen71

            N=100

        • help_lenr

          I hope these numbers not indicate a bad luck as the previous “tens days”.

    • Bob

      He already “talked about” the test today!
      Rossi is never too specific. In 10 days he can say the “test is over” and he will have “talked about” it.
      .
      On the other hand, we can always hope that we will have detailed reports of a detailed test, showing the inputs, outputs, measurement methods, calibration runs etc.
      .
      I am not “holding my breath” on this though, as historically what we hoped for has not been what has been released. My wager is that “the customer is very satisfied and that results cannot be released due to NDA’s” will be the release.

      • Pweet

        I think it will depend on whether he gets an agreement from the ‘customer’ to commit funds. If he does then we will hear very little. If he does not then I think the announcements will be elaborate and often and made for the same purpose as the present announcements, and that is to flush out a new cashed up partner.

  • Ged

    Nope, not moot at all, but a nice try. This is a matter of definition. A Nobel prize is Not a degree conference and has no barring on such matters. Instead, it points out the horrible illogic and flaws of your attempted reasoning. Rossi and Fermi have the same degree, the highest available in Italy at the time, along with all other Italian doctors of their era and before.

    If anyone wishes to continue looking for ways to discriminate against an entire nation/people and history, just because you or others don’t like one guy and wish to use logical fallacies to undermine him, be my guest. But this is my stop off the crazy train before it heads into insanity valley. Have fun :).

    • Albert Nilsson

      Totall moot, especially as he was also a professor. When you have that title, you are never anymore presented as Dr. NN, but as Professor NN. And whether a nobel price winner is a PhD or not is also moot, as he will be able to build a career on the price itself.

      It is somewhat important to keep track of the different systems in different countries when you meet people early in their careers and is evaluating their CVs. Later, after they have gotten other positions (such as Prof.) and eventual prizes, the earlier degrees looses their importance.

      A Laurea from Italy is saying less of the accomplishment than a PhD from many other places. But you should never judge a person on only the name of the degree. The difference between Fermi and Rossi is what they have done after their degree, and not the degree itself.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      This ‘degree’ hou-ha is reminiscent of the ‘birther’ discussions…
      So many people with degrees are incompetent. So many without degrees have become self-made success stories.
      But humans beings feel safety in categorizing, and that, sadly, sometimes leads to discrimination.
      Even amongst the brightest minds.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

  • psi2u2

    Rossi has been known to have a sense of humor, so I would anticipate that this is another example of his wit, perhaps relieving some frustration he might feel at the contretemps over the results of the one year test.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    *rolleys* It’s obviously a joke.

  • MasterBlaster7

    So, what is that? like 3000 plants at 1 million a piece?

    If there were 300-3000 potential customers…I would think there would be some rumblings from large corporations about this…at least some leaks…just saying.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Aw man…I just want a picture of the QuarkX

  • MasterBlaster7

    Aw man…I just want a picture of the QuarkX

  • wizkid

    Why does everybody thing the QuarkX is 100w? I think that it was a rumor that caught on. My notes indicate that as of 4/3/16 the QuarkX being tested was 500w and the preliminary R&D is (or was) to validate functionality for the “QuarkX Jet”, based on your reply to Gerard on April 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM. Please let me know if I am mistaken. I scanned the entire Rossi Blog for 100w (and 100 w) and found no statements from Rossi, but several from visitors that mention 100w. (Hank and Frank I think …) I’d personally rather see a 500 instead of a 100w unit, wouldn’t you guys? It really doesn’t matter very much, Que Sera, Sera …

      • wizkid

        500 W is found here on JoNP: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=85#comments
        This reference is 3 months newer than your reference, am I correct?

        Andrea Rossi

        April 3, 2016 at 7:06 PM

        (Gerard McEk:)

        • Roland

          You are, of course, correct about the reference; it remains to be seen what the output of the tested Quarks are and to what degree the basic design is scalable and what the engineering tradeoffs are at various scalings.

          I had the sense that the 100W Quark was an experiment in miniaturization to see if the desired performance parameters could be maintained in such a small form factor.

          The potential usefulness of much smaller Quarks than the one rated at 100W is also intriguing.

          There have been no remarks, to date, from the inventor on the upper limits of the output from a single Quark.

          • wizkid

            Thank you all for the replies! “Is the QuarkX developed far enough for this applications?” Rossi must be convinced that it is, Otherwise he would not speak of the preliminary R&D phase being closed. I think his secret customer is the QuarkX Jet guy, Peter Beck. Or with Peters backers, DARPA. He is THE Jet guy that works when you compare his work with Rossi’s QuarkX potential. Rocket Lab aka Peter Beck has a contract with US military agency Darpa. http://www.nbr.co.nz/ask-peter-beck

        • Your 500 W reference is to QuarkX Jet. But anyway, the final value remains to be seen.

        • DrD

          He has said repeatedly that his approach is based on the smallest unit being a 100W and therefore was gong to name it a “Quark” and explained why. The 500W and greater will be made by combining multiple Quarks. He said this many times.
          It’s all in the link Seppo quoted http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=66#comment-1155271.

          • DrD

            It has obvious manufacturing benefits (mass production – “robotisation”) if he only manufactures a single unit – being the Quark with a nominal 100Wt output.

  • Samec

    I must oppose to what Eng48 wrote here:
    1. LENR will “weaponized” in different way: as power source for cruisers, destroyers etc. Also there is heavy nightmare: Imagine few hundreds torpedoes with LENR power source and unlimited range, launched from some base by unscrupulous country. These will 24/7 in standby mode swimming at wide area, every few hours surface only small towed buoy with GPS receiver for augmenting exact position and receive RF signal instructions.
    Also a tonnes of new model of LENR powered drones.
    Rossi wrote on JONP, that LENR reactions are is too slow for (explosive) weapons.
    2. About dream of LENR in big powerplant business: Fees of transmisson system (grid) plus profit margin of powerplants plus VAT will cause this idea not competitive against the distributed model of electricity production i.e. own mini powerplant in every industrial factory, micro (10 kW system in every villa, etc.)

    • Roland

      Conventional explosives are differentiated into two classes on the basis of propagation velocity, the term ‘deflagrates’ refers to propagation rates below the speed of sound (343m/s), examples of this is are gunpowder or gasoline.

      The term ‘detonation’ is reserved for explosives that propagate at over the speed of sound such as the earliest replacement for gunpowder, nitrocellulose. The ‘fastest’ explosives propagate at just over twenty-three times the speed of sound (8,000m/s).

      Nuclear explosions initiate in a few millionths of a second and propagate stupendous energies at light speed (299,792,458m/s).

      LENR reactions that go exponential, ‘runaway’, appear to take several minutes to completely unfold, ME356 may have timed a few by now.

      So far a ‘runaway’ is safer than a gallon of gas and a book of matches.

      Will humanity weaponize LENR? Yup.

      Is paralleling the destructive power of nuclear weapons to LENR a useful analogy? Not particularly.

      Will it ever be possible to get a LENR apparatus to liberate all the potential energy in a given amount of fuel in milliseconds and produce an actual explosion? E=MC2 and fissionable materials have no known equivalents in any LENR theories or experiments to date.

      This doesn’t mean that there is no pathway to getting a LENR apparatus to detonate? So far a comparatively slow meltdown that an arthritic granny could out run is about it; though there’s no accounting for the dark side of human ingenuity.

      Your comments on the potential of the Quark in the context of industrial scale power production ignore several critical considerations:

      If ‘big power’ is part of the process they are no longer part of the opposition to LENR deployment and, instead, become part of a virtuous circle were their economic success through LENR will force the laggards to adopt or watch their business die.

      Secondly, average fuel costs/kWh for carbon plants are around $.03. The Quark, $.0014.

      Thirdly, costs for dumping a tonne of carbon into the atmosphere currently range upwards from US$5 in the developing world to a high of US$168 in, ta da, Sweden. Carbon emissions costs are expected to escalate sharply in the current low cost jurisdictions going forwards.

      And finally, getting licensing and insurance coverage in industrial settings is possible right now; meeting these conditions for a distributed system, whatever the merits of doing so, will require overcoming significantly higher thresholds under current regulations throughout the first world. The process of devising appropriate longterm regulations governing industrial LENR devices will be immeasurably aided by the engaged cooperation of the existing power generation and distribution entities.

      Over time LENR power systems will be directly integrated into every imaginable product and, undoubtedly, a number of currently unimaginable ones as well.

      Until that time comes every industrial process that moves to LENR replacements for existing power sources is an emphatic win for the planet, and every effort should be made to encourage that process to proceed as rapidly as possible.

    • Engineer48

      I did not write what you indicate I wrote. Please alter your incorrect statement as I don’t like others putting words in my mouth that I did not say. If you do wish to quote me, please include a link to my post.

  • Samec

    I must oppose to what Eng48 wrote here:
    1. LENR will “weaponized” in different way: as power source for cruisers, destroyers etc. Also there is heavy nightmare: Imagine few hundreds torpedoes with LENR power source and unlimited range, launched from some base by unscrupulous country. These will 24/7 in standby mode swimming at wide area, every few hours surface only small towed buoy with GPS receiver for augmenting exact position and receive RF signal instructions.
    Also a tonnes of new model of LENR powered drones.
    Rossi wrote on JONP, that LENR reactions are is too slow for (explosive) weapons.
    2. About dream of LENR in big powerplant business: Fees of transmisson system (grid) plus profit margin of powerplants plus VAT will cause this idea not competitive against the distributed model of electricity production i.e. own mini powerplant in every industrial factory, micro (10 kW system in every villa, etc.)

    • Roland

      Conventional explosives are differentiated into two classes on the basis of propagation velocity, the term ‘deflagrates’ refers to propagation rates below the speed of sound (343m/s), examples of this is are gunpowder or gasoline.

      The term ‘detonation’ is reserved for explosives that propagate at over the speed of sound such as the earliest replacement for gunpowder, nitrocellulose. The ‘fastest’ explosives propagate at just over twenty-three times the speed of sound (8,000m/s).

      Nuclear explosions initiate in a few millionths of a second and propagate stupendous energies at light speed (299,792,458m/s).

      LENR reactions that go exponential, ‘runaway’, appear to take several minutes to completely unfold, ME356 may have timed a few by now.

      So far a ‘runaway’ is safer than a gallon of gas and a book of matches.

      Will humanity weaponize LENR? Yup.

      Is paralleling the destructive power of nuclear weapons to LENR a useful analogy? Not particularly.

      Will it ever be possible to get a LENR apparatus to liberate all the potential energy in a given amount of fuel in milliseconds and produce an actual explosion? E=MC2 and fissionable materials have no known equivalents in any LENR theories or experiments to date.

      This doesn’t mean that there is no pathway to getting a LENR apparatus to detonate? So far a comparatively slow meltdown that an arthritic granny could out run is about it; though there’s no accounting for the dark side of human ingenuity.

      Your comments on the potential of the Quark in the context of industrial scale power production ignore several critical considerations:

      If ‘big power’ is part of the process they are no longer part of the opposition to LENR deployment and, instead, become part of a virtuous circle were their economic success through LENR will force the laggards to adopt or watch their business die.

      Secondly, average fuel costs/kWh for carbon plants are around $.03. The Quark, $.0014.

      Thirdly, costs for dumping a tonne of carbon into the atmosphere currently range upwards from US$5 in the developing world to a high of US$168 in, ta da, Sweden. Carbon emissions costs are expected to escalate sharply in the current low cost jurisdictions going forwards.

      And finally, getting licensing and insurance coverage in industrial settings is possible right now; meeting these conditions for a distributed system, whatever the merits of doing so, will require overcoming significantly higher thresholds under current regulations throughout the first world. The process of devising appropriate longterm regulations governing industrial LENR devices will be immeasurably aided by the engaged cooperation of the existing power generation and distribution entities.

      Over time LENR power systems will be directly integrated into every imaginable product and, undoubtedly, a number of currently unimaginable ones as well.

      Until that time comes every industrial process that moves to LENR replacements for existing power sources is an emphatic win for the planet, and every effort should be made to encourage that process to proceed as rapidly as possible.

      • clovis ray

        The lenr, could, might, be band, but E-cat will not, it is proven safe, no harmful radiation or radioactive material, the if an E-CAT were made to overheat, it melts down and stops. failsafe. all this talk about explosions is crap talk, sure matter holds a lot of energy, but how do you trigger it, it not easy ask the hotfusion junkies, they have been on that road for a hell of a long time, and millions of dollars and they are still looking, so forget that crap, it only blows people and stuff up, E-CAT is a life saver, its a world saver, not a world destroyer.

        • Engineer48

          Clovis,

          If only that was the case.

          Many govs will invest massive money to find how to make the LENR reaction do a very fast and big area reaction that will go BOOM! As while the nickel or whatever is trying to melt, the much faster LENR energy release reaction will BLOW APART the just starting to melt nickel.
          .

          • clovis ray

            close but no cigar what you say is as unproven as any other Theory that is all

    • Engineer48

      I did not write what you indicate I wrote. Please alter your incorrect statement as I don’t like others putting words in my mouth that I did not say. If you do wish to quote me, please include a link to my post.

  • clovis ray

    You forget that Dr.R is no dummy, he has built the most important machine in history , And has had the most professional experienced measurement people, in the world working with him, the very largest,
    he could build such a device in his sleep. believe it.

  • BillH

    This is, in the world of software, what would be called vapour-ware. For £100+ you can have my spot in the queue for a domestic 10KW Ecat, any takers?

  • Roland

    I’m somewhat surprised that the most immediate implication of there being 3 Quarks under test has gone unmentioned; there are 3 output modalities the Quark can be configured for and I suspect that all 3 are being tested for simultaneously.

    • wizkid

      I think Rossi uses the 3 Quarks to maintain SSM behavior, as he commented on frequently during the improvements phase of the 1MW plant. Just saying, Rossi has talked about cluster control with the 1MW plant.

      • Axil Axil

        You are correct.

      • Pweet

        And yet he didn’t do that during the one year test of the 1MW plant. That was one thing I found astounding and I have previously commented on it.
        You may recall that whenever he was asked for a running report on the test he would often reply it was operating in ssm. I take that to mean the whole plant in ssm otherwise the comment makes no sense. I always thought the purpose of multiple reactors was to always have the plant operating partially in ssm and partially not. I watched for the reports to see if this ever changed but after many months it did not so I mentioned it on this site, probably more than once.

        • wizkid

          If the 1MW plant is running in 90-99% SSM, it still saves 90-99% of the power to drive it. If it goes up from COP of 3 to a COP of 50 using SSM methods, why would you quibble about sipping a few watts now and again? IT’S STILL COP increase of 47 compared to without the SSM… I suspect Rossi has a COP of 50 on the QuarkX(n) model, too. That would be very nice indeed!

          • Pweet

            My point is not about COP.
            My point is, with four reactors, (originally a hundred reactors) the logical thing would be to run reactor 1 in driven mode while the other three were in ssm.
            Then run reactor 2 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Then run reactor 3 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Then run reactor 4 in driven mode and the other three in ssm.
            Thus there would always be just one reactors in driven mode while the rest would be in ssm.
            This would keep the input power level at a continuous low level and the output power would also be at a more stable level.
            Running the whole plant in either ‘all reactors driven mode’ and then ‘all reactors in ssm’ would result in huge variations of both input power and output power levels.
            From what I can see the only way it would be considered a suitable method of operation would be if the results were all just being made up, in which case it doesn’t matter how it is operated.
            Now it might be that Mr Rossi doesn’t care how his results are perceived in the public arena but if that is the case, people should hardly be surprised when some others look at these reports and conclude “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.”, even though the 1MW plant was nowhere near Denmark.

          • wizkid

            You are thinking about a piston engine that uses spark plugs and a distributor, I am pretty sure that Andrea is working with atomic theory. It makes a bit of difference, but I can appreciate your dilemma.

          • Steve Swatman

            Indeed “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” .

  • Karl Venter

    Why cant Rossi post a picture of the Quark
    Its covered by a patent?
    Its not that easy to replicate his dogbone ask MFMP let alone a quark
    Surely Rossi has got the patent on this and any obvious eureka insights he will have covered with his patent
    Seems strange that he would not show us a picture ?

    • Engineer48

      Rossi has made it very clear, he is not interested in publicly sharing his trade secrets and will only be doing demos to paying customers.

      • DrD

        And it isn’t covered by a patent.
        Only applied for.

        • Karl Venter

          Hi DrD

          Sorry I thought he said that his previous patents cover the quark as well?

          • DrD

            I don’t think we have even seen the application for the QuarkX (or E-CatX). I remember him saying he was working on the patent after he learned how to extract electric power (Jan 2016?). He has to submit it before he sells any or else the patent is invalid. I know that because some of my products were held back until i could complete the patent applications. I suppose it classes as being in the public domain.

          • Warthog

            “He has to submit it before he sells any or else the patent is invalid.”

            No. First sale (or publication) starts a twelve-month time countdown in which he must file before the end of month twelve. It may be otherwise in other countries, but the above is the rule in the USA.

          • DrD

            Can you give chapter n verse on that, it would be helpful to know as our US patent attorneys say otherwise.

          • Warthog

            Well, that is what my patent attorneys always told me (26 issued patents). Since I worked in R&D at a major chemical company for half of those patents, I was often called on to give presentations at technical conferences outside the company. I had to be very careful about “when”, as well as “what” to talk about.

          • georgehants

            Keeping a fully open-mind as always, this is Wonderful news with just a couple of minor drawbacks.
            A secret test.
            A secret customer.
            A secret unconfirmed result, so far.
            But most interesting, Mr. Rossi again does not seem to be concerned with receiving a fully valid patent on his amazing discovery to protect him from another debacle with a new, customer, financier etc.
            A patent describing the process in full detail necessary for a person, skilled in the art, to reproduce at will.
            For a man clearly wishing for some deserved, sensible, financial gain from his work this seems just a little strange.
            I would assume such a patent would be worth more than a hill of beans.

          • Observer

            Why would you think he has not filed a patent application? He has been working on the Quark X for some time now, and patent applications are not immediately published.

          • georgehants

            Observer, I have no idea if he has filed for such a a patent, but going by known Facts, he has not received such a patent on his original e-cat after it being around for five + years.
            This patent would have fully protected him in his dealings with IH etc.
            I deal only in Facts and Evidence with comments and mark my opinions clearly, speculation that he has applied for such a patent is reasonable opinion that cannot be ignored.

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi said that his patent covered the quark. Is this not true?

          • Engineer48

            Axil,

            That is how I remember his statement as well.

          • georgehants

            Axil, There is not in existence after five+ years a valid patent giving details sufficient for a person skilled in the art to reproduce the most basic e-cat.
            A Fact that I am referring to, everything beyond that is speculation and I cannot comment on such speculation.
            You are surely correct in what you say Mr. Rossi said.

          • Engineer48

            Yet several have claimed to have replicated the patent.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, logic, if such a patent existed then anybody skilled in the art could reproduce it at will.
            We would have MFMP and thousands of others confirming the technology.
            Please lets not go round and round the houses with things that are self explanatory.

          • Engineer48

            The art of crafting a patent is to give away just enough information to get the patent issued but not enough to easily copy it nor disclose really proprietary information.

            Don’t believe the “Skilled in the Art” bit. Just window dressing.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, your reply has moved into the land of complete unconfirmed speculation with no Evidence of any kind to justify it.
            If such a patent existed then we would know about it after five + years and it would be top priority Evidence in the Rossi/IH capitalistic comedy.

          • Engineer48

            George,

            I live in the real world of patents, having had several issued and fought a few patent battles. Please don’t tell me how patents work as you seem to have no 1st hand knowledge.

            I have a very dear friend, now retired, who was a patent attorney / engineer for all his working life. He did all my patent work and taught me how the patent system really works and YUP it is designed to generate long term income for patent attorneys.

            It is a game that is played between the inventor, government patent office, patent attorney and would be patent ripper offers, with the goal of minimal disclosure in the patent and max cost to any who use the patent without license.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, I am stating Facts as they are known now, as I wrote above I cannot comment on any crazy situations where somebody has a patent but does not let anybody know for five + years.
            If Rossi had a valid patent on the e-cat technology logic dictates that it would be inconceivable to not be an open part of the defense against IH.
            Please lets go no further with things that are beyond reasonable comprehension, such as your patent law and stick with Facts as we know them with a proviso that your view could be perfectly correct in the long run.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi has stated the QuarkX technology is covered by his existing patent, which has no mention of IH.

            http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/United%20States%20Patent%20-%20Andrea%20Rossi.pdf

            So far no one has challenged it, so until that happens, the patent is what it is.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, my god, Rossi says again.
            Fact, there is no known patent for any of Rossi’s work that allows the reproduction of the discovery by anybody skilled in the art.
            That is what I have said from the beginning and it is an indisputable Fact.
            Thanks for chat.

          • Engineer48

            It is not an indisputable fact at all, it is just your opinion.

          • Jarea

            You can see that QuarkX technology patent being covered by ecat patent is also an opinion from Rossi so long nobody can replicate QuarkX. I think that is quite a fact.

          • Ged

            Just depends on if the QuarkX uses a similar enough fuel and boiler concept. If so, it is covered. Simple as that. Unfortunately, we know nothing about the working of the QuarkX to determine this.

          • Engineer48

            People / companies intent on doing their own version of the ECat will not go public.

            You actually think someone who had replicated the ECat would be announcing it before they find a way around Rossi’s patent?

            Good way to waste a lot of money and engineering time.

            I would bet there are replications in process but you will never see them until they have their own patent protection and are ready to start commercial sales, a process that could easily take at least 5 years.

          • Pweet

            Again, always possible; but we seem to be depending on more and more very low probabilities to support an argument for something which has so far not been proven, when it could so easily could have been. The probabilities are multiplied until eventually the end point has to be considered practically impossible. I think were pretty much there now.

          • Engineer48

            Chapman,

            Sounds interesting.

            Look what I have done all my career is to collect data points from as many sources as possible and see it they fit some claimed operational model of a new device. If they don’t fit, then it is likely the claimed data and device is vapourware.

            So far, after following this for many years, there are very few data points that do not fit the ECat being a real world operational device that basically works as Rossi explains and is in continual development.

            Should add my potential client’s engineers and I, do not expect to see a finely polished and highly developed ECat reactor. What they expect to see is a product in continual product development, that they can learn to work with and maybe assist the maturity of the device. For them, at this stage, a COP of 2.6 would be wonderful, despite such a low result allowing IH to pay Rossi nothing for the 1 year trial.

            It would seem real world engineers have different expectations than that of Venture Capitalists.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Could this be why we are seeing delay, delay tactics?

          • georgehants

            Engineer, I don’t believe what you just wrote.
            Please give a link to a copy of a Rossi patent from which anybody can replicate his claims.

          • Pweet

            and it needs to be a patent referring to lenr, not just an electric heater.

          • Jarea

            +1

          • Observer

            Needs?

            Why?

          • Engineer48

            You really do need to read the patent and have some understanding of how the claimed “Rossi Effect” works.

            My retired patent attorney did some research and told me the patent was a clever patent that did not give away much information, yet retained the ability to defend against any who figure out how to copy the “Rossi Effect”.

            As he taught me, patents are there to give away as little as possible and still be able to provide strong defense against patent transgressors. They are defensive structures.

          • Ged

            The patent is fine. I’ve read through it a couple of times, and there is no need to refer to LENR just the fuel process and energy capture/heat transfer method. If the QuarkX uses the same general fuel and boiler system, then it is also covered. Can’t say for certain though, as don’t know enough about the QuarkX.

          • Engineer48

            It would seem you have either not read what I wrote about the “patent game” or have decided to reject it.

            Either way it is still just your “unskilled in the arts of the patent creation process” opinion.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, with respect I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word Fact and known Evidence.

          • Ged

            The patent is good enough, for now. If it isn’t, then just a matter of challenging it. As far as I see, there is enough info for replication; but no one had tried to replicate the design in that patent (a wafer, NOT hotcat like tube everyone uses).

          • georgehants

            Ged, not remotely concerning my clear statement of Fact.

          • Engineer48

            George,

            Your “clear statement of Fact” is just your opinion and nothing more.

            You have no idea if there are 100’s of companies or not attempting to use the Rossi patent to build their version of the ECat. For sure none will publicly disclose what they are doing.

            You might but they will not.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            So today is June 7. Rossi has no obligation to share anything with anyone, but I certainly hope we hear about the test.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            Oh, now I read below – test extended another week, but results so far positive.

          • Pweet

            From what I can see, his existing patent has no mention of lenr either. I would have though that was essential if the purpose of it was to protect a lenr technology. He has a patent for the construction of an electric water heater.

          • Engineer48

            Well have you actually read it?

            My retired patent attorney did and said it was very clever.

            BTW the USPTO will not issue a patent if LENR or Cold Fusion is mentioned. So the patent attorney needs to exercise skillful creative writing to get past the “NO LENR” gate keepers.

          • Pweet

            Yes I read it and I thought it twas clever too, mostly because it didn’t mention lenr or cold fusion, or any other method of producing the excess energy. I suppose that must mean it covers any method of producing excess heat when one is finally proven. So yes, that was really clever, so long as it holds up when something is actually discovered and demonstrated. And I don’t think it will.
            I must also confess to having reservations about your retired patent attorney. I’m sure he was very good and all but he seems to be saying things that I don’t entirely agree with.

          • Ged

            It describes the fuels and mix. That is no different than describing a petrol engine by the mix of air, gasoline, and spark. No need to use the word “combustion”.

          • Pweet

            That’s because combustion is a well known and proven process and end point of an expected exothermic reaction.
            lenr on the other hand is a little less common and not at all expected.
            I think it at least deserves a mention.

          • Engineer48

            Mention LENR or Cold Fusions to the USPTO and it is patent in waste paper bin time stamped with “REJECTED”.

          • Pweet

            Yes, unless you include a working prototype.
            If you have a working prototype you can even lodge an application for a perpetual motion machine.
            It’s this last requirement that seems to present a stumbling block for most. Well so far, everyone.
            I think it must be a problem for Mr Rossi too, which is strange because he had one heating his factory. For two years no less. All very strange.

          • Ged

            See, you are using things like common sense and logical reasoning and trying to apply that to patents :). I’ve read a good number of patents in different fields and never once didn’t come away incredibly frustrated and/or dissatisfied. People won’t use the real or common names to concepts making it completely a slog fest to skim for the important info or data you want. I hate it. But that is how the game is played.

            There is a reason though. A description is specific and unchanging, but a conceptual term -can- change. What does the acronym LENR mean? There are a half dozen different names, and different theories. If you based your patent solely on a concept and science progressed and redefined that concept, you could be left high and dry. Of course, I doubt that is actually why reading patents is a form of torture, but it helps make sense of it a bit.

          • Pweet

            Ged,
            Finally, a statement I can’t argue with. You win.

          • Observer

            His first priority is mass production. He is not going to power the world with three prototypes.

          • Ged

            Mentioning LENR is irrelevent. The description of fuel process, device, and how energy is transfered is all that matters. I.e. how it works. LENR is just a buzz term, means nothing for a patent or device.

          • Engineer48

            Correct. What I was told by my friend.

          • Pweet

            Then I eagerly await seeing how it goes if and when someone else lodges a patent application for a lenr device along with a detailed claim on the fuel used and the method of preparing it, and how to make the reaction work, and calls the process lenr, and submits it with a working prototype; all the things which Rossi has NOT done.

            If his patent is all that is needed to protect a lenr reactor I need to urgently lodge an application for my space ship warp drive. I can reveal here, it Is powered by Di lithium crystals but I wont be mentioning that, and I’m not telling anyone how I get the energy out of it either. That will just be my little secret. Sorry.

          • Ged

            Rossi’s patent does describe all those aspects. And yes, you could file for such a patent given sufficient description. Remember, a patent is simply only a description of a process or method. So, yours would be titled something like “A method for locomotion by way of dilithium crystal mediated reactions”. Go get cracking :).

          • Pweet

            Thanks Ged, I’m right onto it.
            Do you think it would be too early for me to be taking pre-orders?

          • Axil Axil

            What about United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

          • Pweet

            Eng 48, Just out of curiosity then, do you see Mr Rossi’s much publicized USA patent giving his ecat any protection at all?

          • Observer

            It is self evident that anyone who can not reproduce an e-cat is not skilled in the art of making e-cats.

            Anyone that can reproduce an e-cat is skilled in the art of making e-cats.

          • georgehants

            Observer, what are you talking about.
            It seems that the lengths some people will go to try and maintain they are right when they are completely wrong is unlimited.
            You are saying that MFMP etc. are incompetent twerps.

          • magicsnd1

            George, thanks for your confidence. But we have NOT claimed what others incorrectly attribute to us. If you want to claim that the (Lugano) device described in Rossi’s patent has been successfully replicated, please don’t cite MFMP as an example. Our work in this regard continues, but to date we have not seen excess heat greater than the range of measurement error.

          • Ged

            But Rossi’s patent describes a wafer not a Lugano like device, that is IH’s patent applications. So indeed, MFMP has not yet attempted a replication of the patent.

          • Skip

            I resemble that remark.
            😉

          • Pweet

            Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel,..
            I can’t flaw the logic however so it must be true.

          • Ged

            Welcome to the wonderful world of law! Good luck keeping your sanity.

          • Sam

            There could be a distinct difference between the E-cat – and – it’s fuel or how you operate it.

          • Ged

            No one, not even MFMP has tried replicating the patent’s wafer design. They have successfully replicated the fuel though and gotten effects. So what is the issue?

          • Observer

            George, Some facts are not known until after you need to know them. (Like whether or not your chair can support your weight.) Still you sit down based on a best guess.

          • georgehants

            Observer, waffle, the Facts I am giving are indisputable if you choose to interpret them beyond the laws of Gravity etc. then I suppose nobody can stop you.

          • Observer

            The only facts you have stated is that you do not yet know the facts. You are right in saying I can not dispute your ignorance (of said facts).

          • georgehants

            Observer, the Fact I have stated is that there is no known published copy of any patent from Rossi that a person skilled in the art can use to replicate a e-cat with a COP above 1.
            Enough laughs for us all here today reading the reply’s.
            Ha, no wonder the World is in the state it is.

          • Ged

            You have no evidence to back up that claim. Have you tried to replicate the patent in good faith, and can you prove you are skilled in the art? If not, you are making baseless statements.

          • Omega Z

            George,

            I’ve decided to replicate the Wright Brothers airplane in their patent.
            Follows is the shape and material I plan to use for the wings.

            What could possibly go wrong.

            http://us.123rf.com/450wm/evegenesis/evegenesis1501/evegenesis150100499/36100899-block.jpg?ver=6

            It doesn’t matter what Rossi provides in his patent. No one follows his recipe. They change the cookware and ingredients at will. Everyone has a better or faster way to do it. Forever..

          • Looks pretty similar to me, OZ, so why not. You might consider leaving out the propeller too, just as most experimenters omit any kind of EM driver from their LENR ‘replications’. Good luck!

          • Pweet

            I’m guessing he will protect his IP by making the reactors so cheap that the competition can’t compete.
            That has been the plan so far, and it seems to be working.
            In fact no-one has put an ecat of the market in the last five years so it’s working really well.

          • georgehants

            Pweet, many thanks for good reply that Mr. Rossi has maintained from the beginning.
            Such thinking has of course now been shown to be full of dangers, that I am sure he would have corrected by now.
            The other logical reason why nobody has put a product to market is clearly that Mr. Rossi is not genuine and we have all been waiting for Roses to grow upside down.
            That is the point of my comment, just a few Facts on the situation.

          • Pweet

            quote from above,
            “The other logical reason why nobody has put a product to market is clearly that Mr. Rossi is not genuine and we have all been waiting for Roses to grow upside down.”
            Yes, but If I keep saying that I will be shown the door. And we wouldn’t want that now would we?

          • georgehants

            Pweet, ha, not so, I think, Admin is very fair and only guards against committed, non-scientific people with closed minds who have been taught by a crazy scientific education that nothing beyond preached Dogma can be True.
            I hope you like me and all scientifically able people we keep our minds fully open but are fully aware of Facts and Evidence.
            Bias in either direction is incompetent.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Frank does a good job culling out the radicals who have made other sites impossible to comment on because of illogical rants and personal attacks. Must take a lot of time, it is appreciated.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            The patent filing is not a good idea as it may seem at first.

            Why? Because there is a lot of interest in this technology and if you disclose the full recipe, how can you be sure that the patent will be granted? They can deny it with the simply excuse that “it violates physics law”

            And also, once the recipe is available, any established big energy company could make their own Quark X inside of their current centrals and no one would know about it. They wont pay a single $ for the technology and only get the profits.
            That is the true problem with the patent of this technology

          • Engineer48

            A patent is only there for the patent attorney to use in court to sue an unauthorised user or use to defend an action against the patent.

            Patent attorneys make little from crafting patents and make most of their income suing others or defending against those that try to nullify the patent.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes Engineer48, i understand what you say and I agree with you when you say that a patent should reveal the minimun amount of info to prevent IP stealing.

            What I wanted to state here is that, if you reveal a patent in a so detailed way that everyone can replicate it (as some skeptics use this argument against Rossi patent) then your patent would be more a problem than a sollution.

            That is why it is so difficult to replicate it. And also, we only would know of replications of people like MFMP or Parkomov as the people from big companies would have a NDA and wont say anything even if they have a working E-Cat.

            And yes, we have little info for replication but after lugano the success of some people increased so in fact we have replications.

      • Karl Venter

        I wonder why he talks about it so much then?
        More than a thousand words??

  • Karl Venter

    Why cant Rossi post a picture of the Quark
    Its covered by a patent?
    Its not that easy to replicate his dogbone ask MFMP let alone a quark
    Surely Rossi has got the patent on this and any obvious eureka insights he will have covered with his patent
    Seems strange that he would not show us a picture ?

    • Steve Swatman

      I might suggest that any Photograph, detail, data published just gives the sceptics more ammunition to disseminate and create negative commentary about, Mr Rossi appears to have learned quite a few lessons over the last few years. Even a single picture to feed a frenzy of sceptical claptrap.

      • Karl Venter

        You will always have skeptics in everything from religion to whether the earth is flat or not – you will always have skeptics
        And giving a picture or not is not going to make them go away

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Pictures are more than just pictures, hence if there are none it is less likely they might be interpreted, geo-localized, and peeped into.
          Before one launches a boomerang one has to know where he or she is standing.

          • Karl Venter

            Respectfully .
            Do we really care what the skeptics say – we have heard all their arguments Rossi is a fraud etc etc etc etc
            I still follow in the Hope/Belief that he has ” IT”
            Am I 100% sure – No
            Would a picture help my drive to convince others we are nearly there ? for sure

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            Absolutely. Who cares about skeptics. They are like bad dreams at night: the light of a new dawn shines darkness away.

        • Steve Swatman

          You are correct, NOT giving a picture however, will give them (the sceptics) less to rip apart and they will just have to keep repeating the same old, same old.

          If you do not give the enemy ammunition he can throw old rocks.

    • Engineer48

      Rossi has made it very clear, he is not interested in publicly sharing his trade secrets and will only be doing demos to paying customers.

      • DrD

        And it isn’t covered by a patent.
        Only applied for.

        • Karl Venter

          Hi DrD

          Sorry I thought he said that his previous patents cover the quark as well?

          • DrD

            I don’t think we have even seen the application for the QuarkX (or E-CatX). I remember him saying he was working on the patent after he learned how to extract electric power (Jan 2016?). He has to submit it before he sells any or else the patent is invalid. I know that because some of my products were held back until i could complete the patent applications. I suppose it classes as being in the public domain.

          • Warthog

            “He has to submit it before he sells any or else the patent is invalid.”

            No. First sale (or publication) starts a twelve-month time countdown in which he must file before the end of month twelve. It may be otherwise in other countries, but the above is the rule in the USA.

          • DrD

            Can you give chapter n verse on that, it would be helpful to know as our US patent attorneys say otherwise.
            EDIT: I found it! It certainly does read as though our attorneys are wrong, i.e. one years grace.

          • Warthog

            Well, that is what my patent attorneys always told me (26 issued patents). Since I worked in R&D at a major chemical company for half of those patents, I was often called on to give presentations at technical conferences outside the company. I had to be very careful about “when”, as well as “what” to talk about.

      • Karl Venter

        I wonder why he talks about it so much then?
        More than a thousand words??

  • Um… Clean Planet just filed a patent for a reactor with COP 33. They claim neutron emissions and detection and put forth a theory about heavy electrons causing higher fusion rates via tunneling.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3306-Mizuno-USPTO-Patent-Application-June-2-2016/

    Those Japanese pranksters! /s

  • Um… Clean Planet just filed (EDIT: correction, filed in July 2014, now public) a patent for a reactor with COP 33. They claim neutron emissions and detection and put forth a theory about heavy electrons causing higher fusion rates via tunneling.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3306-Mizuno-USPTO-Patent-Application-June-2-2016/

    Those Japanese pranksters! /s

  • we-cat

    Dear Frank,

    What about a blog reader like “www.rossilivecat.com” on your site? The other two are down and i think you would attract a few extra viewers.

    Cheers,

    JB

  • we-cat

    Dear Frank,

    What about a blog reader like “www.rossilivecat.com” on your site? The other two are down and i think you would attract a few extra viewers.

    Cheers,

    JB

  • LuFong

    We are all skeptics, are we not?

  • Warthog

    I wouldn’t laugh too hard. Remember the photo of Rossi with a stethoscope, listening to “something” going on in one of the e-Cat reactors in the 1MW setup.

  • HHiram

    So, it’s June, has the test started yet?

  • Teemu Soilamo
  • Teemu Soilamo
  • Pweet

    I think it will depend on whether he gets an agreement from the ‘customer’ to commit funds. If he does then we will hear very little. If he does not then I think the announcements will be elaborate and often and made for the same purpose as the present announcements, and that is to flush out a new cashed up partner.

  • Pweet

    Perhaps you could ask how is going the production of the three new 1MW plants sold to the customer of the last 1MW test. I think he indicated a three month delivery and the test ended mid February. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

  • Engineer48

    Clovis,

    If only that was the case.

    Many govs will invest massive money to find how to make the LENR reaction do a very fast and big area reaction that will go BOOM! As while the nickel or whatever is trying to melt, the much faster LENR energy release reaction will BLOW APART the just starting to melt nickel.
    .

  • akupaku

    Seems to me Rossi is getting more cautious in his comments, that is good in light of all the obviously overoptimistic statements he has made during last years.

  • pg

    Andrea Rossi

    June 7, 2016 at 9:06 AM
    PG:
    Yes, we need more information before taking important decisions. The test will be a week longer.
    F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      What information would they need
      and what would the important decisions possibly be?

      • Steve Swatman

        Pushing the Quarks to depletion,meltdown, physical destruction, i would want to see how far that goes, what are the results, how dangerous it might be, what could I do to control it.

  • pg

    Andrea Rossi

    June 7, 2016 at 9:06 AM
    PG:
    Yes, we need more information before taking important decisions. The test will be a week longer.
    F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      What information would they need
      and what would the important decisions possibly be?

      • Steve Swatman

        Pushing the Quarks to depletion,meltdown, physical destruction, i would want to see how far that goes, what are the results, how dangerous it might be, what could I do to control it.

  • georgehants

    Keeping a fully open-mind as always, this is Wonderful news with just a couple of minor drawbacks.
    A secret test.
    A secret customer.
    A secret unconfirmed result, so far.
    But most interesting, Mr. Rossi again does not seem to be concerned with receiving a fully valid patent on his amazing discovery to protect him from another debacle with a new, customer, financier etc.
    A patent describing the process in full detail necessary for a person, skilled in the art, to reproduce at will.
    For a man clearly wishing for some deserved, sensible, financial gain from his work this seems just a little strange.
    I would assume such a patent would be worth more than a hill of beans.

    • Observer

      Why would you think he has not filed a patent application? He has been working on the Quark X for some time now, and patent applications are not immediately published.

      • georgehants

        Observer, I have no idea if he has filed for such a a patent, but going by known Facts, he has not received such a patent on his original e-cat after it being around for five + years.
        This patent would have fully protected him in his dealings with IH etc.
        I deal only in Facts and Evidence with comments and mark my opinions clearly, speculation that he has applied for such a patent is reasonable opinion that cannot be ignored.
        Only circumstantial Evidence, but Mr. Rossi has not, I think, announced that he has applied for such a patent.

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi said that his patent covered the quark. Is this not true?

          • Engineer48

            Axil,

            That is how I remember his statement as well.

          • georgehants

            Axil, There is not in existence after five+ years a valid patent giving details sufficient for a person skilled in the art to reproduce the most basic e-cat.
            A Fact that I am referring to, everything beyond that is speculation and I cannot comment on such speculation.
            You are surely correct in what you say Mr. Rossi said.

          • Engineer48

            Yet several have claimed to have replicated the patent.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, logic, if such a patent existed then anybody skilled in the art could reproduce it at will.
            We would have MFMP and thousands of others confirming the technology.
            Please lets not go round and round the houses with things that are self explanatory.

          • Engineer48

            The art of crafting a patent is to give away just enough information to get the patent issued but not enough to easily copy it nor disclose really proprietary information.

            Don’t believe the “Skilled in the Art” bit. Just window dressing.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, your reply has moved into the land of complete unconfirmed speculation with no Evidence of any kind to justify it.
            If such a patent existed then we would know about it after five + years and it would be top priority Evidence in the Rossi/IH capitalistic comedy.

          • Observer

            It takes on average 3 years for a patent to issue. For any fast moving field, the patent is obsolete by the time it is granted.

          • Engineer48

            George,

            I live in the real world of patents, having had several issued and fought a few patent battles. Please don’t tell me how patents work as you seem to have no 1st hand knowledge.

            I have a very dear friend, now retired, who was a patent attorney / engineer for all his working life. He did all my patent work and taught me how the patent system really works and YUP it is designed to generate long term income for patent attorneys.

            It is a game that is played between the inventor, government patent office, patent attorney and would be patent ripper offers, with the goal of minimal disclosure in the patent and max cost to any who use the patent without license.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, I am stating Facts as they are known now, as I wrote above I cannot comment on any crazy situations where somebody has a patent but does not let anybody know for five + years.
            If Rossi had a valid patent on the e-cat technology logic dictates that it would be inconceivable to not be an open part of the defense against IH.
            Please lets go no further with things that are beyond reasonable comprehension, such as your patent law and stick with Facts as we know them with a proviso that your view could be perfectly correct in the long run.

          • Engineer48

            Rossi has stated the QuarkX technology is covered by his existing patent, which has no mention of IH.

            http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/United%20States%20Patent%20-%20Andrea%20Rossi.pdf

            So far no one has challenged it, so until that happens, the patent is what it is.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, my god, Rossi says again.
            Fact, there is no known patent for any of Rossi’s work that allows the reproduction of the discovery by anybody skilled in the art.
            That is what I have said from the beginning and it is an indisputable Fact.
            Thanks for chat.

          • Engineer48

            It is not an indisputable fact at all, it is just your opinion.

          • Jarea

            You can see that QuarkX technology patent being covered by ecat patent is also an opinion from Rossi so long nobody can replicate QuarkX. I think that is quite a fact.

          • Ged

            Just depends on if the QuarkX uses a similar enough fuel and boiler concept. If so, it is covered. Simple as that. Unfortunately, we know nothing about the working of the QuarkX to determine this.

          • Engineer48

            People / companies intent on doing their own version of the ECat will not go public.

            You actually think someone who had replicated the ECat would be announcing it before they find a way around Rossi’s patent?

            Good way to waste a lot of money and engineering time.

            I would bet there are replications in process but you will never see them until they have their own patent protection and are ready to start commercial sales, a process that could easily take at least 5 years.

          • Pweet

            Again, always possible; but we seem to be depending on more and more very low probabilities to support an argument for something which has so far not been proven, when it could so easily could have been. The probabilities are multiplied until eventually the end point has to be considered practically impossible. I think were pretty much there now.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, I don’t believe what you just wrote.
            Please give a link to a copy of a Rossi patent from which anybody can replicate his claims.

          • Pweet

            and it needs to be a patent referring to lenr, not just an electric heater.

          • Jarea

            +1

          • Observer

            Needs?

            Why?

          • Engineer48

            You really do need to read the patent and have some understanding of how the claimed “Rossi Effect” works.

            My retired patent attorney did some research and told me the patent was a clever patent that did not give away much information, yet retained the ability to defend against any who figure out how to copy the “Rossi Effect”.

            As he taught me, patents are there to give away as little as possible and still be able to provide strong defense against patent transgressors. They are defensive structures.

          • Ged

            The patent is fine. I’ve read through it a couple of times, and there is no need to refer to LENR just the fuel process and energy capture/heat transfer method. If the QuarkX uses the same general fuel and boiler system, then it is also covered. Can’t say for certain though, as don’t know enough about the QuarkX.

          • Engineer48

            It would seem you have either not read what I wrote about the “patent game” or have decided to reject it.

            Either way it is still just your “unskilled in the arts of the patent creation process” opinion.

          • georgehants

            Engineer, with respect I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word Fact and known Evidence.

          • Ged

            The patent is good enough, for now. If it isn’t, then just a matter of challenging it. As far as I see, there is enough info for replication; but no one had tried to replicate the design in that patent (a wafer, NOT hotcat like tube everyone uses).

          • georgehants

            Ged, not remotely concerning my clear statement of Fact.

          • Engineer48

            George,

            Your “clear statement of Fact” is just your opinion and nothing more.

            You have no idea if there are 100’s of companies or not attempting to use the Rossi patent to build their version of the ECat. For sure none will publicly disclose what they are doing.

            You might but they will not.

          • Pweet

            From what I can see, his existing patent has no mention of lenr either. I would have though that was essential if the purpose of it was to protect a lenr technology. He has a patent for the construction of an electric water heater.

          • Engineer48

            Well have you actually read it?

            My retired patent attorney did and said it was very clever.

            BTW the USPTO will not issue a patent if LENR or Cold Fusion is mentioned. So the patent attorney needs to exercise skillful creative writing to get past the “NO LENR” gate keepers.

          • Pweet

            Yes I read it and I thought it twas clever too, mostly because it didn’t mention lenr or cold fusion, or any other method of producing the excess energy. I suppose that must mean it covers any method of producing excess heat when one is finally proven. So yes, that was really clever, so long as it holds up when something is actually discovered and demonstrated. And I don’t think it will.
            I must also confess to having reservations about your retired patent attorney. I’m sure he was very good and all but he seems to be saying things that I don’t entirely agree with.

          • Ged

            It describes the fuels and mix. That is no different than describing a petrol engine by the mix of air, gasoline, and spark. No need to use the word “combustion”.

          • Pweet

            That’s because combustion is a well known and proven process and end point of an expected exothermic reaction.
            lenr on the other hand is a little less common and not at all expected.
            I think it at least deserves a mention.

          • Engineer48

            Mention LENR or Cold Fusions to the USPTO and it is patent application in waste paper bin time, stamped just before with “REJECTED”.

          • Pweet

            Yes, unless you include a working prototype.
            If you have a working prototype you can even lodge an application for a perpetual motion machine.
            It’s this last requirement that seems to present a stumbling block for most. Well so far, everyone.
            I think it must be a problem for Mr Rossi too, which is strange because he had one heating his factory. For two years no less. All very strange.

          • Ged

            See, you are using things like common sense and logical reasoning and trying to apply that to patents :). I’ve read a good number of patents in different fields and never once didn’t come away incredibly frustrated and/or dissatisfied. People won’t use the real or common names to concepts making it completely a slog fest to skim for the important info or data you want. I hate it. But that is how the game is played.

            There is a reason though. A description is specific and unchanging, but a conceptual term -can- change. What does the acronym LENR mean? There are a half dozen different names, and different theories. If you based your patent solely on a concept and science progressed and redefined that concept, you could be left high and dry. Of course, I doubt that is actually why reading patents is a form of torture, but it helps make sense of it a bit.

          • Pweet

            Ged,
            Finally, a statement I can’t argue with. You win.

          • Ged

            Mentioning LENR is irrelevent. The description of fuel process, device, and how energy is transfered is all that matters. I.e. how it works. LENR is just a buzz term, means nothing for a patent or device.

          • Engineer48

            Correct. What I was told by my friend.

          • Pweet

            Then I eagerly await seeing how it goes if and when someone else lodges a patent application for a lenr device along with a detailed claim on the fuel used and the method of preparing it, and how to make the reaction work, and calls the process lenr, and submits it with a working prototype; all the things which Rossi has NOT done.

            If his patent is all that is needed to protect a lenr reactor I need to urgently lodge an application for my space ship warp drive. I can reveal here, it Is powered by Di lithium crystals but I wont be mentioning that, and I’m not telling anyone how I get the energy out of it either. That will just be my little secret. Sorry.

          • Ged

            Rossi’s patent does describe all those aspects. And yes, you could file for such a patent given sufficient specific description (most important part). Remember, a patent is simply only a description of a process or method. So, yours would be titled something like “A method for locomotion by way of dilithium crystal mediated reactions”. Go get cracking :).

          • Pweet

            Thanks Ged, I’m right onto it.
            Do you think it would be too early for me to be taking pre-orders?

          • Axil Axil

            What about United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

          • Pweet

            Eng 48, Just out of curiosity then, do you see Mr Rossi’s much publicized USA patent giving his ecat any protection at all?

          • Observer

            It is self evident that anyone who can not reproduce an e-cat is not skilled in the art of making e-cats.

            Anyone that can reproduce an e-cat is skilled in the art of making e-cats.

          • georgehants

            Observer, what are you talking about.
            It seems that the lengths some people will go to try and maintain they are right when they are completely wrong is unlimited.
            You are saying that MFMP etc. are incompetent twerps.

          • Observer

            No, just not yet skilled in the art. I takes a lot practice to go from apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman. Even if you are a master craftsman at making cabinets, it doe not mean you are competent to make a violin.

            (and the last time I checked, MFMP was getting very close)

          • magicsnd1

            George, thanks for your confidence. But we have NOT claimed what others incorrectly attribute to us. If you want to claim that the (Lugano) device described in Rossi’s patent has been successfully replicated, please don’t cite MFMP as an example. Our work in this regard continues, but to date we have not seen excess heat greater than the range of measurement error.

          • Ged

            But Rossi’s patent describes a wafer not a Lugano like device, that is IH’s patent applications. So indeed, MFMP has not yet attempted a replication of the patent.

          • Skip

            I resemble that remark.
            😉

          • Pweet

            Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel,..
            I can’t flaw the logic however so it must be true.

          • Ged

            Welcome to the wonderful world of law! Good luck keeping your sanity.

          • Sam

            There could be a distinct difference between the E-cat – and – it’s fuel or how you operate it.

          • Ged

            No one, not even MFMP has tried replicating the patent’s wafer design. They have successfully replicated the fuel though and gotten effects. So what is the issue?

        • Observer

          George, Some facts are not known until after you need to know them. (Like whether or not your chair can support your weight.) Still you sit down based on a best guess.

          • georgehants

            Observer, waffle, the Facts I am giving are indisputable if you choose to interpret them beyond the laws of Gravity etc. then I suppose nobody can stop you.

          • Observer

            The only facts you have stated is that you do not yet know the facts. You are right in saying I can not dispute your ignorance (of said facts).

          • georgehants

            Observer, the Fact I have stated is that there is no known published copy of any patent from Rossi that a person skilled in the art can use to replicate a e-cat with a COP above 1.
            Enough laughs for us all here today reading the reply’s.
            Ha, no wonder the World is in the state it is.

          • Ged

            You have no evidence to back up that claim. Have you tried to replicate the patent in good faith, and can you prove you are skilled in the art? If not, you are making baseless statements.

          • Omega Z

            George,

            I’ve decided to replicate the Wright Brothers airplane in their patent.
            Follows is the shape and material I plan to use for the wings.

            What could possibly go wrong.

            http://us.123rf.com/450wm/evegenesis/evegenesis1501/evegenesis150100499/36100899-block.jpg?ver=6

            It doesn’t matter what Rossi provides in his patent. No one follows his recipe. They change the cookware and ingredients at will. Everyone has a better or faster way to do it. Forever..

          • Looks pretty similar to me, OZ, so why not. You might consider leaving out the propeller too, just as most experimenters omit any kind of EM driver from their LENR ‘replications’. Good luck!

        • Pweet

          I’m guessing he will protect his IP by making the reactors so cheap that the competition can’t compete.
          That has been the plan so far, and it seems to be working.
          In fact no-one has put an ecat of the market in the last five years so it’s working really well.

          • georgehants

            Pweet, many thanks for good reply that Mr. Rossi has maintained from the beginning.
            Such thinking has of course now been shown to be full of dangers, that I am sure he would have corrected by now.
            The other logical reason why nobody has put a product to market is clearly that Mr. Rossi is not genuine and we have all been waiting for Roses to grow upside down.
            That is the point of my comment, just a few Facts on the situation.

          • Pweet

            quote from above,
            “The other logical reason why nobody has put a product to market is clearly that Mr. Rossi is not genuine and we have all been waiting for Roses to grow upside down.”
            Yes, but If I keep saying that I will be shown the door. And we wouldn’t want that now would we?

          • georgehants

            Pweet, ha, not so, I think, Admin is very fair and only guards against committed, non-scientific people with closed minds who have been taught by a crazy scientific education that nothing beyond preached Dogma can be True.
            I hope you like me and all scientifically able people keep our minds fully open but are always aware of Facts and Evidence.
            Bias in either direction is incompetent.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Frank does a good job culling out the radicals who have made other sites impossible to comment on because of illogical rants and personal attacks. Must take a lot of time, it is appreciated.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      The patent filing is not a good idea as it may seem at first.

      Why? Because there is a lot of interest in this technology and if you disclose the full recipe, how can you be sure that the patent will be granted? They can deny it with the simply excuse that “it violates physics law”

      And also, once the recipe is available, any established big energy company could make their own Quark X inside of their current centrals and no one would know about it. They wont pay a single $ for the technology and only get the profits.
      That is the true problem with the patent of this technology

      • Engineer48

        A patent is only there for the patent attorney to use in court to sue an unauthorised user or use to defend an action against the patent.

        Patent attorneys make little from crafting patents and make most of their income suing others or defending against those that try to nullify the patent.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          Yes Engineer48, i understand what you say and I agree with you when you say that a patent should reveal the minimun amount of info to prevent IP stealing.

          What I wanted to state here is that, if you reveal a patent in a so detailed way that everyone can replicate it (as some skeptics use this argument against Rossi patent) then your patent would be more a problem than a sollution.

          That is why it is so difficult to replicate it. And also, we only would know of replications of people like MFMP or Parkomov as the people from big companies would have a NDA and wont say anything even if they have a working E-Cat.

          And yes, we have little info for replication but after lugano the success of some people increased so in fact we have replications.

      • Gunnar Lindberg

        Then, why file for a patent at all when it not include the part of the invention that is essential for the Rossi Effect? I would be scared to death that someone else would find out and have the proper patent.

    • Bruce__H

      Does the US patent that was granted last August (the one depicted on the front page of Rossi’s blog) not fulfill this role?

      Does anyone know if someone has tried to build a device using the description in this patent? If not then I don’t understand why no one has tried. In fact I don’t understand why this isn’t considered a crucial test of the realities of Rossi’s claims.

      • Omega Z

        I truely believe if Rossi provided details in triplicate with HD video including every tiny detail, every replication attempt will be altered in some way. Everyone seems to have a better idea in how it should be done.

        Thus, whether someone obtains either positive of negative results means nothing.

        New definition of Replication. Make sure it’s different…

  • George

    Still words.

    Secret customers that don’t want to disclose their names, secret locations, secret formulas… all what we have are his words… from years now. I’m losing my hope, i really am. After so much time being one of his supporters and fighting windmills i am giving up… the reality is this… and he can go on for years and years to come in the same manner.

  • literate-R

    Guys, guys guys. Do You still believe, this is no new lure, simply another mocking? If You still believe, something about the ecat really works, consider reading those two cites, in detail, and then tell me, what still convinces You, that anything of Rossi ever was right ?
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    3) Will there be a comprehensive test report generated either by you, the customer, or the third party (if there is one)? 3- yes, obviously, but it will not be public

    4) If a comprehensive test report is produced, when will it be shared with the public? 4- eventually, after an official certification-validation which will be also the “GO” to the manufacturing (F8)

  • Axil Axil

    Test extended for another a week.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes:
      Andrea Rossi
      June 7, 2016 at 9:06 AM
      PG:
      Yes, we need more information before taking important decisions. The test will be a week longer.
      F8.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      Just wonder if that is a good or bad sign….

      • sam

        I think it is a good sign.
        All A.R. comments in the
        first 7 days were positive.

  • Axil Axil

    Test extended for another a week.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes:
      Andrea Rossi
      June 7, 2016 at 9:06 AM
      PG:
      Yes, we need more information before taking important decisions. The test will be a week longer.
      F8.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      Just wonder if that is a good or bad sign….

      • sam

        I think it is a good sign.
        All A.R. comments in the
        first 7 days were positive.

  • Curbina

    This is unusually modest for Rossi, so I guess, and this is just a guess, that things haven’t gone as smooth as Rossi expected.

    • Pweet

      That’s my thoughts too. I would take it that someone has seen something they are not happy with and have asked for the setup to be altered in some way to remove their concern, and the demo re-run. No evidence at all on this though, apart from watching previous demos on You Tubes. Sadly, that facility is no longer available to us now. That is probably a smart move by Mr Rossi. You Tube videos have torpedoed a number of his earlier demos.

      • Engineer48

        Then again if say a few ABB engineers have seen the unbelievable before their eyes and reported back, they may have been told by senior management to hang fire as the “Big Boys” are coming to see the New Fire for themselves.

        • Pweet

          Well that’s a possibility I suppose, depending on the analytical abilities of the people who saw the first demo.
          I keep in mind the first people who saw the early demos for the original ecat came away saying it needed more investigation, and one of them was the ex president of the skeptics society. That was one of the reasons I gave the original announcements so much attention. That plus Focardi, and Levi, and Mats Lewans glowing report.
          Gee, that was a mistake I hope I don’t repeat.
          Well,, I’m old so I probably will.
          Oh dear,.. was I going up the stairs or down the stairs?
          I think I need a little lie down.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            Good to see I’m not the only semi retired grey head on this forum. I’m well past retirement age but still keep working to keep the brain active.

            Now where did I put my coffee?

          • sam

            You put on top of your Ecat
            to keep it hot remember.

          • Engineer48

            Of course. Thanks!!

          • Omega Z

            Are you sure you need to lie down or was you getting up?
            It gets better after the 2nd cup of coffee…

      • Steve Swatman

        But there again,The extension might be to push the QuarkX’s to see how far they can go, because everyone is astounded, maybe to burn out point, maybe they have just exceeded all expectations.

  • Curbina

    This is unusually modest for Rossi, so I guess, and this is just a guess, that things haven’t gone as smooth as Rossi expected.

    • Pweet

      That’s my thoughts too. I would take it that someone has seen something they are not happy with and have asked for the setup to be altered in some way to remove their concern, and the demo re-run. No evidence at all on this though, apart from watching previous demos on You Tubes. Sadly, that facility is no longer available to us now. That is probably a smart move by Mr Rossi. You Tube videos have torpedoed a number of his earlier demos.

      • Engineer48

        Then again if say a few ABB engineers have seen the unbelievable before their eyes and reported back, they may have been told by senior management to hang fire as the “Big Boys” are coming to see the New Fire for themselves.

        • Pweet

          Well that’s a possibility I suppose, depending on the analytical abilities of the people who saw the first demo.
          I keep in mind the first people who saw the early demos for the original ecat came away saying it needed more investigation, and one of them was the ex president of the skeptics society. That was one of the reasons I gave the original announcements so much attention. That plus Focardi, and Levi, and Mats Lewans glowing report.
          Gee, that was a mistake I hope I don’t repeat.
          Well,, I’m old so I probably will.
          Oh dear,.. was I going up the stairs or down the stairs?
          I think I need a little lie down.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            Good to see I’m not the only semi retired grey head on this forum. I’m well past retirement age but still keep working to keep the brain active.

            Now where did I put my coffee?

          • sam

            You put on top of your Ecat
            to keep it hot remember.

          • Engineer48

            Of course. Thanks!!

          • Omega Z

            Are you sure you need to lie down or was you getting up?
            It gets better after the 2nd cup of coffee…

        • adriano

          Is ABB involved in any way with Andrea Rossi?

      • Steve Swatman

        But there again,The extension might be to push the QuarkX’s to see how far they can go, because everyone is astounded, maybe to burn out point, maybe they have just exceeded all expectations.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    So today is June 7. Rossi has no obligation to share anything with anyone, but I certainly hope we hear about the test.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Oh, now I read below – test extended another week, but results so far positive.

  • Engineer48

    Nice data:

    ==========

    eernie1
    June 7, 2016 at 10:22 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Are you running the tests by yourself or do you have a technical crew(how many and what are their special capabilities)? Does the customer have a technical crew in attendance?

    If they have agreed to an extended test period, does this indicate they have seen positive results and require more specific data on a function they like?

    Technical regards.

    ==========

    Andrea Rossi
    June 7, 2016 at 10:47 AM

    Eernie1:

    We are a team, with experience in electronic engineering and nuclear physics.
    Yes to the second.

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ==========

    • Ged

      Gotta know the widest range of parameters for a device to be able to engineer around it with appropriate robustness and safety margins afterall.

      • Engineer48

        I think the ABB engineers and nuclear physicist reported back they had seen a 10 trillion profit opportunity working before their eyes. Now various top level ABB execs are on BizJets to see it for themselves, before they go to the ABB board.

        Can out in another big EU thermal power plant builder, say Siemens if you wish.

        But also what you suggest.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          I hope you are right

          • Engineer48

            Me too.

          • bfast

            Rossi’s light-heartedness is very telling. This is not evidence of somebody under extreme stress.

          • Pweet

            Many of Rossi’s comments were light hearted at the time his partnership with IH was running onto the rocks. He has that ability and it’s quite impressive. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Could also be that the thermal test was promising so while they are at it they would like to see the Quark make electricity too.
          I know I would have if I’d been there

          • Engineer48

            Me likewise. Would have been very hard to deny my insisting to see that function.

            From experience in dealing with big companies, compliance tests start with those a bit down the corporate food chain. As the testing looks better and better, people start arriving for a look see from higher and higher up the food chain until the top dogs arrive and take all the credit for “THEIR” decision to support the tests.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, especially since a purely „electric“ COP that is measured with professional equipment would be bulletproof.

          • Engineer48

            As an EE (well most of the time), I would need to know the waveform and freq. Is not that easy to accurately measure energy in complex waveforms, nor is it always easy to turn it into something useful with a good conversion efficiency.

            Can’t see the QuarkX producing well regulated electricity, ie, output voltage stays constant as load (current) varies as does a battery like device with very low internal series resistance.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            With true RMS meters like the PC830 there should be no problems. Additionally, an oscilloscope could be used to rule out possible HF input.

          • Engineer48

            I expect it will be very complex and very high freq. Well beyond that meter, which is designed around measuring highly distorted mains. UHF Rf freq electrical energy coming out of the heart of a LENR nuclear reactor. Like I said, “Hell’s Kitchen”.

          • DrD

            AR said that the output direct from the Quark was DC. No doubt there will be ac components but I assume they are small and negligible (noise). Smoothing shouldn’t be difficult.

    • Axil Axil

      electronic engineering: If Fabiani working for Rossi again?

      • Engineer48

        Fabiani is a free lance consulting engineer. Apparently he did consulting work for both IH and Leonardo at the same time. No secret there. IH must have know as he was given to IH by Rossi so he could work engineer to engineer with IH’s engineers. Apparently IH paid his invoices for the work he did for them.

  • Engineer48

    Nice data:

    ==========

    eernie1
    June 7, 2016 at 10:22 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Are you running the tests by yourself or do you have a technical crew (how many and what are their special capabilities)? Does the customer have a technical crew in attendance?

    If they have agreed to an extended test period, does this indicate they have seen positive results and require more specific data on a function they like?

    Technical regards.

    ==========

    Andrea Rossi
    June 7, 2016 at 10:47 AM

    Eernie1:

    We are a team, with experience in electronic engineering and nuclear physics.

    Yes to the second.

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ==========

    • Ged

      Gotta know the widest range of parameters for a device to be able to engineer around it with appropriate robustness and safety margins afterall.

      • Engineer48

        I think the ABB engineers and nuclear physicist reported back they had seen a 10 trillion profit opportunity working before their eyes. Now various top level ABB execs are on BizJets to see it for themselves, before they go to the ABB board.

        Can put in another big EU thermal power plant builder, say Siemens for ABB, if you wish.

        But also what you suggest.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          I hope you are right

          • Engineer48

            Me too.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Could also be that the thermal test was promising so while they are at it they would like to see the Quark make electricity too.
          I know I would have if I’d been there

          • Engineer48

            Me likewise. Would have been very hard to deny my insisting to see that function.

            From experience in dealing with big companies, compliance tests start with those a bit down the corporate food chain. As the testing looks better and better, people start arriving for a look see from higher and higher up the food chain until the top dogs arrive and take all the credit for “THEIR” decision to support the tests.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, especially since a purely „electric“ COP that is measured with professional equipment would be bulletproof.

          • Engineer48

            As an EE (well most of the time), I would need to know the waveform and freq. Is not that easy to accurately measure energy in complex waveforms, nor is it always easy to turn it into something useful with a good conversion efficiency.

            Can’t see the QuarkX producing well regulated electricity, ie, output voltage stays constant as load (current) varies as does a battery like device with very low internal series resistance.

            My guess? It is like something from Hell’s Kitchen.
            .

          • Andreas Moraitis

            With true RMS meters like the PC830 there should be no problems. Additionally, an oscilloscope could be used to rule out possible HF input.

          • Engineer48

            I expect it will be very complex and very high freq. Well beyond that meter, which is designed around measuring highly distorted mains. UHF Rf freq electrical energy coming straight out of the heart of a LENR nuclear reactor. Like I said, “Hell’s Kitchen”.

            Will be very glad to be proven incorrect but can’t see anyway to directly tap into the cauldron of New Fire energy erupting in the fuel without the output being like an EE’s worst nightmare to convert to something useful and to make it regulated and respond to load changes.

          • DrD

            AR said that the output direct from the Quark was DC. No doubt there will be ac components but I assume they are small and negligible (noise). Smoothing shouldn’t be difficult.
            Edit: Stability under varying load is key factor we’ve heard nothing substantial about.

    • help_lenr

      I think the test was extended by 7 days. (See the answer of rossi today 7 June to a surfer whose nickname is GB or a similar nickname.)

    • Axil Axil

      electronic engineering: If Fabiani working for Rossi again?

      • Engineer48

        Fabiani is a free lance consulting engineer. Apparently he did consulting work for both IH and Leonardo at the same time. No secret there. IH must have know as he was given to IH by Rossi so he could work engineer to engineer with IH’s engineers. Apparently IH paid his invoices for the work he did for them.
        .

  • jousterusa

    I’m very reluctantly growing skeptical about Rossi’s devices, and I think I have long been a “true believer,” but test after test on devices no one can see with ensuing “reports” that no one can read have eroded my belief quite deeply. Have all (or most) of us been scammed – not by LDNR but by Rossi himself?

    • Engineer48

      I’m in discussion with Rossi to purchase 10 x 1MWt ECats that can produce 105C superheated steam. Nothing he has said has lead me to believe he can’t deliver the hardware my potential client requires. He told me we can visit a working reactor and make our own measurements PRIOR to placing an order. Of course Leonardo needs to and will engage their own due diligence on my potential client before we get to inspect a working reactor.

      More so after signing the PO, sure money needs to go into escrow but he get nothing until the delivered and installed plants meet mutually agreed tests results. BTW my potential client eat steam power engineering for breakfast and Rossi understand that.

      He fully understand the due diligence process any potential client would subject Leonardo and their delivered and installed 1MWt ECat reactors too.

      So now will he scam us?

      • Private Citizen

        Do you have a timetable on when you can actually test an ECat, perhaps in Rossi’s facility?

        • Engineer48

          PC,

          As earlier posted, my potential client has decided to wait out the legal proceedings, a decision Rossi fully appreciated & understood.

          • Private Citizen

            “potential client has decided to wait out the legal proceedings”

            OK, years then

          • Rene

            Did the QuarkX(3) perform carefree for you today?
            A: Still very promising. We are working very hard and very well.
            Having seen comments like this before, I interpret it to mean it works sometimes but not reliably or predictably. As before, it suggests to me that Rossi has not fully mastered the control methods. Throughout most of the past six years, the issues have been the reaction monitoring and control system. So, one week will become months maybe even years. It’s OK, LENR as a principle seems to have been demonstrated with some replications. LENR+, high output reliable LENR, not so much, except maybe for the 1MW plant to which no meaningful data has yet to be disclosed. At some point others or Rossi will tame the nonlinear reaction. Then, product, sales, hurrah. Just don’t make plans yet.

          • Engineer48

            Rene,

            I suspect the hardest reaction to control is the SSM mode as it is mainly driven by folded back reaction generated thermal energy. So how to control a nuclear positive feedback system such that it is keep self sustaining and doesn’t go runaway?

            In conventional nuke plants they can control the amount of penetration of the moderator rods, to soak up neutrons. But with the ECat there seems not to be anything that moves, so apparently Rossi has found a way to use some form of electronic moderator to control the amount of thermal gain from the reaction.

            I have heard that COPs of over 200 have been achieved but with almost no control. Of course let the COP get too large and the folded back thermal energy drive will result in a runaway / meltdown that a lot of LENR experimenters have reported.

            For me as an engineer, the main question is how does the SSM moderation process work to control the COP (read thermal gain) and how effective is the control system in handling a rapid drop in thermal load, which would then increase thermal foldback and could result in runaway or reactor shutdown or worse a meltdown.

          • Rene

            I’ve always wondering why Doppler broadening doesn’t happen in LENR. I guess it is because LENR is not about free neutrons. That is one of the negative feedback mechanisms that reduces the exponential growth of reactions in high energy nuclear reactors. So, what would be the equivalent of instantaneous negative feedback for LENR?

          • Engineer48

            Rene,

            Don’t know.

            My analysis was done based on a reaction that was partly driven by increasing thermal feedback, reducing electrical derived heating necessary to keep the reaction on a certain temperature region and thus increasing COP, especially during the SSM periods where all the primary thermal drive is derived from the excess thermal generation – load.

          • Bob Cook

            Rene–See my comment regarding resonances and magnetic control of resonant integrals for reactions.

            FRC

          • akupaku

            Exactly my take of the problems facing Rossi & Co, i.e. the control mechanisms and algorithms as I have tried to state several times before in this forum. Most replicators seem to be still struggling in getting the LENR reaction going strong and probably many who have succeeded are struggling with controlling it in closed laboratories. Could be one of the main reasons we still not have seen commercial products from Rossi or any other sources that are kown to research in LENR.

            Maybe major technical and/or scientific breakthroughs still need to be made in controlling LENR reliably once the reaction really gets going.

          • Engineer48

            Akupaku,

            From what I have read, Rossi has stated the ECat can’t work in self sustain mode from only the electricity from the ECat steam driven generator as there is need to use FULL mains power on the heaters to control the reaction and as such electrical power from ECat driven generators may not be there when it is needed to control SSM.

            Just maybe when the reactor is operating in SSM, if you very quickly ramp up the heaters to FULL power, the extra EM field generated at FULL power may dampen down the reaction?

            I do know that on the 1st 1MW demo plant there were auxiliary RF generators that had coax feeds into the individual reactor. You could see them and their coax feeds. Some assumed the RF was there to excite the reaction. Just maybe it was there to damp down the reaction?

            That 1st 1MW plant did operate in SSM for I think 5 hours, so there were SSM control systems in operation way back then. Would suggest that today the SSM control system may be a bit more advanced that what was used back then.

          • The EM/RF may work on a resonance basis. In phase (with an oscillation in the reactor) supplies energy and drives the reaction, out-of-phase limits it depending on degree, anti-phase damps it down quickly. Sensors and complex electronics would be needed, especially if frequency of oscillation in the reactor (SPPs?) is high.

          • Pweet

            The problem with that hypothesis is, none of that was apparent in the original reactors which were shown on the bench top in the original videos. They were of a very simple and basic design with no apparent circuits for delivering anything other than a power feed to heater elements. Whether that continued in the 1MW design is anybodies guess because the whole thing just got too elaborate to analyse from pictures, but if anything like that was ever added, it has been kept very quiet, and also invisible.
            Rossi did make mention of “control frequencies” at one stage but it later became apparent that he was referring to the chopper frequencies for the on/off power supply as it switched between driven mode and ssm. I’ve never seen anything to indicate RF control frequencies being used in any thing to do with the ecat.

          • Remember that the bench prototypes had two ‘heater’ inputs, main and auxiliary. Not only would one of these be redundant but depending on internal configuration, one or other of the ‘heaters’ would be separated from the fuel by the water jacket and so couldn’t function as stated.

            As I suggested at the time, it seems entirely possible that in fact one of the ‘heaters’ was in fact either an RF antenna, or more likely a copper coil providing a variable EM field. For various reasons I believe the external band heater to have been the ‘real’ heater, with the fuel held in the annulus between the inner coolant tube and the larger diameter copper housing. In this case the EM coil would have been wound around the inner coolant tube and supplied from the outer end of the reactor (‘auxiliary’ supply).

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            I have similar thoughts.

          • Pweet

            I can’t argue with any of that because there is no way of knowing for sure how any of it was connected, except that, whatever the configuration was I am certain it has never been shown actually working. And I believe that’s why it has never been submitted for certification or a useful design completed and photographed to put on the ecat web site. That being the case it really doesn’t matter what the design was.
            If here was more than one connection my first guess would be that the second connection was the one which was activated to insert the “Rossi effect” into the reactor, and in the early demonstrations, that was, to feed in the extra power from somewhere, probably from a reconfigured earth wire.

          • I seem to remember that was mary yugo’s favourite theory as well.

          • Pweet

            Yes, not just mine. I think this was only used in the first few tests up to about Feb 2011.
            After it was sprung the magic depended on other things such as false temperature measurements and flow rates etc.
            The art of a good magician is to keep the show fresh and never perform the same trick twice, because the second time the act is performed, people will be looking for it. Imagine how impressive it is then when somebody is looking for a reconfigured earth wire and there is none.
            It’s all covered by the age old adage, “There is more than one way to skin an ecat.”

          • You forgot the concealed infrared laser theory. I think MY also suggested thermite at one point.

          • Pweet

            Thermite? Is this going to merge into another 9/11 conspiracy thread?
            I don’t think a thermite argument will get much traction. You can count me out of that one. 🙂

          • Nostalgia can be fun, but perhaps enough old ground has been revisited.

            I think we both know where the other stands, so we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ – on just about everything except the unlikelihood of any hidden thermite being involved.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            What I see from the

            ..1st stove pipe reactor, to the
            ..squarish covered in alum foil reactor, to the
            ..1st 1MW reactor with the additional top side mounted reactors, to the
            ..later much more compact 1MW reactors, to the
            ..IH built backup side wall mounted reactors, to the
            ..IH built central island 4 x 250kW slab primary reactor

            is continual product development.

            This is not now a scam works. This is how engineer driven R&D works. This development process did not happen from tests that produced no excess heat as then you have no direction on which to build.

            My engineers gut says this is real and nothing Rossi has ever said to me has ever caused my gut to have any doubt.

            In the end the only people that Rossi needs to convince that his reactors do indeed work are his clients. I do trust that one day soon my potential client’s engineers and myself will get to complete our initial due diligence on a working 1MW reactor.
            .

          • Pweet

            The development sequence you list above is also consistent with a necessity not to dwell on one device which you are forced to prove whether it works or not. Keep moving onto something new which will distract the followers from a failure to prove the previous devices work. And there is the problem. Not one of the devices you refer to has been conclusively proven to work as claimed. If that was a difficult task then I could excuse it but the detection and measurement of heat energy is something which we learn in the early years of high school. It is really simple and can be done with simple equipment, and yet in spite of all Rossi’s claimed genius, he is unable to successfully carry out this one final simple step. After all this time that indicates something basic about all the devices, and I believe that is, they do not work.
            That one conclusion can be so easily proven wrong.
            Why is it that after five whole years, when it is so essential that the point be proven to the world, it has not been?
            Now, although this is my opinion, it cannot be dismissed as being “Just my opinion.”
            The fact that the world is not beating a path to Rossi’s door and the fact that this matter is relegated to being thrashed out on an internet forum conclusively proves that most of the world shares this opinion.
            That is Rossi’s fault, and no-one else’s.

          • Omega Z

            Michael McKubre who has spent a good 30 years refining heat calorimetry and is considered 1 of the preeminent in the field tested Brillouin’s LENR reactor with some funding provided by DARPA.

            The results were a COP>4. Michael McKubre’s expertise immediately comes under scrutiny. There is a theme here. Anyone, No matter how expert is no longer an expert if they find any excess heat.

            There is only one way to eliminate this impasse. A working product on the market. Only this will force the scientific community to deal with the reality of LENR. Tho keep in mind, there are still flat earthers even today.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            A nuclear engineer has apparently presented a report to Rossi and to IH that has stated a COP of 50. Neither of them have denied such a report has been filed. The logical thing for Rossi to do is to get a customer to use the same reactor in the report to verify the COP of 50, and the energy dollars saved. For some reason Rossi does not do this, why?

          • Engineer48

            Bernie,

            In the contract, clause 3.2c states the ERV reported COP is the single determination of the amount IH is due to pay Rossi.

            In the IH motion to dismiss, the ERV COP report is never challenged. Instead the MTD says the agreement to extend the test time was not signed by all the parties that signed the contract, thus where was no extension and the test was not completed on time, thus IH don’t owe Rossi any money.

            However clause 5 says only IH could extend the time and as they signed the time extension agreement, it would seem the IH lawyers are out of luck.

            BTW why do you suppose Rossi insisted on an external customer to do the 1 year test with?

            Maybe because a good 1 year test result would open the commercial sales flood gates?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Don’t understand, are you answering my question above? If you are, I have been asking the same question since 2012, the above does not answer my question. I am and have been an ardent Rossi supporter since 2011, everything he says points to a sincere individual, his apparent scientific knowledge, his association with Sergio Focardi, the progression of his inventions point to him being a brilliant inventor. Since 2012 Rossi has said many times, after criticisms of his many tests, the only way to end the debate is to show an economic benefit. I have even accused him of being a Giacometti, the famous sculptor, who while trying to reach perfection, would carve his sculptures until there was nothing left. He still does not take that step to prove an economic benefit. Why?

          • Engineer48

            Bernie,

            Rossi stated the IH customer’s engineer claimed very great economic benefit with a energy cost reduction of more than 20 times.

            I would say that is a very significant economic benefit and a statement that would never have happened if Rossi had not insisted to do the 1 year test out in the real world and with a real world IH heat customer that paid IH $1,000 per day for the 24MWhs of daily heat.

            An IH heat customer that IH took many potential investors and partners to see and talk with. Rossi say it is all on 24/7 video.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Please, I mean an independent customer calling a news conference, declaring the economic benefit, with the media able to ask questions. Not a “Rossi stated the customer engineer said” What is the down side for Rossi to make that happen?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            Just maybe, had IH paid Rossi the $89m, that would have happened. I expect it would have happened and that was why Rossi did the trial that way.

            Rossi has stated the customer’s UK parent has ordered 3 x 1MW reactors, so maybe one day soon we will hear from them.

            But like my potential client, I expect no one will be saying anything until the court issues are fully settled as no one wants to buy into the middle of a dirty fight, where mud can get slung and stick to innocent though involved parties.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            There is nothing stopping Rossi from selling the 50 COP reactor to a customer willing to declare and prove its economic value. The lawsuit has nothing to do with a new sale especially to a customer outside the territory of the lawsuit. Rossi could preserve his IP while the world would not be deprived of a very important energy source.

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            I have a good memory and do remember Rossi stating that full mains power must be available to control the reactor in SSM.

            Which implies the damping negative feedback control is not added heat, which would take some time to penetrate to the core, but was instead a massive magnetic field generated by the heater coil having max amps applied to it. IE maybe only for a few 10s of milliseconds but a massive surge of inrush current.

            We do know the SPAWAR Navy researchers got their test reactors to go into thermal runaway 3 out of 10 times by the application of a very strong magnetic field, so there seems to be some reaction to very high intensity magnetic fields. Just maybe Rossi has found the flip side and knows how to damp down his reactor using the mag field generated by the coiled heater.

          • I don’t think there can be much doubt from the sum total of photos and snippets from AR (and others, such as Louis DeChiaro) that oscillating RF/EM is the key. Whether it has always been delivered via the heater current is less certain, but that does seem to be a strong possibility. However, separating the functions by using two coils, heater and EM, would give cleaner control and more options.

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            Two heaters have been the go for some time. My thoughts were the internal heater may have been something other than a heater.

          • I remember this speculative image from the time. The problem with it is that the band heater would only have heated the coolant flow as it isn’t in contact with the reactor fuel containment. Other photos show thermal discolouration of the band heaters that could only have occurred at temperatures much higher than the coolant flow would have allowed.

            I believe that the actual internal arrangement was much simpler, with water flowing straight through the inner pipe and the ‘reactor’ mounted concentrically around this, directly heated by the band heater, per my response to Pweet below.

          • Ted-Z

            High magnetic fields are used to precisely control nuclear magnetic resonance. This is used by chemists in analyzing nuclear resonances of elements (with odd nuclear numbers; NMR).
            Therefore, the control system may just disturb the nuclear resonance present in the SSP mode by applying some off-resonance magnetic interference.

          • Engineer48

            Ted-Z,

            Rossi did say the reactor needed to be continually supplied by the mains so it had peak power available to control the reactor in SSM mode, which by definition requires no mains excitation.

          • giovanniontheweb

            as far as the transfer function has been identified if the issue is feedback delay then part of the feedback loop will have to be hardware integrated into the reactor

          • Engineer48

            Giovannion,

            For some time I have believed that for the ECat reactor to successfully maintain SSM, this function had to be designed into the hardware and software control systems of the reactor by the IH engineers that designed and build the central island 4 x 250kWt slab primary reactor.

            It could NOT be something Rossi did to the reactors, by application of his magic wand, while he was in the second office container. Which implies Rossi did transfer the knowledge to build and operate a COP > 50 reactor to IH.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 practical barriers do not change requirements, yet very basic “direct” feedback loop can “almost” do self-control within a given range

          • Engineer48

            Giovannion,

            The problem as I see it, is SSM may be driven / dominated by a strong positive feedback loop where, depending on the reactor heat gain, fairly small amounts of foldback heat can cause the reaction to generate very large heat gains in the output.

            Compounding this is that changes in the external output heat load, say it reduces, release additional heat to appear in the foldback heat input to the reactor input.

            Controlling a positive feedback loop is hard enough but to add changing amounts of positive feedback makes the job even harder.

            Of course if we could, as engineers, we would try to redesign the control system to use easier to handle negative feedback, where if you get it wrong, the reactor drops power instead of going into a meltdown or worse.

            Then add in hysteresis effects and lagging functions from thermal load heating / cooling delays and it gets really interesting.

            I’m seriously impressed Rossi and his team achieved fairly lengthy SSM periods but Rossi did on his 1st 1MW reactor demo, show a SSM lasting for 5 hours so they have had some time to get it right.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 to me to me it looks like overlapping exponential deviations where few of them are no reversible, control can be very complex or very easy when you have the limit moving or not if the hardware limit itself

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Just wish we knew more about how SSM works but as you say it could be very complex or very simple.

            I assume with a steady heat load on the output of the reactor, SSM control will be much easier. When Rossi did the 1st 1MW demo, the output heat load was a fan driven heat radiator, where the fan speed could be easily controlled to give a highly regulated steady heat load to the reactor, which is maybe why way back then Rossi was able to achieved a 5 hour SSM.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 I have reviewed the Padova posters on some similar reactions and whatt you mention it looks possible only as feed-bsck loop controlling a self-controlling loop. You control the range not the process

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Well we do need to more about the characteristic before working to design a control system but today using even high speed PICs, amazing control systems are fairly easy to implement.

          • giovanniontheweb

            Hi Eng48 very true but you have got competitors in front of you and everything more than essential will be too much

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Very true. All my engineering life I have walked that thin line, learning to also factor in Murphy / chaos and add in a bit of extra margin / fat so I can sleep well at night, knowing I went the extra mile to ensure wider margins than required.

          • giovanniontheweb

            Hi Eng48, I guess what is leading M Rossi is testing intuition instead of testing functions and in a very scientific and methodical manner walking on water stones to go from one river side to the other that is what makes me very admirative.

          • Varmlandstok

            May be that the smaller units are easier to work with, perhaps more self regulatory.

          • Roland

            Have you considered that the primary value of adopting cynicism as a worldview lies in its ability to model and predict the emotive responses of other cynics?

            The downside lies in the tendency to immediately diminish the very possibility of every positive human impulse which in turn leads to a certain despondency which, if left unchecked, can morph into anomie and despair.

            Wine is an uncertain antidote…

          • Rene

            I did consider that. But, I also considered the years long evidence that Rossi (like many entrepreneurs) is prone to over-exuberance and exaggeration of his progress.

          • Observer

            The bigger the Yin, the bigger the yang.

          • Rene

            Burma Shave!

          • Roland

            The abandonment of cynicism does subject one to the emotions accompanying the kind of protracted effort that Rossi has made.

            A breakthrough, particularly after a long plateau period, can lead to a transient exuberance only to be tempered, later, by fresh adversity.

            In the short history of the Quark, for example, the initial breakthrough was accompanied, shortly thereafter, by the emergence of the requirement for component materials with higher performance characteristics.

            An inner passion, history would have us believe, appears to be foundational to human progress; as numerous biographies attest.

            The ‘sages’ council balance so that passion serves intellect.

            Sun Tzu councils that a clear understanding of self allows the practitioner, in the arts of war, to perceive and use the imbalances of his enemies to excellent effect while remaining in the still center.

            Difficult advice to follow…

        • Jas

          I know what you mean Y2K. Ive been reading for years that thin film Solar Panels were going to be the next big thing. I dont see rooftops covered in the stuff like what was predicted for the last ten years. It can be printed like paper they said. We are still waiting.

      • Pweet

        I think your client will never get their hands on a real working 1MW reactor. It is essential that they don’t.
        If he comes out and says that now, that will be destructive to his credibility, so you are getting what Aldo Proia got, and that is an array of supposedly agreeable and encouraging replies, until such time as a reactor is finally ordered and the payment made. In fact the process will probably be deliberately stalled before it gets that far.
        Make sure you are adequately covered for when the ordered goods do not arrive.

        • Engineer48

          Pweet,

          My potential client delayed the process, not Rossi. Their upper management are very conservative senior engineering types.

          He was ready to move forward to the MOU signing stage, after which my potential client’s engineers & myself would be allowed to inspect an operational 1MWt reactor and complete our initial due diligence, after which if satisfactory, the purchase order would be signed and money placed into escrow.

          From receiving the PO and escrowed funds, manufacturing, delivery, installation, commissioning and acceptance testing of the 10 reactors was estimated at 6 months.

          As I said before, there is nothing unusual here.

          BTW the 10 reactors were just to build an evaluation system. The total reactor requirement is around 2.5GWt or 2,500 x 1MWt reactors, delivered over 3-4 years. And that is just 1 moderately sized thermal power plant.

          • Pweet

            Yes, I understand from your previous comment on this matter that the delay is at the instigation of your client. That is Rossi’s good fortune because it saves him having to come up with a delaying tactic himself. His ideal situation is to have a genuine client who he can use as credibility colateral, with a pre-order placed but waiting on the final go-ahead for some reason not on Rossi’s account.
            Pre-orders are a real asset when trying to interest a partner. That’s why he claimed pre-orders for 500,000 home ecats even though there was never any intention to deliver any of them. Thus so far it appears he has not wasted any effort in gaining a certification for the home ecat as indicated by the fact that after five years there is still no photo of the finished product submitted for certification. Note that even now the image of the home ecat on his web site is still only an artists impression of what one might look like, if it did actually exist.
            That will not cut the mustard with any certification authority. Any certification will have to be on the finished article, not some mock up or prototype, and certainly not an artists impression.
            Why is that, when he is holding 500,000 pre-orders for an item which the whole world wants? If they were sold for two thousand dollars each it makes it a billion dollars worth of sales. I would guess that’s what he told to all his previous licensees. Did it do them any good, other than the honor of financing a few years of the circus? None at all, and had a bigger mackerel not swam bin to take the bait they would still all be waiting on a refund.
            They can count themselves very very lucky in that respect, even though they didn’t consider so.
            Also, I’m wondering why you are dealing with Leonardo when Roger Green is still advertising them on his web site and your client is in his sales territory?
            Is Roger Green definitely out or still in?
            If he’s out does he know it yet?

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            I deal in the facts as I know them. As I said nothing Rossi did or said was in anyway unusual.

            He and I were actually very keen to get the potential client’s engineers to visit a working reactor as he appreciated they probably knew more about high temp power station steam engineering than he or his engineers did. For sure they have taught me a bit. These guys eat power steam engineering for breakfast and have seen just about everything.

            With respect, you’re opinion is just your opinion.

            Rossi told me Leonardo holds the license for Australia and he would handle our discussions. As to whether Roger Green is still involved in some way I have no knowledge.

          • Pweet

            Quote from above;-
            “With respect, you’re opinion is just your opinion.”
            You’re right of course, and to be completely fair I should make that clear in every post.
            Most of what say is only my opinion and since the Pope does not sell licenses, I am unable to claim infallibility.
            However, much of what I say is based on previous events which have now been shown to be facts, so on these points at least, my opinions are a little bit more than “idle chatters”. How much more, will be shown in time, but I hardly expect everything I say to turn out 100 percent correct.
            Sometimes I look back over my old posts just to see how I’m doing. (yes, pathetic isn’t it? That’s what old age does to you) Anyway, so far I’m not doing too bad. I think at least a fifty percent success rate and that’s a low C pass. On some of the bigger points though, I’ve got about a 90 percent success rate, which is certainly better than Mr Rossi’s. But then I must confess to cheating a bit. I look up what happened last year and predict much the same for the next.
            (Gosh! I should never have said that. Now everybody will do it.)

          • Enduser

            Engineer 48, with respect we don’t even know if you are what you say you are. NO insult intended.

          • Engineer48

            Enduser,

            Fair call.

            But you do know what I have shared. I suggest you will find the story I have shared has never varied. Why? Because it is the truth.

            There are those here who do know my name and have seen a few of the emails Rossi and I have exchanged.

    • bfast

      “Have all (or most) of us been scammed – not by LENR but by Rossi himself?”

      Where I come from a scam involves the exchange of money (or other collateral). Rossi hasn’t taken a dime from me, hasn’t offered me a way of giving him a dime.

      Is he for real? Most probably. It actually makes a lot of sense from a business strategy point of view to not spill the beans until the manufacturing plant, and all safety certifications, are in place. ‘Just a matter of delaying the reverse engineering.

      • roseland67

        Not me,
        I didn’t know 5 years ago and I still don’t know

        • bfast

          “I don’t know” is a very appropriate position to take. In any case, it doesn’t hurt to keep an eye on this stuff.

  • jousterusa

    I’m very reluctantly growing skeptical about Rossi’s devices, and I think I have long been a “true believer,” but test after test on devices no one can see with ensuing “reports” that no one can read have eroded my belief quite deeply. Have all (or most) of us been scammed – not by LENR but by Rossi himself?

    • Engineer48

      I’m in discussion with Rossi to purchase 10 x 1MWt ECats that can produce 105C superheated steam. Nothing he has said has lead me to believe he can’t deliver the hardware my potential client requires. He told me we can visit a working reactor and make our own measurements PRIOR to placing an order. Of course Leonardo needs to and will engage their own due diligence on my potential client before we get to inspect a working reactor.

      More so after signing the PO, sure money needs to go into escrow but he get nothing until the delivered and installed plants meet mutually agreed tests results. BTW my potential client’s engineers eat steam power engineering for breakfast and Rossi understand that.

      He fully understand the due diligence process any potential client will subject Leonardo and their delivered and installed 1MWt ECat reactors too.

      Why would he lead us on as he knows the potential client owns and operates a lot of thermal power plants and any negative reports from me or his engineers would burn him in the thermal power plant industry. BTW just for 1 thermal plant, to replace all the potential client’s fossil boilers would require approx 2,500 1MWt 600C QuarkX reactors. That is a very significant order for any order book!

      So now will he scam us?

      • John Koskela

        That’s the best news I’ve heard for last 25 years Jj

        • Mike

          What is the steam pressure?

          • Engineer48

            Mike,

            Pressure is less than the max for 105C superheated steam.

            BTW 105C superheated steam was the recommendation from Rossi to design with.

          • Mike

            Then the pressure must be below 1.2 bar. Is it above 1.2 bar it is still liquid water.

          • Engineer48

            Mike,

            Above max superheat pressure it is wet steam, not water. As pressure decreases, the phase change / boiling temperature of water drops. To convert wet steam to water you need to remove the added thermal energy that made it wet steam in the 1st place.

            Wet steam is composed of many clumped together water molecules. Dry / superheated sream is composed of only single water molecules.

            As wet steam changes into dry / superheated steam, the temperature does not increase, as it is going through a phase change, but increasing amounts of thermal energy are needed to break apart all the clumped together wet steam molecules.

            Once it is dry steam, further application of thermal energy will now increase the temperature of the superheated / dry steam.

            Superheated / dry steam can exit at standard atmospheric pressure as can wet steam as can water.

            What makes them different is the amount of embodied thermal energy. The Enthalpy as in kJ/kg.

            For an ECat the energy gain in kWt is given by:

            KWt = (kJ/kg out – kJ/kg in) x kg/sec of flow

            It is not rocket science, it is just engineering.

          • Sean

            Very Interesting. My new Briggs boiler I am building for the 7 1/4″ Pacific coal fired Locomotive (4472) has wet steam to 126PSI @ 177 deg centigrade. This steam is then passed into the super heater manifold raising the steam up to and over 600 degrees. Then it enters the 3 cylinders to give tremendous pulling power and using less water. The BHP is estimated at 14 HP. If I were to power it using the quark x, I would need 11 kilowatts. But for efficiency, I think I would need another quark x to superheat the steam. I am ready to order the quark x when available.

          • Engineer48

            Sean,

            Interesting project.

            Back some time ago, Rossi seems to have developed a way to boil water, create wet steam and then to apply further radiant thermal energy, from the exposed fins in the upper steam space, to the wet steam to turn it dry / superheated.

            What do you think?

          • Sean

            Wow, nice idea. However a boiler really needs to be round for my kind of pressure. Mr Robert Alexander Briggs by the way invented this boiler over a hundred years ago. I am one of only a few whom are building this style of boiler. Mr. Briggs is also the inventor of the Panic Bolt push bar you see on most public doors. So it does take time for inventions to go around as will Rossi’s. Remembering also that Frank Whittle’s Jet engine was sneered at in the 1920’s now we depend on them. Cheers.

          • Engineer48

            Sean,

            Yup, I thought his combined boiler and superheater was a brilliant idea.

            Of course the exposed fins, in the steam space above the boiling water, surface temp needs to be very high, while the surface temp of the fins in the water space never gets above boiling temp.

          • Wot! – and miss the arcane ritual (in miniature) of firing up the boiler and watching the pressure slowly rise – not to mention the magical smell of damp coal smoke swirling around. Sacrilege.

            Actually, that is rather hypocritical – I’m currently running my 7 1/4″, 1:12 scale broad gauge vertical boiler loco, ‘Tiny’ using a paraffin pressure burner from an old camping stove under the boiler! (haven’t had time to build the proper firebox yet).

          • Sean

            Ooops caught ECW by another model engineer, crikey, I better hide. Well my coal could be me shovelling in the nickel or something. Just think though, we could bring back the days of steam using this clean technology and the environmentalist would be pleased. How about an ECAT powered steam organ at the Great Dorset Steam Fair?. That would get the public’s attention.

          • tlp

            You have also mentioned 600C steam using QuarkX, is that different case also in your plans?

          • Engineer48

            Tlp,

            My potential client requires 550C subcritical inlet steam to run their existing steam turbines. 600C from the reactor allows some thermal losses in transmission.

          • tlp

            So is this 105C just for the test system? Maybe at least originally planned to use old low temp Ecats, but later considered to use QuarkX for this low temp test system also?

          • Engineer48

            Tlp,

            When we 1st contacted Rossi and informed him of the requirement for 600C steam, he informed us that 600C steam was not yet available for delivery.

            My potential client’s engineers then went away and had a think. When they returned they said they were still interested in building a test and evaluation system using the suggested by Rossi 105C superheated steam.

            Then all the legal issued erupted as a shite storm on the internet and they informed me their management had decided to sit it out until all the legal issues were settled.

            I then informed Rossi. Was told he fully understood and was ready, when they were ready, to reengage the process to deliver 10 x 105C ECat 1MWt reactors or if the time was right to deliver 10 x 600C ECat 1MWt reactors.
            .

          • Pweet

            You say above;-
            “As wet steam changes into dry / superheated steam, the temperature does not increase, as it is going through a phase change,”

            I would have thought the natural expectation would be for the temperature of the wet steam to rapidly decrease while it was phase changing to superheated dry steam. The greatest energy is used in the phase change, not in superheating the steam, be it wet or dry.
            Did I misunderstand something here?

          • Engineer48

            Pwett,

            Superheated steam is dry steam where all the wet steam’s clumped together molecules are broken apart and exist as single water molecules.

            During the phase change from wet to dry steam, the temp of the steam never increases but the energy content of the steam increases.

            Any phase change occurs at a constant temp until all the phase changing material has undergone phase change.

            Think melting ice, which absorbs a lot of thermal energy to melt the ice, yet it’s temperature never changes.

          • Engineer48

            Watch this video on superheated steam:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uvIhgVz04

            Note the superheated steam is invisible as it is comprised of individual very hot water molecules which are not visible to the naked eye. That demo was 200C superheated steam. Imagine what 600C superheated steam would be like?

            Even at only 200C, lighting a match from superheated steam is a very cool & impressive demo.
            .

          • Pweet

            Yes, that’s what I thought. I agree with all you say, except that this will only occur providing there is a constant heat source to the system while the phase change is occurring, otherwise the temperature will decrease rapidly.
            All good.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            The additional heat to dry the wet steam needs to be applied to the wet steam as there is no way I know of to produce superheated steam via applying heat to water and boiling it.

            Attached is Rossi’s clever way to use the radiant heat from the reactor fins sticking up into the steam space, to add the extra heat to the just boiled wet steam and turn it dry / superheated.
            .

          • Mike

            Well, what about the wall temperature in the pipes then? It cannot be lower than the steam temperature because then you will certainly get condensation and the steam is not dry at all. You suggest that the pipes are perfectöly insulated and no heat loss. That is the only way you can keep the steam dry if the temperature is 105 C. And what about the pressure loss in the pipes? With only 0.2 bar over pressure (1.2 bar absolute pressure) you cannot allow any complex piping. The flow velocity is either very low (i.e large pipe diameter) or very few components causing pressure loss. It simply does not make sense.

        • Engineer48

          John,

          Look to be fair, my potential client and I still have a lot of due diligence work to do to move forward.

          BUT nothing Rossi has said or asked for has raised any Red Flags. Instead his process seems to be that of any company supplying a new to the industry, very highly technical piece of engineering kit to a very demanding potential client.

      • adriano

        So are you telling us that anyone with enough money in his pocket can put his hands on the most important tecnology ever discovered? You are making some very big claims here

        • Engineer48

          Adriano,

          I’m sharing my experience.

          Leonardo is in business to sell & install 1MWt ECat reactors for clients that they feel comfortable with and their load is such that a 1MWt ECat plant can successfully drive it.

          Will they sell you a plant so you can reverse engineer it? I doubt it as they do their due diligence on their potential customers.

          Will the reverse engineering happen? Of course, someday it will. Just not by my potential customer. Well I trust not.

      • Private Citizen

        Do you have a timetable on when you can actually test an ECat, perhaps in Rossi’s facility?

        • Engineer48

          PC,

          As earlier posted, my potential client has decided to wait out the legal proceedings, a decision Rossi fully appreciated & understood.

          • Private Citizen

            “potential client has decided to wait out the legal proceedings”

            OK, years then

      • George

        So if i have correctly understood your words, so far you only had talks with Rossi, but you didn’t see the plant yet nor did you get to measure anything.

        When you will be able to see the real thing and measure the real data will you share it with us? Or will you be the n-th secret customer with secret plants and hidden data?

        • Engineer48

          George,

          To the maximum extend my contractual requirement allow, the results will be openly communicated.

          I have discussed with Rossi my desire to build a demo system for other potential clients. He has some security issues with that but is open to working through them.

          • Pweet

            Someone in Sweden wanted to do that about four or five years ago. It might have been Hydrofusion; I’m not sure now and I can’t be bothered looking it up.
            The plan was to buy a 1MW plant, set it up for clients and the public to see working and pay for it by selling the energy produced.
            It never came to anything of course. Security issues, safety issues, Ip issues, any issues at all so long as they resulted in no ecat being tested in a real situation.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            There are still issues.

            I’m in discussion with many gov parties that will have to sign off on the operation of an ECat NUCLEAR REACTOR in Australia. Which it is and you can’t back away from that. There are nuclear reaction occurring, driving element transmutations and involving the release of high energy particles under some circumstances. Sure Rossi says they never escape the reactor but that statement, to the nuclear and other regulators, needs to be proven well beyond any doubt.

            Just maybe the 1st Australian ECat reactor will need to be tested to the limits of self destruction, while being heavily monitored, before the necessary permits can be issued.

            I have said this before and I will say it again.

            A working LENR ECat reactor is a working NUCLEAR REACTOR and there is no backing away from that.
            .

          • BillH

            What’s your reaction then when AR tells you that the 1 year long test was carried out in Florida without any involvement by the nuclear authorities in the US? It seems to me that the biggest hurdle yet to be climbed is to convince any country in which the plants are operating that they will be safe. It appears this process hasn’t even been started yet, primarily because of all the secrecy.

          • Engineer48

            BillH,

            Rossi did say he had arranged all the necessary regulatory permits for the test site in Doral.

            I do expect when the US gov finally accepts LENR is real, then various Nuclear Regulators worldwide will jump on the bandwagon and create test protocols to keep us all SAFE.

            I know that here in Australia, those guys are not interested as there is no such thing as a working LENR nuclear reactor. One day soon that will change.

      • Pweet

        I think your client will never get their hands on a real working 1MW reactor. It is essential that they don’t.
        If he comes out and says that now, that will be destructive to his credibility, so you are getting what Aldo Proia got, and that is an array of supposedly agreeable and encouraging replies, until such time as a reactor is finally ordered and the payment made. In fact the process will probably be deliberately stalled before it gets that far.
        Make sure you are adequately covered for when the ordered goods do not arrive.

        • Engineer48

          Pweet,

          My potential client delayed the process, not Rossi. Their upper management are very conservative senior engineering types.

          He was ready to move forward to the MOU signing stage, after which my potential client’s engineers & myself would be allowed to inspect an operational 1MWt reactor and complete our initial due diligence, after which if satisfactory, the purchase order would be signed and money placed into escrow.

          From receiving the PO and escrowed funds, manufacturing, delivery, installation, commissioning and acceptance testing of the 10 reactors was estimated at 6 months.

          As I said before, there is nothing unusual here.

          BTW the 10 reactors were just to build an evaluation system. The total reactor requirement is around 2.5GWt or 2,500 x 1MWt reactors, delivered over 3-4 years. And that is just 1 moderately sized thermal power plant.

          • Pweet

            Yes, I understand from your previous comment on this matter that the delay is at the instigation of your client. That is Rossi’s good fortune because it saves him having to come up with a delaying tactic himself. His ideal situation is to have a genuine client who he can use as credibility colateral, with a pre-order placed but waiting on the final go-ahead for some reason not on Rossi’s account.
            Pre-orders are a real asset when trying to interest a partner. That’s why he claimed pre-orders for 500,000 home ecats even though there was never any intention to deliver any of them. Thus so far it appears he has not wasted any effort in gaining a certification for the home ecat as indicated by the fact that after five years there is still no photo of the finished product submitted for certification. Note that even now the image of the home ecat on his web site is still only an artists impression of what one might look like, if it did actually exist.
            That will not cut the mustard with any certification authority. Any certification will have to be on the finished article, not some mock up or prototype, and certainly not an artists impression.
            Why is that, when he is holding 500,000 pre-orders for an item which the whole world wants? If they were sold for two thousand dollars each it makes it a billion dollars worth of sales. I would guess that’s what he told to all his previous licensees. Did it do them any good, other than the honor of financing a few years of the circus? None at all, and had a bigger mackerel not swam bin to take the bait they would still all be waiting on a refund.
            They can count themselves very very lucky in that respect, even though they didn’t consider so.
            Also, I’m wondering why you are dealing with Leonardo when Roger Green is still advertising them on his web site and your client is in his sales territory?
            Is Roger Green definitely out or still in?
            If he’s out does he know it yet?

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            I deal in the facts as I know them. As I said nothing Rossi did or said was in anyway unusual.

            He and I were actually very keen to get the potential client’s engineers to visit a working reactor as he appreciated they probably knew more about high temp power station steam engineering than he or his engineers did. For sure they have taught me a bit. These guys eat power steam engineering for breakfast and have seen just about everything.

            With respect, you’re opinion is just your opinion.

            Rossi told me Leonardo holds the license for Australia and he would handle our discussions. As to whether Roger Green is still involved in some way I have no knowledge.

          • Pweet

            Quote from above;-
            “With respect, you’re opinion is just your opinion.”
            You’re right of course, and to be completely fair I should make that clear in every post.
            Most of what say is only my opinion and since the Pope does not sell licenses, I am unable to claim infallibility.
            However, much of what I say is based on previous events which have now been shown to be facts, so on these points at least, my opinions are a little bit more than “idle chatters”. How much more, will be shown in time, but I hardly expect everything I say to turn out 100 percent correct.
            Sometimes I look back over my old posts just to see how I’m doing. (yes, pathetic isn’t it? That’s what old age does to you) Anyway, so far I’m not doing too bad. I think at least a fifty percent success rate and that’s a low C pass. On some of the bigger points though, I’ve got about a 90 percent success rate, which is certainly better than Mr Rossi’s. But then I must confess to cheating a bit. I look up what happened last year and predict much the same for the next.
            (Gosh! I should never have said that. Now everybody will do it.)

          • Enduser

            Engineer 48, with respect we don’t even know if you are what you say you are. NO insult intended.

          • Engineer48

            Enduser,

            Fair call.

            But you do know what I have shared. I suggest you will find the story I have shared has never varied. Why? Because it is the truth.

            There are those here who do know my name and have seen a few of the emails Rossi and I have exchanged.

            I should add that from day 1, I disclosed that I had a vested interest, a profit to be made, from the installation of ECat reactors for my potential client. I did not need to disclose that fact, yet I did as I don’t play games.

    • Y2K

      I always feel the same when reading another article about new superefficient solar cells or batteries which are ‘almost’ ready for production and cheap as dirt. You can take science journal of any year you like and find such articles with fantastic promises. Where are all this products? It just takes ungodly time to get to production even for less disruptive technologies based on well known principles. So… don’t hold your breath. Really not worth it. What puzzles me though, is this: if he can make cheap electricity, as he claims, then he can sell electricity. It’s much easier to sell than heat. So why try to sell QuarkX and not electricity?

      • Engineer48

        Y2K,

        Wholesale electricity prices are not retail prices plus there are large regulator issues with a new company generating say 1,000MWh per hour of electricity into the grid. This is not a game for newbies to entry. I also believe due to the thermal nature of the QuarkX heat generation, any resultant electricity generation will be base load that is not required to highly regulate to smaller load changes, which results in the lowest wholesale prices paid for baseload, always run, electricity.

        Besides QuarkX direct electricity may not be what you think it is.

        I believe large scale QuarkX electricity generation will be done via 600C sub/supercritical steam, used to spin existing and new steam turbines that drive multi MWe generators.

        Also believe the reduction in future fossil fuel costs versus QuarkX fuel costs will easily pay for the replacement of the existing fossil boilers with QuarkX boilers. So existing thermal power plant owners will be happy to engage replacing their fossil boilers with QuarkX boilers. Of course they need to be proven to be VERY reliable.

      • Observer

        His first priority is mass production. He is not going to power the world with three prototypes.

        • Y2K

          One would think that 10 000 000 $ is enough to start mass production.

      • Jas

        I know what you mean Y2K. Ive been reading for years that thin film Solar Panels were going to be the next big thing. I dont see rooftops covered in the stuff like what was predicted for the last ten years. It can be printed like paper they said. We are still waiting.

    • dms

      I agree. It is getting old, but I still pay attention. If I were smart, I would not bother until I heard Bill Gates, a big energy company or Elon Musk said they were investing. I also want to be optimistic, but my brain says this is a big internet illusion (scam).

    • bfast

      “Have all (or most) of us been scammed – not by LENR but by Rossi himself?”

      Where I come from a scam involves the exchange of money (or other collateral). Rossi hasn’t taken a dime from me, hasn’t offered me a way of giving him a dime.

      Is he for real? Most probably. It actually makes a lot of sense from a business strategy point of view to not spill the beans until the manufacturing plant, and all safety certifications, are in place. ‘Just a matter of delaying the reverse engineering.

      • roseland67

        Not me,
        I didn’t know 5 years ago and I still don’t know

        • bfast

          “I don’t know” is a very appropriate position to take. In any case, it doesn’t hurt to keep an eye on this stuff.

    • help_lenr

      I don’t see any problem about the time table of ECAT development. New technology needs time. I’m waiting more that 10 years (maybe 15 years I lost count) for the promised RE_USABLE Falkon rockets of Elon Mask, those FALKONs not materialized untill now (there is a slow development yet).

      The problem is that believers make high speculation about fast development or miracles which not promised and then become disappointed.

      For example. Many people jump to conclusions about the quality of the electricity produced by ECATX. I guess that this electricity, for the time being, cannot be used to operate electro-mechanic devices. When and if this fact will be revealed they will make complains, because their speculations was wrong.
      What I hope is that this sort of electricity will simplify energy moving, through wire instead of through water pipes.

      Of course I might be wrong about the usability of ECATX’s electricity.

  • Engineer48

    Y2K,

    Wholesale electricity prices are not retail prices plus there are large regulator issues with a new company generating say 1,000MWh per hour of electricity into the grid. This is not a game for newbies to entry. I also believe due to the thermal nature of the QuarkX heat generation, any resultant electricity generation will be base load that is not required to highly regulate to smaller load changes.

    Besides QuarkX direct electricity may not be what you think it is.

  • Engineer48

    It seems to be getting seriously crazy on other forums. Glad Frank keep ECW on a moderate path.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-increasingly-creepy-fred-zoepfl-is-now-making-open-threats-from-the-ecn-troll-dungeon/

    • Gerald

      Different kind of forum. I think both good souces for information.
      Lately Sifferkoll looks somewhat more extreme but for what I read it’s plausible and not offending.
      Like a lot information and thoughts you read on forums, its just information and not facts until proven. Time will tell the tale hopefully, for me that is one of the most enjoyable parts of following the story, after you have finished the book you get the plot and have te read it al over again to understand the real story that happend. Optimistic I think a part of the plot will be given in a few years time.

  • Engineer48

    It seems to be getting seriously crazy on other forums. Glad Frank keeps ECW on a moderate path.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-increasingly-creepy-fred-zoepfl-is-now-making-open-threats-from-the-ecn-troll-dungeon/

    • Gerald

      Different kind of forum. I think both good souces for information.
      Lately Sifferkoll looks somewhat more extreme but for what I read it’s plausible and not offending.
      Like a lot information and thoughts you read on forums, its just information and not facts until proven. Time will tell the tale hopefully, for me that is one of the most enjoyable parts of following the story, after you have finished the book you get the plot and have te read it al over again to understand the real story that happend. Optimistic I think a part of the plot will be given in a few years time.

  • Engineer48

    Look to be fair, my potential client and I still have a lot of due diligence work to do to move forward.

    BUT nothing Rossi has said or asked for has raised any Red Flags. Instead his process seems to be that of any company supplying a new to the industry, very highly technical piece of engineering kit to a very demanding potential client.

  • Engineer48

    Adriano,

    I’m sharing my experience.

    Leonardo is in business to sell & install 1MWt ECat reactors for clients that they feel comfortable with and their load is such that a 1MWt ECat plant can successfully drive it.

    Will they sell you a plant so you can reverse engineer it? I doubt it as they do their due diligence on their potential customers.

    Will the reverse engineering happen? Of course, someday it will. Just not by my potential customer. Well I trust not.

  • Engineer48

    Mike,

    Pressure is less than the max for 105C superheated steam.

    BTW 105C superheated steam was the recommendation from Rossi to design with.

  • bfast

    Rossi’s light-heartedness is very telling. This is not evidence of somebody under extreme stress.

    • help_lenr

      Too many speculations. Just wait and see.

    • Pweet

      Many of Rossi’s comments were light hearted at the time his partnership with IH was running onto the rocks. He has that ability and it’s quite impressive. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

  • Optimist

    The simple way through life is to be sceptical. You can to the eternity state that you are interested in something but there are not enough real hard scientific evidence to proof a concept. If the case you are studying turns out to be an illusion, you are right. If it turns out to be true you are right. If you however choose, based on series of indications, events and gut feeling to take a side and believe something is true, you might be wrong and look naive and foolish in the end. In the LENR case, we have 25 years of unexplained, distributed but positive results published in thousands of articles. We have Rossi demonstrating in 2011 the effect along with many trustworthy scientists assisting with the experiment, including Mats Lewan that to me seems to have no false agendas. You have the Elforsk study, were a group of respectfull scientists studied their own setup of the hot cat for a month with results that no one has been able to doubt to the level of less than unity cop and clear evidence of transmutation. You have the investment of close to 12M US$ in a one year MW run by a company that specialises in the energy sector, that had all the access that they wanted to verify the technology before investing, even if they now claim to be ignorant. You have the Parkomov replication, mfmp replications and finally the totally independent Leif Holmlid and Sveinn Olafsson LENR results over Rydberg material formation. This I would call strong indications and multiple results coming from several looks like reliable sources. My gut feeling is that this is true and I can therefore live optimistic that our largest challenges regarding environmental changes are about to be resolved. As long as the pile of evidence keeps growing I will remain on the bright side, even if it takes few more years for a commercial solution to realise. I could also have chosen to be sceptical on the dark side knowing that there are no scientifically proofen methods that will save the earth. That way I could be depressed for years but at least I would be right at the end no matter the outcome.

    • Ged

      One can take skepticism in any direction though, so it doesn’t have intrinsic meaning. For instance, one can be skeptical that the world needs any saving at all.

      Though, on a long enough time scale, eventually the world would need to be saved from the Sun going into red giant phase, which would actually destroy the planet. And you are right, there are currently no scientifically proven methods for saving the world from that fate, yet.

      • Optimist

        All I’m saying is that sometimes it is a better option to be optimistic based on observation and gut feeling than depressed based on lack of “hard evidence”. From my perspective we are way past the point of LENR being nonsence and it is only a matter of time until the “academic proof” is acknowledged.

    • akupaku

      An optimists life is full of disappointments and failures because one always expects things to go well and succeed but things sometimes go wrong and fail. What a sad life that is!

      A pessimists life is full of happy surprises and successes because one expects things to go wrong and fail but things sometimes actually go well and succeed. What a happy life that is!

      Don’t worry, be happy, be a pessimist! ;o)

      • kdk

        Optimists don’t get things accomplished like realists, because they always underestimate what other people will do. Pessimists don’t either, because they think that there’s more in the way than there is. A realist studies the world as it is, nukes, and the other inexcusables, and all. Rossi is on the cusp of showing that the good fight is sometimes won.

        • akupaku

          I stand corrected although my post was more in the flavor of tongue-in-cheek than realistic. ;o)

  • Optimist

    The simple way through life is to be sceptical. You can to the eternity state that you are interested in something but there are not enough real hard scientific evidence to proof a concept. If the case you are studying turns out to be an illusion, you are right. If it turns out to be true you are right. If you however choose, based on series of indications, events and gut feeling to take a side and believe something is true, you might be wrong and look naive and foolish in the end. In the LENR case, we have 25 years of unexplained, distributed but positive results published in thousands of articles. We have Rossi demonstrating in 2011 the effect along with many trustworthy scientists assisting with the experiment, including Mats Lewan that to me seems to have no false agendas. You have the Elforsk study, were a group of respectfull scientists studied their own setup of the hot cat for a month with results that no one has been able to doubt to the level of less than unity cop and clear evidence of transmutation. You have the investment of close to 12M US$ in a one year MW run by a company that specialises in the energy sector, that had all the access that they wanted to verify the technology before investing, even if they now claim to be ignorant. You have the Parkomov replication, mfmp replications and finally the totally independent Leif Holmlid and Sveinn Olafsson LENR results over Rydberg material formation. This I would call strong indications and multiple results coming from several looks like reliable sources. My gut feeling is that this is true and I can therefore live optimistic that our largest challenges regarding environmental changes are about to be resolved. As long as the pile of evidence keeps growing I will remain on the bright side, even if it takes few more years for a commercial solution to realise. I could also have chosen to be sceptical on the dark side knowing that there are no scientifically proofen methods that will save the earth. That way I could be depressed for years but at least I would be right at the end no matter the outcome.

    • Ged

      One can take skepticism in any direction though, so it doesn’t have intrinsic meaning. For instance, one can be skeptical that the world needs any saving at all.

      Though, on a long enough time scale, eventually the world would need to be saved from the Sun going into red giant phase, which would actually destroy the planet. And you are right, there are currently no scientifically proven methods for saving the world from that fate, yet.

      • Optimist

        All I’m saying is that sometimes it is a better option to be optimistic based on observation and gut feeling than depressed based on lack of “hard evidence”. From my perspective we are way past the point of LENR being nonsence and it is only a matter of time until the “academic proof” is acknowledged.

    • akupaku

      An optimists life is full of disappointments and failures because one always expects things to go well and succeed but things sometimes go wrong and fail. What a sad life that is!

      A pessimists life is full of happy surprises and successes because one expects things to go wrong and fail but things sometimes actually go well and succeed. What a happy life that is!

      Don’t worry, be happy, be a pessimist! ;o)

      • kdk

        Optimists don’t get things accomplished like realists, because they always underestimate what other people will do. Pessimists don’t either, because they think that there’s more in the way than there is. A realist studies the world as it is, nukes, Manhattan, Bali, Tianjin, Sana’a, and the other inexcusables, and all. An optimist would believe that good people would intervene in such things and stop them. A realist knows that the huge majority don’t, and a pessimist, that nobody would. Rossi is on the cusp of showing that the good fight is sometimes won, even if it usually isn’t.

        • akupaku

          I stand corrected although my post was more in the flavor of tongue-in-cheek than realistic. ;o)

        • Michael W Wolf

          An optimist’s cup is half full, a pessimist’s cup is half empty. One man says he can, another man says he can’t. They are both right. And that is the difference. A Pessimist gives up. An optimist doesn’t. Because of their state of mind.

  • Observer

    Those of us that are disappointed with current progress need to reflect on the fact, that normally, in the corporate world, all of this wonderful drama would occur behind closed doors, never to be revealed to people like us.

    So sit back and enjoy the show.

  • Observer

    Those of us that are disappointed with current progress need to reflect on the fact, that normally, in the corporate world, all of this wonderful drama would occur behind closed doors, never to be revealed to people like us.

    So sit back and enjoy the show.

  • Andy Kumar

    Waiting for Rossi to deliver … is like waiting for camel’s lip to fall off.
    .
    I presume all must have noticed that the camel’s lower lip hangs precariously as if it is about to fall off, especially when the camel walks or runs. There is a Balochi fable that a hungry jackal noticed a camel’s perilously perched lip, which he gratuitously thought would fall off. He followed him continuously and whenever the camel moved quickly his belief was reaffirmed. He died following the mirage of an ‘about to fall off lip’.”
    .
    https://ar-ar.facebook.com/notes/balochwarna-news/analysis-the-camels-lip/117139808347142/
    .
    Couldn’t find a better link. The fable is buried in political commentary.

    • Steve Swatman

      One might suspect that a human who who knows the story about the jackal and the camel, would know when to stop following. 😉

      • Andy Kumar

        Now you and everyone here knows the fable! That was the purpose of the post.
        .
        But I guess, by now, we are all addicted to our daily dose of happy (F7) headlines just like the morning coffee.

  • Omega Z

    I truely believe if Rossi provided details in triplicate with HD video including every tiny detail, every replication attempt will be altered in some way. Everyone seems to have a better idea in how it should be done.

    Thus, whether someone obtains either positive of negative results means nothing.

    New definition of Replication. Make sure it’s different…

    • Wot! – and miss the arcane ritual (in miniature) of firing up the boiler and watching the pressure slowly rise – not to mention the magical smell of damp coal smoke swirling around. Sacrilege.

      Actually, that is rather hypocritical – I’m currently running my 7 1/4″, 1:12 scale broad gauge vertical boiler loco, ‘Tiny’ using a paraffin pressure burner from an old camping stove under the boiler! (haven’t had time to build the proper firebox yet).

  • Engineer48

    It is wet steam, not water. As pressure decreases, the phase change / boiling temperature of water drops.

    Wet steam is composed of many clumped together water molecules. Dry / superheated sream is composed of only single water molecules.

    As wet steam changes into dry / superheated steam, the temperature does not increase, as it is going through a phase change, but increasing amounts of thermal energy are needed to break apart all the clumped together wet steam molecules.

    Once it is dry steam, further application of thermal energy will now increase the temperature of the superheated / dry steam.

    Superheated / dry steam can exit at standard atmospheric pressure as can wet steam as can water.

    What makes them different is the amount of embodied thermal energy. The Enthalpy as in kJ/kg.

    • tlp

      You have also mentioned 600C steam using QuarkX, is that different case also in your plans?

      • Engineer48

        Tlp,

        My potential client requires 550C subcritical inlet steam to run their existing steam turbines. 600C from the reactor allows some thermal losses in transmission.

        • tlp

          So is this 105C just for the test system? Maybe at least originally planned to use old low temp Ecats, but later considered to use QuarkX for this low temp test system also?

    • Pweet

      You say above;-
      “As wet steam changes into dry / superheated steam, the temperature does not increase, as it is going through a phase change,”

      I would have thought the natural expectation would be for the temperature of the wet steam to rapidly decrease while it was phase changing to superheated dry steam. The greatest energy is used in the phase change, not in superheating the steam, be it wet or dry.
      Did I misunderstand something here?

      • Engineer48

        Pwett,

        Superheated steam is dry steam where all the wet steam’s clumped together molecules are broken apart and exist as single water molecules.

        During the phase change from wet to dry steam, the temp of the steam never increases but the energy content of the steam increases.

        Any phase change occurs at a constant temp until all the phase changing material has undergone phase change.

        Think melting ice, which absorbs a lot of thermal energy to melt the ice, yet it’s temperature never changes.

        • Engineer48

          Watch this video on superheated steam:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uvIhgVz04

        • Pweet

          Yes, that’s what I thought. I agree with all you say, except that this will only occur providing there is a constant heat source to the system while the phase change is occurring, otherwise the temperature will decrease rapidly.
          All good.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            The additional heat to dry the wet steam needs to be applied to the wet steam as there is no way I know of to produce superheated steam via applying heat to water and boiling it.

            Attached is Rossi’s clever way to use the radiant heat from the reactor fins sticking up into the steam space, to add the extra heat to the just boiled wet steam and turn it dry / superheated.
            .

  • Engineer48

    George,

    To the maximum extend my contractual requirement allow, the results will be openly communicated.

    I have discussed with Rossi my desire to build a demo system for other potential clients. He has some security issues with that but is open to working through them.

    • Pweet

      Someone in Sweden wanted to do that about four or five years ago. It might have been Hydrofusion; I’m not sure now and I can’t be bothered looking it up.
      The plan was to buy a 1MW plant, set it up for clients and the public to see working and pay for it by selling the energy produced.
      It never came to anything of course. Security issues, safety issues, Ip issues, any issues at all so long as they resulted in no ecat being tested in a real situation.

      • Engineer48

        Pweet,

        There are still issues.

        I’m in discussion with many gov parties that will have to sign off on the operation of an ECat NUCLEAR REACTOR in Australia. Which it is and you can’t back away from that. There are nuclear reaction occurring, driving element transmutations and involving the release of high energy particles under some circumstances.

        Just maybe the 1st Australian ECat reactor will need to be tested to the limits of self destruction, while being heavily monitored, before the necessary permits can be issued.

        I have said this before and I will say it again.

        A working LENR ECat reactor is a working NUCLEAR REACTOR and there is no backing away from that.
        .

        • BillH

          What’s your reaction then when AR tells you that the 1 year long test was carried out in Florida without any involvement by the nuclear authorities in the US? It seems to me that the biggest hurdle yet to be climbed is to convince any country in which the plants are operating that they will be safe. It appears this process hasn’t even been started yet, primarily because of all the secrecy.

          • Engineer48

            BillH,

            Rossi did say he had arranged all the necessary regulatory permits for the test site in Doral.

            I do expect when the US gov finally accepts LENR is real, then various Nuclear Regulators worldwide will jump on the bandwagon and create test protocols to keep us all SAFE.

            I know that here in Australia, those guys are not interested as there is no such thing as a working LENR nuclear reactor. One day soon that will change.

  • Steve Swatman

    One might suspect that a human who who knows the story about the jackal and the camel, would know when to stop following. 😉

  • Rene

    Did the QuarkX(3) perform carefree for you today?
    A: Still very promising. We are working very hard and very well.
    Having seen comments like this before, I interpret it to mean it works sometimes but not reliably or predictably. As before, it suggests to me that Rossi has not fully mastered the control methods. Throughout most of the past six years, the issues have been the reaction monitoring and control system. So, one week will become months maybe even years. It’s OK, LENR as a principle seems to have been demonstrated with some replications. LENR+, high output reliable LENR, not so much, except maybe for the 1MW plant to which no meaningful data has yet to be disclosed. At some point others or Rossi will tame the nonlinear reaction. Then, product, sales, hurrah. Just don’t make plans yet.

    • Engineer48

      Rene,

      I suspect the hardest reaction to control is the SSM mode as it is mainly driven by folded back reaction generated thermal energy. So how to control a nuclear positive feedback system such that it is keep self sustaining and doesn’t go runaway?

      In conventional nuke plants they can control the amount of penetration of the moderator rods, to soak up neutrons. But with the ECat there seems not to be anything that moves, so apparently Rossi has found a way to use some form of electronic moderator to control the amount of thermal gain from the reaction.

      I have heard that COPs of over 200 have been achieved but with almost no control. Of course let the COP get too large and the folded back thermal energy drive will result in a runaway / meltdown that a lot of LENR experimenters have reported.

      For me as an engineer, the main question is how does the SSM moderation process work to control the COP (read thermal gain) and how effective is the control system in handling a rapid drop in thermal load, which would then increase thermal foldback and could result in runaway or reactor shutdown or worse a meltdown.

      • Rene

        I’ve always wondering why Doppler broadening doesn’t happen in LENR. I guess it is because LENR is not about free neutrons. That is one of the negative feedback mechanisms that reduces the exponential growth of reactions in high energy nuclear reactors. So, what would be the equivalent of instantaneous negative feedback for LENR?

        • Engineer48

          Rene,

          Don’t know.

          My analysis was done based on a reaction that was partly driven by increasing thermal feedback, reducing electrical derived heating necessary to keep the reaction on a certain temperature region and thus increasing COP, especially during the SSM periods where all the primary thermal drive is derived from the excess thermal generation – load.

        • Bob Cook

          Rene–See my comment regarding resonances and magnetic control of resonant integrals for reactions.

          FRC

      • akupaku

        Exactly my take of the problems facing Rossi & Co, i.e. the control mechanisms and algorithms as I have tried to state several times before in this forum. Most replicators seem to be still struggling in getting the LENR reaction going strong and probably many who have succeeded are struggling with controlling it in closed laboratories. Could be one of the main reasons we still not have seen commercial products from Rossi or any other sources that are kown to research in LENR.

        Maybe major technical and/or scientific breakthroughs still need to be made in controlling LENR reliably once the reaction really gets going.

        • Engineer48

          Akupaku,

          From what I have read, Rossi has stated the ECat can’t work in self sustain mode from only the electricity from the ECat steam driven generator as there is need to use FULL mains power on the heaters to control the reaction and as such electrical power from ECat driven generators may not be there when it is needed to control SSM.

          Just maybe when the reactor is operating in SSM, if you very quickly ramp up the heaters to FULL power, the extra EM field generated at FULL power may dampen down the reaction?

          I do know that on the 1st 1MW demo plant there were auxiliary RF generators that had coax feeds into the individual reactor. You could see them and their coax feeds. Some assumed the RF was there to excite the reaction. Just maybe it was there to damp down the reaction?

          That 1st 1MW plant did operate in SSM for I think 5 hours, so there were SSM control systems in operation way back then. Would suggest that today the SSM control system may be a bit more advanced that what was used back then.

          • The EM/RF may work on a resonance basis. In phase (with an oscillation in the reactor) supplies energy and drives the reaction, out-of-phase limits it depending on degree, anti-phase damps it down quickly. Sensors and complex electronics would be needed, especially if frequency of oscillation in the reactor (SPPs?) is high.

          • Pweet

            The problem with that hypothesis is, none of that was apparent in the original reactors which were shown on the bench top in the original videos. They were of a very simple and basic design with no apparent circuits for delivering anything other than a power feed to heater elements. Whether that continued in the 1MW design is anybodies guess because the whole thing just got too elaborate to analyse from pictures, but if anything like that was ever added, it has been kept very quiet, and also invisible.
            Rossi did make mention of “control frequencies” at one stage but it later became apparent that he was referring to the chopper frequencies for the on/off power supply as it switched between driven mode and ssm. I’ve never seen anything to indicate RF control frequencies being used in any thing to do with the ecat.

          • Remember that the bench prototypes had two ‘heater’ inputs, main and auxiliary. Not only would one of these be redundant but depending on internal configuration, one or other of the ‘heaters’ would be separated from the fuel by the water jacket and so couldn’t have functioned as implied by Rossi (‘red herring’).

            As I suggested at the time, it seems entirely possible that in fact one of the ‘heaters’ was either an RF antenna, or more likely a copper coil providing a variable (oscillating) EM field. For various engineering and observational reasons I believe the external band heater to have been the ‘real’ (and only) heater, with the fuel held in the hydrogen filled annulus between the inner coolant tube and the larger diameter copper housing. In this case the EM coil would have been wound around the inner coolant tube and supplied from the outer end of the reactor (‘auxiliary’ supply).

            Edit: … or alternatively a waterproof coil (plastic covered wire) could have been placed inside the copper coolant tube. On reflection this seems the more likely option.

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            I have similar thoughts.

          • Pweet

            I can’t argue with any of that because there is no way of knowing for sure how any of it was connected, except that, whatever the configuration was I am certain it has never been shown actually working. And I believe that’s why it has never been submitted for certification or a useful design completed and photographed to put on the ecat web site. That being the case it really doesn’t matter what the design was.
            If here was more than one connection my first guess would be that the second connection was the one which was activated to insert the “Rossi effect” into the reactor, and in the early demonstrations, that was, to feed in the extra power from somewhere, probably from a reconfigured earth wire.

          • I seem to remember that was mary yugo’s favourite theory as well.

            Edit: This comment refers to Pweet’s suggestion that additional undisclosed power was supplied to early prototypes via an earth wire.

          • Pweet

            Yes, not just mine. I think this was only used in the first few tests up to about Feb 2011.
            After it was sprung the magic depended on other things such as false temperature measurements and flow rates etc.
            The art of a good magician is to keep the show fresh and never perform the same trick twice, because the second time the act is performed, people will be looking for it. Imagine how impressive it is then when somebody is looking for a reconfigured earth wire and there is none.
            It’s all covered by the age old adage, “There is more than one way to skin an ecat.”

          • You forgot the concealed infrared laser theory. I think MY also suggested thermite at one point.

          • Pweet

            Thermite? Is this going to merge into another 9/11 conspiracy thread?
            I don’t think a thermite argument will get much traction. You can count me out of that one. 🙂

          • Nostalgia can be fun, but perhaps enough old ground has been revisited.

            I think we both know where the other stands, so we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ – on just about everything except the unlikelihood of any hidden thermite being involved.

          • Engineer48

            Pweet,

            What I see from the

            ..1st stove pipe reactor, to the
            ..squarish covered in alum foil reactor, to the
            ..1st 1MW reactor with the additional top side mounted reactors, to the
            ..later much more compact 1MW reactors, to the
            ..IH built backup side wall mounted reactors, to the
            ..IH built central island 4 x 250kW slab primary reactor

            is continual product development.

            This is not now a scam works. This is how engineer driven R&D works. This development process did not happen from tests that produced no excess heat as then you have no direction on which to build.

            My engineers gut says this is real and nothing Rossi has ever said to me has ever caused my gut to have any doubt.

            In the end the only people that Rossi needs to convince that his reactors do indeed work are his clients. I do trust that one day soon my potential client’s engineers and myself will get to complete our initial due diligence on a working 1MW reactor.
            .

          • Pweet

            The development sequence you list above is also consistent with a necessity not to dwell on one device which you are forced to prove whether it works or not. Keep moving onto something new which will distract the followers from a failure to prove the previous devices work. And there is the problem. Not one of the devices you refer to has been conclusively proven to work as claimed. If that was a difficult task then I could excuse it but the detection and measurement of heat energy is something which we learn in the early years of high school. It is really simple and can be done with simple equipment, and yet in spite of all Rossi’s claimed genius, he is unable to successfully carry out this one final simple step. After all this time that indicates something basic about all the devices, and I believe that is, they do not work.
            That one conclusion can be so easily proven wrong.
            Why is it that after five whole years, when it is so essential that the point be proven to the world, it has not been?
            Now, although this is my opinion, it cannot be dismissed as being “Just my opinion.”
            The fact that the world is not beating a path to Rossi’s door and the fact that this matter is relegated to being thrashed out on an internet forum conclusively proves that most of the world shares this opinion.
            That is Rossi’s fault, and no-one else’s.

          • Omega Z

            Michael McKubre who has spent a good 30 years refining heat calorimetry and is considered 1 of the preeminent in the field tested Brillouin’s LENR reactor with some funding provided by DARPA.

            The results were a COP>4. Michael McKubre’s expertise immediately comes under scrutiny. There is a theme here. Anyone, No matter how expert is no longer an expert if they find any excess heat.

            There is only one way to eliminate this impasse. A working product on the market. Only this will force the scientific community to deal with the reality of LENR. Tho keep in mind, there are still flat earthers even today.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            A nuclear engineer has apparently presented a report to Rossi and to IH that has stated a COP of 50. Neither of them have denied such a report has been filed. The logical thing for Rossi to do is to get a customer to use the same reactor in the report to verify the COP of 50, and the energy dollars saved. For some reason Rossi does not do this, why? I have written Rossi and asked him that question. He answered saying he agrees, this has to happen. But no customer ever appears.

          • Engineer48

            Bernie,

            In the contract, clause 3.2c states the ERV reported COP is the single determination of the amount IH is due to pay Rossi.

            In the IH motion to dismiss, the ERV COP report is never challenged. Instead the MTD says the agreement to extend the test time was not signed by all the parties that signed the contract, thus where was no extension and the test was not completed on time, thus IH don’t owe Rossi any money.

            However clause 5 says only IH could extend the time and as they signed the time extension agreement, it would seem the IH lawyers are out of luck.

            BTW why do you suppose Rossi insisted on an external customer to do the 1 year test with?

            Maybe because a good 1 year test result would open the commercial sales flood gates?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Don’t understand, are you answering my question above? If you are, I have been asking the same question since 2012, the above does not answer my question. I am and have been an ardent Rossi supporter since 2011, everything he says points to a sincere individual, his apparent scientific knowledge, his association with Sergio Focardi, the progression of his inventions point to him being a brilliant inventor. Since 2012 Rossi has said many times, after criticisms of his many tests, the only way to end the debate is to show an economic benefit. I have even accused him of being a Giacometti, the famous sculptor, who while trying to reach perfection, would carve his sculptures until there was nothing left. Rossi still does not take that step to prove an economic benefit. Why?

          • Engineer48

            Bernie,

            Rossi stated the IH customer’s engineer claimed very great economic benefit with a energy cost reduction of more than 20 times.

            I would say that is a very significant economic benefit and a statement that would never have happened if Rossi had not insisted to do the 1 year test out in the real world and with a real world IH heat customer that paid IH $1,000 per day for the 24MWhs of daily heat.

            An IH heat customer that IH took many potential investors and partners to see and talk with. Rossi say it is all on 24/7 video.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Please, I mean an independent customer calling a news conference, declaring the economic benefit, with the media able to ask questions. Not a “Rossi stated the customer engineer said” What is the down side for Rossi to make that happen?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            Just maybe, had IH paid Rossi the $89m, that would have happened. I expect it would have happened and that was why Rossi did the trial that way.

            Rossi has stated the customer’s UK parent has ordered 3 x 1MW reactors, so maybe one day soon we will hear from them.

            But like my potential client, I expect no one will be saying anything until the court issues are fully settled as no one wants to buy into the middle of a dirty fight, where mud can get slung and stick to innocent though involved parties.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            There is nothing stopping Rossi from selling the 50 COP reactor to a customer willing to declare and prove its economic value. The lawsuit has nothing to do with a new sale especially to a customer outside the territory of the lawsuit. Rossi could preserve his IP while the world would not be deprived of a very important energy source.

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            I have a good memory and do remember Rossi stating that full mains power must be available to control the reactor in SSM.

            Which implies the damping negative feedback control is not added heat, which would take some time to penetrate to the core, but was instead a massive magnetic field generated by the heater coil having max amps applied to it. IE maybe only for a few 10s of milliseconds but a massive surge of inrush current.

            We do know the SPAWAR Navy researchers got their test reactors to go into thermal runaway 3 out of 10 times by the application of a very strong magnetic field, so there seems to be some reaction to very high intensity magnetic fields. Just maybe Rossi has found the flip side and knows how to damp down his reactor using the mag field generated by the coiled heater.

          • I don’t think there can be much doubt from the sum total of photos and snippets from AR (and others, such as Louis DeChiaro) that oscillating RF/EM is the key. Whether it has always been delivered via the heater current is less certain, but that does seem to be a strong possibility. However, separating the functions by using two coils, heater and EM, would give cleaner control and more options.

          • Engineer48

            Agaricus,

            Two heaters have been the go for some time. My thoughts were the internal heater may have been something other than a heater.

            Other thoughts were that the water was boiled & turned into wet steam as it entered the copper reactor by the extension to the left of the reactor proper and with the added thermal energy from the very hot reactor core, was then turned into dry / superheated steam.
            .

          • I remember this speculative image from the time. The problem with it is that the band heater would only have heated the coolant flow as it isn’t in contact with the reactor fuel containment. Other photos show thermal discolouration of the band heaters that could only have occurred at temperatures much higher than the coolant flow would have allowed.

            I believe that the actual internal arrangement was much simpler, with water flowing straight through the inner pipe and the ‘reactor’ mounted concentrically around this, directly heated by the band heater, per my response to Pweet below.

          • Ted-Z

            High magnetic fields are used to precisely control nuclear magnetic resonance. This is used by chemists in analyzing nuclear resonances of elements (with odd nuclear numbers; NMR).
            Therefore, the control system may just disturb the nuclear resonance present in the SSP mode by applying some off-resonance magnetic interference.

          • Engineer48

            Ted-Z,

            Rossi did say the reactor needed to be continually supplied by the mains so it had peak power available to control the reactor in SSM mode, which by definition requires no mains excitation.

          • lrao

            ?? if you start with, say a charged battery, and (some) of the output is used to maintain the battery charged, and you create the needed electricity (in whichever form it is needed: AC, DC, waveform, etc) from the battery, why wouldn’t SSM mode be as if the electric power is coming from elsewhere?

            That it, if useful electricity can be generated from the equipment, and is stored, there is no way the equipment knows the required input electricity comes from the one it generated, or from a mains power.

            “FULL power” is simply related to the amount of charge in the battery (certain amount of energy for certain time).

            If this equipment is generating useful power (with a high COP), SSM can easily be done, always.

            Not sure what the logic is about high COP not implying SSM…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Batteries are still relatively expensive. Also, it takes considerable time to recharge them. Supercapacitors are better in this regard, but in comparison to batteries they can store only small amounts of energy. And they are expensive as well. You might also need a more complex and costly control system. For these reasons, connecting the E-Cats to the grid seems to be the best solution, both from a technical and economical point of view.

            But certainly, a battery/supercap-backed demo reactor that runs autonomously for a month would be more convincing than all the tests which have been carried out during the last years…

          • Engineer48

            Irao,

            You can’t use some of the batteries output to maintain the charge. This is like saying you can hook a motor & generator together, feed the generator output to the motor, spin it up to speed and it will continue to run forever.

          • Bruce__H

            Irao isn’t saying use some of the battery’s output to maintain the charge. He or she is saying to use some of the output of the ecat to maintain the charge.

          • Engineer48

            Ethel, Bruce,

            OK I misunderstood what Irao said. My bad.

            I have no idea how much energy is needed to be drawn from the primary source to damp down a runaway reactor, if in fact that is what Rossi meant when he said the ECat reactor needs to have a permanent grid connection.

            What I do know is that the mains can deliver a very large power spike, for a very short time and still not pop breakers. Sure you could get that from a battery but it would need to be of a battery technology optimised for a very rapid and high burst of current.

            Then consider that with 105C superheated steam the Carnot cycle efficiency is very low so, no real way to get good electrical generation at 105C. That is why my potential client needs 600C steam, so his steam turbines can deliver around 35% thermal energy to electrical energy efficiency to the grid.

          • lrao

            ???

            You can’t do that only because the COP of the generator in your example is less than 1 (output power is less than input power). The whole point of the LENR is that COP >> 1 (much greater than 1). That is, you input is, say, 1KWH of electrical power, and the LENR will produce, say, 20KWH of output power and the COP in this case is (ignoring other factors, for simplicity sake) 20.

            So, if your COP is sufficiently high you can take (some of) the energy in the output, transform it (as it may not be in a suitable format) and use it as the input.

            If the COP is sufficiently high, it doesn’t matter that you have losses in your transformation. because these losses are typically of 30 to 40% (meaning that even a COP of 10 will leave you with enough output power to do meaningful work and yet run in self sustaining mode).

            If your output is electrical current (regardless of it having AC components, harmonics, or what have you, you can always rectify it, at a low loss, and convert it to DC (with off-the-shelf equipment, no need to invent anything here, just purchase it), store the DC in a battery, and then use an inverter to convert from that DC to AC and use it as input for the LENR equipment (or use a DC to DC converter if your input is DC for the LENR).

            All this path (output -> rectifier -> battery -> inverter/converter -> input) can be purchased cheaply at the levels we are talking about for the QuarKX (at most a few KW) and is readily available. And it has a relatively low loss. For example, rectifiers and inverters/DC to DC converters can be at 90%+ efficiency. Batteries are lower, but still in the 60 to 90% (depending on the chemistry). The whole path would have an efficiency of 65% (losses of 35% = 90%x80%*90%). This requires a low COP on the LENR device. If the lenr only produces heat as output, you can still convert the heat to electrical current, although your losses will be much greater and require a much greater COP. But the QuarKX produces electrical power as output, right?

            So,

            SSM is easily doable if COP is sufficiently high, for these low power devices.

            At the MW levels, it is a different story.

            But, this is not what this particular thread we are commenting on is about.

          • Engineer48

            Irao,

            Apologies, I read your comments intention incorrectly. My bad.

          • Rene

            Agreed about the power source. The COP of a U nuclear reactor is “who cares” since the usable energy out is vastly higher than the energy in to maintain the electronics, pumps, etc. The primary reason there are massive standby generators at those plants is to power the active cooling phase when the useful output plummets to zero during SCRAM or controlled shutdown.
            The energy out for LENR, presently, is not that much higher overall than the energy in required to run it. The concern with using the power generated by an e-cat, or specifically the quark, is whether it generates sufficient power throughout its reaction phases to let it run its control mechanisms; that is, that is it produces sufficient power to permit short term storing enough energy for those control mechanisms. It better, else it’s not an interesting energy device.

            “But the QuarKX produces electrical power as output, right?”
            Good question. Does it produce electrical power all the time? Or, does it flip between electrical output and heat depending where on the state curve it is running? Does the control mechanism require a brief but significant amount of power to provide the negative feedback needed to keep it from going runaway? These are the unknowns that to me are vexing of this tech.

          • DrD

            Irao,
            I agree completely and with your further amplification below.
            It is exactly what I have said many times.
            After first saying it wasn’t possible for “safety reasons” Andrea eventually asnwered it might be possible.

        • Bob Cook

          I agree that control of the reaction is a significant issue. It has been suggested that electric potentials may be used to control the availability of protons. I think that would be tough, particularly at the high temperatures involved.

          I consider that changing the resonant energy state of the reactants is a more likely mechanism to assure good control. In this regard I would rely on ambient magnetic fields to create appropriate resonant conditions. The high temperatures may act to broaden resonant integrals of proton or neutron interactions such that a significant change to a higher resonant energy is necessary to prevent runaway.

          A strong ambient magnetic field would change the energy states of nuclear resonances potentially making a reaction less likely. The magnetic field would of necessity need to be adjusted based on temperatures and maybe even rate of change of temperature.

          FRC

          • oaklandthinktank

            yupyup! 🙂 i like that way, too.

      • roseland67

        48,
        Has anyone ever been able to replicate the
        Thermal runaway you describe?

        • Mark Underwood

          A particular setup by Stan Szpak went thermal runaway three out of ten times.

          https://youtu.be/QxBJjWzlKl0?t=13m28s

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mark,

            Saw that. Impressive result even if only 3 out of 10 went runaway. Maybe if they ran the test 10 times longer, the runaway rate would have been higher.

          • Engineer48

            Runaway images attached.

            Those are massive NeoDyn magnets!!

          • roseland67

            Mark,
            Was he trying to replicate the thermal runaway when it happened, or did it happen while testing something else?

          • Mark Underwood

            I assume he was just trying to maximize excess heat production as usual, not ruin the apparatus with a runaway.

          • roseland67

            Wondering if the thermal runaway could be replicated?

      • Chapman

        Engineer,

        May I suggest you consider the effects of a heavy reverse biasing of the reactor core with an externally applied strong negative voltage source? Dampening the reaction could most easily be achieved by neutralizing the free protons before they interact with the lithium for the secondary reaction. This would have the effect of reforming the hydrogen, and would re-ionize it prior to reabsorption by the nickel. (It would recycle the unused hydrogen proton source.)

        I think Rossi is trying to balance a tripod. There is the initial stimulating EM pulse to trigger the primary LENR effect, but there is a time lag between cause and thermal effect that makes it a poor point for fine regulation. Then there is the positive thermal feedback from the secondary Lithium reaction which accelerates things, but is fixed. Reverse Biasing (the third leg) offers a means of controlling the reaction path at the midway point, and would produce results fast enough to fine tune the regulation real-time.

        I am not talking about EM dampening, but a constant negative operational bias. Manipulation of the density of free electrons populating the collective conduction bands within the reactor fuel matrix would result in a precise, AND ADJUSTABLE, mathematical probability factor for the percentage of liberated protons being recycled versus the percentage successfully “running the gauntlet” and being absorbed into Lithium nuclei.

        In simple terms, he is (or may/should be) operating the reactor as a Field Effect Transistor (FET), pinching off the current flow, which in this case is the flow of protons between nickel and lithium atoms, by controlling the surrounding ion fields. The biasing is not a significant power drain, as it is only an ionizing voltage which produces little current flow, as long as the reactor is properly electrically isolated. Grounding can still be maintained by control of the ground offset.

        I suspect that is why he insists that an independent external power supply is critical for safe and dependable operation. Think about it – a massive reverse bias would be a virtual instantaneous “Off Switch”.

        Just guessing, I know, don’t beat me up; But you are the most informed poster I see here and I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

        • Engineer48

          Chapman,

          Sounds interesting.

          Look what I have done all my career is to collect data points from as many sources as possible and see it they fit some claimed operational model of a new device. If they don’t fit, then it is likely the claimed data and device is vapourware.

          So far, after following this for many years, there are very few data points that do not fit the ECat being a real world operational device that basically works as Rossi explains and is in continual development.

          Should add my potential client’s engineers and I, do not expect to see a finely polished and highly developed ECat reactor. What they expect to see is a product in continual product development, that they can learn to work with and maybe assist the maturity of the device. For them, at this stage, a COP of 2.6 would be wonderful, despite such a low result allowing IH to pay Rossi nothing for the 1 year trial.

          It would seem real world engineers have different expectations than that of Venture Capitalists.

          • Chapman

            This is one aspect of it all that has left me scratching my head.

            Not long ago we were dreaming of just being able to break unity gain. Now, the attitude seems to be that a paltry COP of 3 is marginal, and not yet commercially useful.

            I would trade a “BMW Style” 1200c Super-Tech Reactor with a COP of 100 for a “Ford Style” 600c STABLE-Tech Reactor with a COP of only 5!

            The very nature of these LENR systems leads one to think in terms of cascades of devices configured so as to produce any overall required output power given the available input power range. As such, Stability, affordability, longevity, safety, and the lowest possible complexity, are ALL far more important design and engineering considerations than chasing incremental increases in COP.

            Virtually any set of devices with individual COPs above 5 are able to be configured to produce any desired output power. COP of >50 is just showing off!!! Instead, try to get the operating temp as low as possible, increase the fuel charge capacity, and reduce complexity for easier/cheaper manufacturing and lower end-user price.

      • giovanniontheweb

        as far as the transfer function has been identified if the issue is feedback delay then part of the feedback loop will have to be hardware integrated into the reactor

        • Engineer48

          Giovannion,

          For some time I have believed that for the ECat reactor to successfully maintain SSM, this function had to be designed into the hardware and software control systems of the reactor by the IH engineers that designed and build the central island 4 x 250kWt slab primary reactor.

          It could NOT be something Rossi did to the reactors, by application of his magic wand, while he was in the second office container. Which implies Rossi did transfer the knowledge to build and operate a COP > 50 reactor to IH.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 practical barriers do not change requirements, yet very basic “direct” feedback loop can “almost” do self-control within a given range

          • Engineer48

            Giovannion,

            The problem as I see it, is SSM may be driven / dominated by a strong positive feedback loop where, depending on the reactor heat gain, fairly small amounts of foldback heat can cause the reaction to generate very large heat gains in the output.

            Compounding this is that changes in the external output heat load, say it reduces, release additional heat to appear in the foldback heat input to the reactor input.

            Controlling a positive feedback loop is hard enough but to add changing amounts of positive feedback makes the job even harder.

            Of course if we could, as engineers, we would try to redesign the control system to use easier to handle negative feedback, where if you get it wrong, the reactor drops power instead of going into a meltdown or worse.

            Then add in hysteresis effects and lagging functions from thermal load heating / cooling delays and it gets really interesting.

            I’m seriously impressed Rossi and his team achieved fairly lengthy SSM periods but Rossi did on his 1st 1MW reactor demo, show a SSM lasting for 5 hours so they have had some time to get it right.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 to me to me it looks like overlapping exponential deviations where few of them are no reversible, control can be very complex or very easy when you have the limit moving or not if the hardware limit itself

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Just wish we knew more about how SSM works but as you say it could be very complex or very simple.

            I assume with a steady heat load on the output of the reactor, SSM control will be much easier. When Rossi did the 1st 1MW demo, the output heat load was a fan driven heat radiator, where the fan speed could be easily controlled to give a highly regulated steady heat load to the reactor, which is maybe why way back then Rossi was able to achieved a 5 hour SSM.

          • giovanniontheweb

            hi Eng48 I have reviewed the Padova posters on some similar reactions and whatt you mention it looks possible only as feed-bsck loop controlling a self-controlling loop. You control the range not the process

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Well we do need to more about the characteristic before working to design a control system but today using even high speed PICs, amazing control systems are fairly easy to implement.

          • giovanniontheweb

            Hi Eng48 very true but you have got competitors in front of you and everything more than essential will be too much

          • Engineer48

            Hi Giovannion,

            Very true. All my engineering life I have walked that thin line, learning to also factor in Murphy / chaos and add in a bit of extra margin / fat so I can sleep well at night, knowing I went the extra mile to ensure wider margins than required.

          • giovanniontheweb

            Hi Eng48, I guess what is leading M Rossi is testing intuition instead of testing functions and in a very scientific and methodical manner walking on water stones to go from one river side to the other that is what makes me very admirative.

    • Varmlandstok

      May be that the smaller units are easier to work with, perhaps more self regulatory.

    • Roland

      Have you considered that the primary value of adopting cynicism as a worldview lies in its ability to model and predict the emotive responses of other cynics?

      The downside lies in the tendency to immediately diminish the very possibility of every positive human impulse which in turn leads to a certain despondency which, if left unchecked, can morph into anomie and despair.

      Wine is an uncertain antidote…

      • Rene

        I did consider that. But, I also considered the years long evidence that Rossi (like many entrepreneurs) is prone to over-exuberance and exaggeration of his progress.

        • Observer

          The bigger the Yin, the bigger the yang.

          • Rene

            Burma Shave!

        • Roland

          The abandonment of cynicism does subject one to the emotions accompanying the kind of protracted effort that Rossi has made.

          A breakthrough, particularly after a long plateau period, can lead to a transient exuberance only to be tempered, later, by fresh adversity.

          In the short history of the Quark, for example, the initial breakthrough was accompanied, shortly thereafter, by the emergence of the requirement for component materials with higher performance characteristics.

          An inner passion, history would have us believe, appears to be foundational to human progress; as numerous biographies attest.

          The ‘sages’ council balance so that passion serves intellect.

          Sun Tzu councils that a clear understanding of self allows the practitioner, in the arts of war, to perceive and use the imbalances of his enemies to excellent effect while remaining in the still center.

          Difficult advice to follow…

  • Engineer48

    Back some time ago, Rossi seems to have developed a way to both create wet steam and then to apply further radiant thermal energy from the exposed fins in the steam space to turn it dry / superheated.

    What do you think?

    • Sean

      Wow, nice idea. However a boiler really needs to be round for my kind of pressure. Mr Robert Alexander Briggs by the way invented this boiler over a hundred years ago. I am one of only a few whom are building this style of boiler. Mr. Briggs is also the inventor of the Panic Bolt push bar you see on most public doors. So it does take time for inventions to go around as will Rossi’s. Remembering also that Frank Whittle’s Jet engine was sneered at in the 1920’s now we depend on them. Cheers.

      • Engineer48

        Sean,

        Yup, I thought his combined boiler and superheater was a brilliant idea.

        Of course the exposed fins, in the steam space above the boiling water, surface temp needs to be very high, while the surface temp of the fins in the water space never gets above boiling temp.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Batteries are still relatively expensive. Also, it takes considerable time to recharge them. Supercapacitors are better in this regard, but in comparison to batteries they can store only small amounts of energy. And they are expensive as well. You might also need a more complex and costly control system. For these reasons, connecting the E-Cats to the grid seems to be the best solution, both from a technical and economical point of view.

    But certainly, a battery/supercap-backed demo reactor that runs autonomously for a month would be more convincing than all the tests which have been carried out during the last years…

  • Engineer48

    Irao,

    You can’t use some of the batteries output to maintain the charge. This is like saying you can hook a motor & generator together, feed the generator output to the motor, spin it up to speed and it will continue to run forever.

    • Ethel Mermaid

      Engineer, Irao was referring to part of the output of the Ecat keeping the battery charged.

  • Engineer48

    Ethel, Bruce,

    OK I misunderstood what Irao said. My bad.

    I have no idea how much energy is needed to be drawn from the primary source to damp down a runaway reactor, if in fact that is what Rossi meant when he said the ECat reactor needs to have a permanent grid connection.

    What I do know is that the mains can deliver a very large power spike, for a very short time and still not pop breakers. Sure you could get that from a battery but it would need to be of a battery technology optimised for a very rapid and high burst of current.

    Then consider that with 105C superheated steam the Carnot cycle efficiency is very low so, no real way to get good electrical generation at 105C. That is why my potential client needs 600C steam, so his steam turbines can deliver around 35% thermal energy to electrical energy efficiency to the grid.

  • Engineer48

    Irao,

    Apologies, I read your comments intention incorrectly. My bad.

  • Mark Underwood

    A particular setup by Stan Szpak went thermal runaway three out of ten times.

    https://youtu.be/QxBJjWzlKl0?t=13m28s

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mark,

      Saw that. Impressive result even if only 3 out of 10 went runaway. Maybe if they ran the test 10 times longer, the runaway rate would have been higher.

      • Engineer48

        Runaway images attached.

        Those are massive NeoDyn magnets!!

      • Rene

        Agreed about the power source. The COP of a U nuclear reactor is “who cares” since the usable energy out is vastly higher than the energy in to maintain the electronics, pumps, etc. The primary reason there are massive standby generators at those plants is to power the active cooling phase when the useful output plummets to zero during SCRAM or controlled shutdown.
        The energy out for LENR, presently, is not that much higher overall than the energy in required to run it. The concern with using the power generated by an e-cat, or specifically the quark, is whether it generates sufficient power throughout its reaction phases to let it run its control mechanisms; that is, that is it produces sufficient power to permit short term storing enough energy for those control mechanisms. It better, else it’s not an interesting energy device.

        “But the QuarKX produces electrical power as output, right?”
        Good question. Does it produce electrical power all the time? Or, does it flip between electrical output and heat depending where on the state curve it is running? Does the control mechanism require a brief but significant amount of power to provide the negative feedback needed to keep it from going runaway? These are the unknowns that to me are vexing of this tech.

    • roseland67

      Mark,
      Was he trying to replicate the thermal runaway when it happened, or did it happen while testing something else?

      • Mark Underwood

        I assume he was just trying to maximize excess heat production as usual, not ruin the apparatus with a runaway.

      • Mats002

        Obviously if the Swedish politicians heard of E-Cat as the first usable LENR/CF device they don’t see a future with it, at least not now. Maybe sometime in the future.

        E-Cat is still not reproducable, not even at lab scale is it’s claimed COP reproducable.

        I wouldn’t advice any government to make E-Cat part of their energy policy today. But would advice them to explore LENR/CF in the science field if I had such a position.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002,

          Strong statement.

          Based on what information?

        • Roland

          Bizarrely enough ELFORESK scientists are held in high regard in Sweden and, unlike in other jurisdictions, Swedish politicians actually pay attention when the nation’s foremost physicists and power engineers suggest that they take note of an important emerging technology that was successfully tested using ELFORESK funding.

          The only possible reason for your statement that ‘E-Cat is still not reproducable, not even at lab scale is it’s claimed COP reproducable (sp).’ is that you are of the opinion that all the events of the last 3 years of E-cat evolution are totally fabricated.

          Your dubious theory is increasingly unlikely and the evidence against it is growing by the day.

          Soon enough events will render your position absurd.

        • roseland67

          Agreed

  • Roland

    While it is certainly germane, especially to those attempting replications of the earliest E-cat iterations, to bring everything that has been revealed to us, from the very beginning right up to the present, to bear on attempts to further our understanding of how the latest iteration of the E-cat functions it is worth noting the inflection point that occurred on Dec. 26 2015.

    This is the date that marks a significant shift in how E-cats function based, I posit, on a more fundamental understanding of the physics underlying LENR reactions.

    This is the date on which Rossi, in obvious excitement, revealed that a new type of E-cat could be induced to: produce electricity directly, output significant power in the form of light, and respond very quickly to control mechanism inputs, including rapid reaction onset and quelling.

    This is the birthday of the Quark.

    What went before is highly pertinent to the ongoing replication efforts; it is debatable to what degree what went before is applicable to our attempts to understand the current evolution of the Quark.

    There was no indication then, nor has there been any since, that this breakthrough was based on changes to the fuel; indeed Rossi has inferred that the chemistry window is now broader than was previously the case, rather than narrower.

    There has been an alteration, subsequently, to the material properties of some of the reactor components to cope with significantly higher operating temperatures. There is no indication that these changes precipitated the advanced performance characteristics, but rather that these changes were in response to the engineering demands of already altered circumstances.

    There is every indication, in my view, that the advances occurred in the conceptualization of the control mechanisms while running a reactor design very similar to previous iterations. If this supposition is correct the obvious limitations of previous iterations of the E-cat control mechanisms no longer apply.

    There is one further point to ponder; Rossi has given us to understand that the control system and the Quark reactor are now separate mechanical structures. If this interpretation is correct it lends credence to the posters who are focused on the role of field effects and resonant frequencies as the key to initiating and controlling LENR reactions.

  • Roland

    While it is certainly germane, especially to those attempting replications of the earliest E-cat iterations, to bring everything that has been revealed to us, from the very beginning right up to the present, to bear on attempts to further our understanding of how the latest iteration of the E-cat functions it is worth noting the inflection point that occurred on Dec. 26 2015.

    This is the date that marks a significant shift in how E-cats function based, I posit, on a more fundamental understanding of the physics underlying LENR reactions.

    This is the date on which Rossi, in obvious excitement, revealed that a new type of E-cat could be induced to: produce electricity directly, output significant power in the form of light, and respond very quickly to control mechanism inputs, including rapid reaction onset and quelling.

    This is the birthday of the Quark.

    What went before is highly pertinent to the ongoing replication efforts; it is debatable to what degree what went before is applicable to our attempts to understand the current evolution of the Quark.

    There was no indication then, nor has there been any since, that this breakthrough was based on changes to the fuel; indeed Rossi has inferred that the chemistry window is now broader than was previously the case, rather than narrower.

    There has been an alteration, subsequently, to the material properties of some of the reactor components to cope with significantly higher operating temperatures. There is no indication that these changes precipitated the advanced performance characteristics, but rather that these changes were in response to the engineering demands of already altered circumstances.

    There is every indication, in my view, that the advances occurred in the conceptualization of the control mechanisms while running a reactor design very similar to previous iterations. If this supposition is correct the obvious limitations of previous iterations of the E-cat control mechanisms no longer apply.

    There is one further point to ponder; Rossi has given us to understand that the control system and the Quark reactor are now separate mechanical structures. If this interpretation is correct it lends credence to the posters who are focused on the role of field effects and resonant frequencies as the key to initiating and controlling LENR reactions.

    • Andy Kumar

      “it is worth noting the inflection point that occurred on Dec. 26 2015.
      This is the date on which Rossi, in *obvious excitement*, revealed that a new type of E-cat could be induced to: produce electricity directly, output significant power in the form of light, and respond very quickly to control mechanism inputs, including rapid reaction onset and quelling.This is the date that marks a significant shift in how E-cats function based, I posit, on a more fundamental understanding of the physics underlying LENR reactions.”
      .
      Could the *obvious excitement* be the result of *irrational exuberance* caused by excessive holiday partying. It is one of the more obvious hypothesis -:)

      • kdk

        Unlike the Fundie Mohammed Atta and his coke and booze parties, Rossi doesn’t seem like the sort used to partying hard. Speaking of obvious hypotheses, it is absurd to expect that the fact of rampant corruption has no bearing on the deployment of technology which upsets the pocket books of inferred persons and their crews.

  • John
    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      I see that story lack of a lot of info. It omits a lot of facts to make IH appear as the good boys.

      It talks about that IH “couldn sustantiate” but it doesnt hits the point that in the answer made by IH they didnt mention the performance as an issue but instead used technicalities to try to avoid the payment.

  • John
    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      I see that story lack of a lot of info. It omits a lot of facts to make IH appear as the good boys.

      It talks about that IH “couldn sustantiate” but it doesnt hits the point that in the answer made by IH they didnt mention the performance as an issue but instead used technicalities to try to avoid the payment.

  • Observer

    Has it occurred to anybody, that if you prevent the material system from self destructing, the you do not have to control the reaction. When you leave the optimum operating window the system will self regulate (providing that leaving the window does not prevent you from returning to a previous state).

    • Roland

      There is no evidence, to date, suggesting whether or not Quarks can be induced to self destruct, and, as you note, self regulating systems reside at the apex of practical engineering as the super-visionary requirements are minimized.

      • Roland

        To be fair, upon reflection, the achievable surface temperatures of the Quark exceeded the materials specifications of the previous generation.

        Are you suggesting, among other things, that the material specifications of the components of the current Quark exceed the output capabilities of the device?

        • Roland

          Upon further reflection; what are the implications of flirting around with the phase change boundaries of the nano, surface area maximized, Ni particles thought to be, in the solid phase, intrinsic to the reaction.

          The supposition, to date, has been that by some (currently) unknown mechanism the core temperature of the Quark (where the reaction is occurring) is lower than the measured surface temperature of the apparatus and, thus, that the Ni in an operating Quark is in the solid phase.

          Are we to assume that Ni atoms are in a solid, liquid, gaseous or condensate phase during isotopic transition in LENR reactions?

          If so, which phase and why?

          If not, have we, humans, found a new state of matter with, implicitly, previously unknown properties, in which state the LENR reaction is mediated (as has already been suggested here from time to time)?

          One of the numerous benefits of a, relatively, complete underlying theoretical construct is the ability to, theoretically and subject to experimental validation, exclude certain possibilities through deductive reasoning; a luxury we here don’t currently enjoy.

          Would I be shocked to learn that Rossi sees more deeply into these, and similarly perplexing, LENR related issues than others?

          No.

          • SG

            That is because hot fusion in no way threatens the status quo.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          We cannot forget IH and their backers have hired one of the top propaganda machines in the World, it has to be costing them millions. Therefore, whenever I go on any LENR site I have to assume these propagandists are there and are working.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bernie,

            The more Weaver talks and starts to reveal what looks like real data, the more he destroys any credibility he ever had. Cherry picking data sets that do not represent the entirety of the data set is a really good way to get those who understand the engineering to show how his earlier statement sure seem to be intentionally misleading.

            Then we have Rossi who intensifies his claims against IH, which if he had nothing would be as dumb and action as you could do and Rossi is not dumb.

            Unlike Weaver who repaints his past statements as he gets caught out, Rossi’s new and past statements align up.
            .

          • SD

            Don’t forget Rothwell, who, by miraculous coincidence, came up with the same 100.1 temperature as Mr Weaver. Turns out he made it up, and the actual data he has seen shows a temperature of 102.8. Not far from Weaver’s new claims of 103.9.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Sd,

            If Jed was shown the same data that Weaver originally shared, then of course he may have come to a wrong conclusion.

            From what Weaver is now leaking, it is getting harder and harder for Weaver to convince those that understand the engineering that the ERV report is faulty.

            Especially as Weaver repaints his past data and is seen to be Cherry picking data to support a claim he may be making. Such as only talking about the superheated steam temp data for a 2 month period and not mentioning the other 10 months nor mentioning that if the ERV had measured the boiling water temp inside the reactor it would have been 100C during ALL the 1 year test. While Weaver may find that amazing, engineers who understand how this works see nothing unusual at all.

          • pg

            Please allow me a weird analogy. I see IH as the like of OJ. Darden as Robert Shapiro. Weaver as Johnny Cochran. Jed Rothwell as F.Lee Bailey.
            The difference is they have no good cause, and they can’t say if it does not fit (our masters agenda) you must acquit (we know it makes no sense in this sentence but our spin doctors said people would relate to it).
            Thank God Rossi is smarter than Marcia Clark, and instead of being buried by public opinion, is the one that is driving it.
            Please everyone do not take this seriously.

          • Gues

            Attack not ones weaknesses, they are obvious.
            Attack ones strengths –

          • Guest

            Jed said he had seen the same data as Mats have.

            Mats never mentioned there were extremely inconsistencies in that data pointing towards a technology that produces a static value even when dis-assembled and put back into the box.

            Is it possible that the data Mats saw, and the data Jed and others refers to is different.

            Regardless, I do not understand all this but I find it mysterious that data that already have been collected and put down on paper can change over time. Very very mysterious.

          • Roland

            There is no cogent reason to assume that this is a recent development and every reason to postulate the opposite.

            In addition, to the aforementioned propagandists, there is a significant list of other organizations that would be remise in the execution of their duties were they to ignore LENR sites, and this forum in particular.

          • help_lenr

            I rarely argue with people who are too emotional: they are not rational. Rothwell behaves like this.

            About Peter Gluck. He said on 9 June that he will stop taking part in the war Rossi vs IH, starting 10 June. But he is not able to stop (this time because Rothwell continues argue with him in LENR-FORUM).

    • DrD

      Except you need to control it anyway, otherwise output must be quantised in 100W levels.
      He claimed to have run one into self destruct “safely”.

  • Observer

    Has it occurred to anybody, that if you prevent the material system from self destructing, the you do not have to control the reaction. When you leave the optimum operating window the system will self regulate (providing that leaving the window does not prevent you from returning to a previous state).

    • Roland

      There is no evidence, to date, suggesting whether or not Quarks can be induced to self destruct, and, as you note, self regulating systems reside at the apex of practical engineering as the super-visionary requirements are minimized.

      • Roland

        To be fair, upon reflection, the achievable surface temperatures of the Quark exceeded the materials specifications of the previous generation.

        Are you suggesting, among other things, that the material specifications of the components of the current Quark exceed the output capabilities of the device?

        • Roland

          Upon further reflection; what are the implications of flirting around with the phase change boundaries of the nano, surface area maximized, Ni particles thought to be, in the solid phase, intrinsic to the reaction.

          The supposition, to date, has been that by some (currently) unknown mechanism the core temperature of the Quark (where the reaction is occurring) is lower than the measured surface temperature of the apparatus and, thus, that the Ni in an operating Quark is in the solid phase.

          Are we to assume that Ni atoms are in a solid, liquid, gaseous or condensate phase during isotopic transition in LENR reactions?

          If so, which phase and why?

          If not, have we, humans, found a new state of matter with, implicitly, previously unknown properties, in which state the LENR reaction is mediated (as has already been suggested here from time to time)?

          One of the numerous benefits of a, relatively, complete underlying theoretical construct is the ability to, theoretically and subject to experimental validation, exclude certain possibilities through deductive reasoning; a luxury we here don’t currently enjoy.

          Would I be shocked to learn that Rossi sees more deeply into these, and similarly perplexing, LENR related issues than others?

          No.

    • DrD

      Except you need to control it anyway, otherwise output must be quantised in 100W levels.
      He claimed to have run one into self destruct “safely”.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “(Update: Testing Going ‘Very Well’, Customer ‘Optimistic’ )”

    i.e. no news yet, no announcement. 🙁

    I want to see “customer has ordered 100K units for a total dollar value for $100mm”

    Or even “Siemens announces they are secret customer of Rossi”

    Throw me a bone Andrea…

    • DrD

      Or better still, they ALSO agree to manufacture and distribute them; the full range.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Anon & DrD,

        I strongly suspect the new partner/customer will keep very quiet until they have their product ready to release to the market.

        They most certainly will NOT wish to inform their competitors of what they are working on.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “(Update: Testing Going ‘Very Well’, Customer ‘Optimistic’ )”

    i.e. no news yet, no announcement. 🙁

    I want to see “customer has ordered 100K units for a total dollar value for $100mm”

    Or even “Siemens announces they are secret customer of Rossi”

    Throw me a bone Andrea…

    • DrD

      Or better still, they ALSO agree to manufacture and distribute them; the full range.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Anon & DrD,

        I strongly suspect the new partner/customer will keep very quiet until they have their product ready to release to the market.

        They most certainly will NOT wish to inform their competitors of what they are working on.

  • kdk

    Unlike the Fundie Mohammed Atta and his pink haired strippers and coke and booze parties, Rossi doesn’t seem like the sort used to partying hard. Speaking of obvious hypotheses, it is absurd to expect that the fact of rampant corruption has no bearing on the deployment of technology which upsets the pocket books of inferred persons and their crews.

  • DrD

    Irao,
    I agree completely and with your further amplification below.
    It is exactly what I have said many times.
    After first saying it wasn’t possible for “safety reasons” Andrea eventually asnwered it might be possible.

  • jousterusa

    When do we get a hands-on look at the X?

  • jousterusa

    When do we get a hands-on look at the X?

  • sam

    Jim

    June 8, 2016 at 8:30 PM

    Dr Rossi;
    Is the test with the QuarkX still on course?
    Are you able now to foresee when it will be terminated?
    Cheers,
    Jim
    Andrea Rossi
    June 8, 2016 at 10:24 PM

    Jim:
    1- yes
    2- this week, F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Jim

    June 8, 2016 at 8:30 PM

    Dr Rossi;
    Is the test with the QuarkX still on course?
    Are you able now to foresee when it will be terminated?
    Cheers,
    Jim
    Andrea Rossi
    June 8, 2016 at 10:24 PM

    Jim:
    1- yes
    2- this week, F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • interstellar hobo

    How to make a trillion by losing 85 million:

    If IH lost the lawsuit, they’d have to pay the 85 million, but suddenly they’d have court proof they were sitting on not just one patent but numerous license agreements for the most radical technology changer the earth has seen since building fires on demand.

    And they don’t need a dime of advertising, or courtship of investors. Their door will be knocked down by them. At the same time they get the divorce from Rossi they probably always wanted. I’ve been wondering about this for awhile. These are smart men. It’s still ridiculous to imagine some Big Coal conspiracy, or other. You cannot un-invent a thing, and everyone in the game knows if Rossi or IH doesn’t bring it to fruition, someone elsewhere in the world will very soon. The markets are adapting to that reality.

    It’s in IH’s best interest not to win, I suspect. This is the deal of the century.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Interstellar,

      Read the termination clause binding on IH and the term clause as attached.

      Says IH and just about any other person / company involved with IH can’t compete with Leonado for a VERY LONG TIME.

      If IH loses and can’t block the licence termination, Rossi can go to court to get injunctions after injunctions to stop them operating in the NIH LENR space.

      If Rossi can show IH shared Rossi IP with Brillouin or any other such company, then Brillouin or other such companies may also get dragged into the mess IH created by not paying Rossi the $89m.

  • Engineer48

    Read the termination clause binding on IH and the term clause as attached.

    Says IH and just about any other person / company involved with IH can’t compete with Leonado for a VERY LONG TIME.

    If IH loses and can’t block the licence termination, Rossi can go to court to get injunctions after injunctions to stop them operating in the NIH LENR space.

    If Rossi can show IH shared Rossi IP with Brillouin or any other such company, then Brillouin or other such companies may also get dragged into the mess IH created by not paying Rossi the $89m.

  • Engineer48

    Hot off the Weaver press:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3323-Are-IH-and-Cherokee-on-the-verge-of-Bankruptcy/?postID=23668#post23668

    Rossi’s NIH based IP didn’t work at all and, as a result, there is nothing to improve upon.

    To address your next question – no we haven’t seen anybody’s NiH reactor work in a verified environment.

    We don’t care about sides and / or LENR+.

    We have seen very interesting periods of potential excess heat but nothing has satisfied our hard science folks at high enough confidence levels yet.

    There is nothing working along the lines of Rossi’s approach and we have shelved that research.

    We have teams working on basic reactions / reactors that are fully characterized and will be able to verify at high confidence levels with any sustainable reaction / reactions that show themselves

    The battle lines are drawn, just waiting for the dawn and then both sides charge out of the trenches, firing all guns while the dead and wounded pile up all around.

    The final winner will write the history that future generations will read.
    .

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Note that DW states that according to the ERV’s report the outlet pressure was constantly 0 bar. This can only be gauge pressure – which means absolute pressure was atmospheric. And he is now suddenly talking about a temperature of 103.9C:

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3311-Now-IH-have-lost-E-Cat-License-and-IP-who-will-manufacture-E-Cats-in-the-US/?postID=23157#post23157

      I could live with 103.9C at 1 bar abs, provided that the other figures (20 kW input, 36 m^3 water per day, inlet temperature about 60C) are halfway correct. There have also been discussions about the flowmeter, but one would have to assume here a huge error to bring the COP below 2.6. We will see…

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andreas,

        Weaver seems to be very selective about the data he quotes, claiming constant temp in March and April 2015 but he says nothing about the other 10 months.

        And his 100.1C temp is suddenly missing.

        Rossi told me to design for superheated steam at 105C, which fits with a measured 103.9 assuming 1 bar abs, even if the temp location is not known as it is not known.

        BTW you can run 1.164 bar abs (16.9 psi abs) pressure and still have 103.9C superheated steam as attached.

        Rossi did say the customer’s external heat exchanger was complex, which I can also agree with.

        • Engineer48

          Here is a better screenshot of the 103.9C superheated steam and max pressure calc.

        • TomR

          Thank you Engineer48 for having the answers at your fingertips and being to answer these questions with the truth.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Robert,

            It has been clear that Weaver cherry picks the data he discloses to gain max benefit at that moment and then later releases more like the real data.

            As I noticed before, his statement about the steady temperature was only for 2 months and made no mention of the other 10 months.

            What Weaver seems to forget is the temperature of just boiled wet steam is always 100C at 0 barG and it stays at that temperature during the entire heating of the wet steam into dry steam. So it is not that difficult to keep superheated steam at a constant 103.9C as very little energy is needed to do that, assuming the superheated steam is above mon superheat temperature.

            I wonder if Weaver also thinks it is amazing that boiling water is always at 100C?

            All I see is a person feeding misinformation onto others who do not understand the physics and engineering of steam production.

            Which says to me that Rossi is right, the reactor works and Ih are working very hard to get out of the $89m payment. Why? Just maybe they believe they no longer need Rossi’s input and continual innovation to go to market?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Or, they are simply trying to delay, delay, delay, until their backers have positioned themselves in the markets.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Tom,

            Steam engineering is just engineering.

            What is tricky for some to understand is that wet steam will not increase it’s temperature until all the wet steam’s clumped together water molecules are broken apart by continually added thermal energy into individual water molecules.

            This is an excellent video that shows the difference between just boiled wet steam and dry steam that has had additional heat applied:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uvIhgVz04

            Would suggest maybe 0.1% of people would accept that steam could light a match or start a fire.

            https://youtu.be/14RvYbYIImY?t=233

            Please watch the 2nd video as well.
            .

      • Mats002

        Jed Rothwell clearify the ERV problem: ERV was not allowed to inspect the customer container and therefore could not verify the thermal load I suppose.

        See https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3330-IH-preventing-Rossi-from-publishing-ERV-according-to-Dewey-Weaver/?postID=23841#post23841

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002,

          IH pre agreed, before the plant was installed, that their people would never go into the customer’s space and likewise the customer’s people would never go into the IH reactor space.

          There were a few offices at the front of the warehouse unit that were used for meetings between the parties and for IH’s visiting potential investors and potential licensees.

          There was no need for the ERV to visit the customer’s space as his instruments were installed on the reactor to measure reactor input and output. The ERV had no reason to verify the thermal load.

          • Private Citizen

            Wait, wasn’t the “input” actually returning steam from the loop thru the customer’s space?

            If so, that makes the customer’s space a black box to the ERV that could be consuming energy OR producing it?

            Who in their right mind would bet $80 million on a blind pig in a poke?

            Surely there was some assurance the customer’s space was a legitimate load on the ECat somehow? (other than Rossi said so)

          • Engineer48

            Hi PC,

            Input water temperature was claimed to be around 60C.

            Input water temp is not relevant as the heat necessary to increase it from return temp to boiling is not included in the reactor power gain.

            Input water temp was however recorded by the ERV.

            Only reactor energy measured is that needed to change wet steam to dry / superheated steam. That calculated amount of energy is then reduced by 10% to be conservative.

          • Private Citizen

            You were typing as i was deleting.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Input temperature is insofar relevant as you have to be sure that all of the returned water is liquid. It could also become relevant for “fine-tuning” the ERV’s COP if necessary.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Andreas,

            ERV was instructed to remove the thermal energy necessary to increase returned fluid to boiling temperature, to also remove the thermal energy necessary to increase the steam temperature above superheat temperature and to remove 10% of the thermal energy necessary to phase change boiling water to dry / superheated steam.

            This generates a VERY conservative COP.

            3 steps involved here:

            1) Energy needed to turn returned fluid into boiling water – ELIMINATED from COP calculations

            2) Energy needed to change boiling water into dry superheated steam – INCLUDED in COP but only 90% of calculated value

            3) Energy needed to increase superheated steam above min superheat temperature – ELIMINATED from COP calculations

            What I see is Rossi that has gone more than the extra mile to ensure the COP measured and calculated by the independent ERV was VERY conservative.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            E48, I know how the COP was calculated. This does not change the necessity to make sure that the input is liquid water (which needs low enough temperature and high enough pressure). If the input contained steam you could not include that part into the calculation. With my second point I referred to a situation where the energy gain from vaporization is questioned (which is apparently the stance of IH and JR). In this case, the energy required to heat the water up to the boiling point could be quoted to determine at least a minimum COP. As I wrote elsewhere, this minimum would come to about 3.5 for a temperature difference of 40 degrees, 20 kW average input and 36000 kg water throughput per day. (However, we do not yet know if these numbers are correct.)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Andreas,

            We do not know the instrumentation the ERV used nor where they were located, so what Jed or Weaver says has little bearing on reality. We do know Weaver has changed his story several times in the past and that Jed has never been a friend of Rossi.

            I do know my 2 steam engineers told me that doing this measurements were dead simple and was done dozens of times every second in thermal power plant’s steam boilers and steam turbine inlets all over the planet.

            I do agree the input fluid temp to the reactor needs to be condensed water, without any steam content, which by the way is very hard to (have significant steam content) do as the less than boiling point water will VERY quickly convert wet steam molecules into water molecules. So any fluid into the reactor input below boiling point can’t have any significant steam content.

        • Barbierir

          How does it make sense? I suppose the ERV installed measuring instruments for the returning water unless he was a complete idiot. The customer could be just cooking pasta or whatever and it doesn’t change anything.

        • sam

          Jed RothwellJune 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM
          Robert Dorr wrote: “The only theory that I have heard as to why Rossi’s ecat doesn’t work is that he is scam artist. I don’t consider that much of an alternate theory.”

          That is not what I.H. and I have said. We say that there were “flawed measurements” using “unsuitable measuring devices.”

          “They have not produced one piece of evidence that the ecat doesn’t work, other than various ideas as to how Rossi has performed some sort of slight of hand.”

          That is false. No one has said sleight of hand is involved. The methods and instruments are absurd. They are grossly wrong. The instruments are the wrong types, deployed in ways that do not work correctly, and they produce meaningless numbers. For example (as has been pointed elsewehere) unless the pressure was 1 atm or less, the water was not boiling. Most of the enthalpy Rossi computed disappears from that alone.

          Also, Rossi has not given you one piece of evidence that the ecat does work. I just now gave you far more information than he has revealed. Everything I say is based on information from him, that he does not want made public.

          Ask Rossi why he has not provided any technical details.

          Robert DorrJune 10, 2016 at 5:06 AM
          That’s what you say Jed, but that’s the problem, it is just what you say, you have provided no evidence other than what you say. Name the instruments, site the actual numbers, describe the faulty measurements in detail, not just what “you say”.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andreas,

        The same Weaver was quoting 100.1 as the temp when it was 103.9. So I would hold off on his 0.0 barG pressure as being a real value.

        Max pressure for 103.9 superheated steam is 16.9 PSI abs or 1.164 bar abs.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ec208caaaa51c6de32dcb24d66a681800aa103c205836c6c27fa71a11c77b2b.jpg

      • Ged

        Wow. Weaver is that unreliable a source, changing his story once again. This guy reminds me of everything I hate about politics.

    • Steve Swatman

      Personally I find Weaver a waste of space and data download, the man is obviously taking too many pills, I think he is probably a bot.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Steve,

        I do believe he is an investor in IH and therefore has 89m reasons to assist IH from paying Rossi $89m.

        To understand Weaver, just follow the money trail.

        • Besides, the excitement, spittle and hate are more consistent with a mildly deranged human than a bot.

        • Steve Swatman

          I am pretty you are right, an investor or paid troll.

          You do seem to have a clear grasp of everything that is happening, I enjoy your straight forward manner and engineering skills.

          We should all be aware that should this actually go to court and Rossi win, IH will probably just file for bankruptcy and as all the contracts are with Ih, Cherokee will walk away, even though Mr Rossi has named them.

          We will see, how it goes.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Sam,

          So you’re OK for tax payers to pay out the asset value of all the working thermal power plants you want forcefully scrapped?

          Should cost around 100 trillion dollars.

          Or maybe let the plant owners update them to QuarkX boilers at NO cost to the tax payer and electricity rate payer & totally eliminate thermal power plant environmental pollution at no cost to the tax payer and electricity rate payer?

          Suggest the best pathway is a no brained.

          • Allan Shura

            We see nuclear power plants all over that were designed for 40 years going on 60.
            We are seeing some politicians saying thing like our goal is 30% non grid by 2030.
            We cannot be overly optimistic nor pessimistic nor deluded to try and predict but
            I believe some novel technology is at the gate and non grid will expand at a much,
            much, faster rate than the politicians predict or think is possible.
            Why on earth would the taxpayer pay out the asset value except if it is a government
            owned asset?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Allan,

            If by gov policy change, existing thermal power plants are no longer allowed to operate to make money, the owners will expect to be compensated for their asset being stranded and for their loss of future income.

            This is happening in Australia, where the dirtier brown coal plants are being forced to shut down, even though their steam turbines and generators are good for many more decades of operation.

            So instead of stranding a good generation asset, maybe just shut down the existing fossil boiler and feed 600C steam from a bank of QuarkX reactors located close to the existing steam turbine?

            That way the plant owner is happy as they can finance the replacement QuarkX boilers from the life time fuel and environmental savings and no one has to compensate them for their plant being forced to shut down when it still has decades of life left and the plant no longer emits any pollution.

            All at no cost the the gov taxpayer nor no cost to the electricity user. In fact electricity prices should decline as the cost of wholesale production has declined.

            So everybody wins, environment, gov, user and plant owner plus the upgrade process creates heaps of new jobs.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            It is my understanding that the superheat portion of most coal-fired plants is significantly above 600C. On the other hand, nuclear plants produce steam at lower temperatures than 600C. What is the technical impact of running the coal plants at 600C? I assume that the coal plants will run at lower thermodynamic efficiency, emitting more waste heat for the same electrical generation, but are there other issues?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Most older thermal plants run with subcritical steam turbine inlet temps at around 550C. Newer supercritical turbines run around 630C steam. As I understand it, nuclear plants run around 300C steam.

            As QuarkX is quoted at over 1,500C, whatever steam temperature is needed should be doable.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I think the aging nuclear plants are the first likely to be converted. They have few options except de-commissioning since you cannot add a combustion facility (with accompanying emissions) on the same site. Do you think it is possible to run the turbines with higher temperature steam?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            From what I know, nuclear steam turbines are a special design, so expect they will need to be run with steam at their rated design.

            With a lower Carnot efficiency, just means there will need to be more QuarkX reactors generating the turbines steam.

          • Stephen

            Much as I like the idea of distributed home units I do agree with you Engineer48. I also see that practically its most likely to start this way. Making billions of home units will take time. I guess it will occur eventually but initially to make sure it benefits as many people as possible from the beginning it makes sense to use the current power plants and distribution systems and grid. It also makes sense for initial safety and certification reasons tus use companies that are already strongly experienced in power production and distribution. It’s also in the interest for those power supply companies to play fair I think because home units will also eventually become viable independently and eventually be widely distributed and become increasingly competitive. If they ignore the technology however and do not adapt they will not be able to compete and become left behind. It’s also an opportunity for those companies to cross train and develope the required engineering base to install and maintain and net work future distributed units which I guess they could adapt to in future business.

            I suppose most of the bulk of the 1MW plant is due to the boilers rather than the reactors them selves. I wonder if it would make sense to use the 1 MW plant to supply slightly super heated steam that can be easily and safely distributed to vicinity of the generators which could then be super heated to the much higher required temperatures by seperate Quark X units in the very near vicinity of the generators.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Stephen,

            As far as I know, transporting wet steam is very lossy and besides 90% of the energy is used to turn wet steam into dry / superheated steam.

            That said there is no way the pressure required to run a steam turbine will be circulated inside the QuarkX reactors. I suspect that will be done in the secondary / turbine side of a number of heat exchangers.

          • Stephen

            Yup Engineer48, After following your posts I understand about wet and dry steam, but I understand the 1MW plant also supplies superheated steam but at close to normal pressure and temperature between 103 deg C and about 130 degC. I think I understand the points about using heat exchangers to handle the fluids under higher temperatures from the Quark X and also high pressures fluids needed for the turbines but I suppose these could be more local to the generator. I was just wondering if it could be more efficient to have a system based on both types of ecat rather than just the Quark model, but perhaps in a well designed system that efficiently uses the available heat from th quarks that’s not necessary. I really hope you and your contacts are able to get this project to work. Will be great I think. Looking forward to hearing about it working some day.

          • GiveADogABone

            The theoretical basis for all these questions is the Rankine Cycle. Plenty of data, charts and explanations via a search engine.

            The temperature/entropy chart for a steam power turbine shows the cycle as a line that forms a continuous path through the various stages of pumping water, pre-heating , boiling, superheating, reheating and condensation back to water.

            BWR and PWR power stations are limited by the critical temperature of water at about 350C. The AGR reactors in the UK use exactly the same turbines as the coal-fired stations with inlet temperatures to the HP turbine of 540C and reheating to the same temperature. BWR and PWR turbines use wet steam (no superheat or reheat). AGR thermal efficiency is about 40% and PWRs below about 30%.

          • cashmemorz

            In using Lenr the future worth of a power plant starts to go down faster than the normally expected worth. In adapting the plant to a low cost prime mover the owner or investor is looking at rapidly declining return on investment despite immediate apparent higher profit and apparent near term happy low paying customer. Then the happy customer gets greedy by using LENR domestically. By using LENR successfully any user promotes their own demise. Using traditional fuel a powerplant may have 30+ years of expected life. With LENR it will promote others to try it and not have to use the grid plant’s power. Thereby an on grid plant will expect a shorter life mayby half.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Cash,

            I’m a realists.

            While I ordered 3 x 10kW home units in the 1st days it was available, I do NOT expect to EVER see delivery.

            This is a NUCLEAR REACTOR. You really want one in your home if the grid price of electricity drops and power plant pollution drops to ZERO? What do you think your insurance company will think if you have a NUCLEAR REACTOR in your home?

          • cashmemorz

            The insurance issue is one I long time ago mentioned as a way would probably be used to slow down use of LENR. The exact method I see that the insurance issue to be applied, is by the mainline scientific community using their input to the actuarial data for emphasising the dangers of possible radiation in a leNr device. However there are many other devices that have ongoing safety issues such as CO emmisions from kerosene space heaters, If that is a concern that is not 100% prevented whether by mandated design improvements or altogether banning such devices than at what level or under what conditions does the government have a say to prevent domestic use of a device before any danger is expected. Lenr has had recorde neutron and other nuclear emmisionsis true. But at such rarety and intensity as to make the CO emmisions loom large in comparison. Whether LENR will be allowed or prevented for domestic use may depend on exact definition in practical terms the particular dangersof LENR. Will the dangers be spelled out in a way to simply to slow down its acceptance or because of real dangers.

          • cashmemorz

            I do want a LENR device in my home for economic reasons. If the safety issues are minimal then all the more reason to have it at home. I suppose we will have to wait for a robust design that covers the safety aspect. That may have to be proven as much as the basic theory of how it works. The time frame for these two issues is anybodies guess given the state of knowledge about what may be happening in the nuclear region when such a device is working. There are so many theories and none has been tested experimentally to the point of being definitively proven. Whether I actually pay for one will depend on the results of those experiments.

            As another issue related I see the results in this area to be as important as the what has developed so far vis-a-vis E-Cat and similar devices.

          • cashmemorz

            There are currently two points under which Rossi’s E-Cat is “unsubstantiated”. One is the lack of a working, robust theory of how it works on the at the nuclear level, yet. Two, there is no way to know how dependable it is re the control via battery power versus mains power. Recirculating the power via battery which might malfunction tied into the same system as the E-Cat could lead to runaway power, meltdown or explosion even with highly dependable dead man switches et al. So, yes, one may have to wait for these two issues, at least , to be resolved before one would want to take a chance with something that at the present time is not known if it will work in the long term as one would want.

          • Omega Z

            Allan, The consumer/tax payer always pays these costs and justifiably so. It is a part of the cost of the consumer product. For me, the real question is was it properly allowed for. They should be applied from the beginning. Asking the consumer to pay this cost at a later date makes them feel like they’ve been misled.

            U.S. Nuclear power plants have a surcharge added to the energy price that is placed in a trust. This is to pay for the eventual disposal of the power plant at end of life. The cost of coal includes the recovery/reclaim of strip mined land to bring it back to or better then it’s previous state.

            As to life cycles being extended, That’s due to a skilled labor shortage. There’s a 10 year list of over 1000 power plants waiting to be built because the skilled labor to build them isn’t available. This will get worse. Over 50% of all skilled labor is 59 years old or older.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Consistant with IH goal of delay, delay, delay.

    • This is in line with the Sifferkoll prediction of a couple of weeks ago that the APCO/Jones Day strategy will probably be to attempt to throw LENR as a whole under the bus, at least as far as the jury is concerned. The part about ‘interesting periods of potential excess heat’ is intended to leave the door open just far enough for IH to make their own ‘breakthrough’ at some point after the hearing (entirely unconnected with Rossi of course).

      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/more-information-on-the-new-ih-apco-agenda-to-ditch-lenr-completely/

  • Engineer48

    Hot off the Weaver press:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3323-Are-IH-and-Cherokee-on-the-verge-of-Bankruptcy/?postID=23668#post23668

    Rossi’s NIH based IP didn’t work at all and, as a result, there is nothing to improve upon.

    To address your next question – no we haven’t seen anybody’s NiH reactor work in a verified environment.

    We don’t care about sides and / or LENR+.

    We have seen very interesting periods of potential excess heat but nothing has satisfied our hard science folks at high enough confidence levels yet.

    There is nothing working along the lines of Rossi’s approach and we have shelved that research.

    We have teams working on basic reactions / reactors that are fully characterized and will be able to verify at high confidence levels with any sustainable reaction / reactions that show themselves

    The battle lines are drawn, both sides highly polarised, their claim as 180 deg opposites as possible, just waiting for the dawn and then both sides charge out of the trenches, firing all guns while the dead and wounded pile up all around.

    The final winner will write the history that future generations will read.
    .
    You can read all the Weaver statements on the LENR-Forum here:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1580-Dewey-Weaver/

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Note that DW states that according to the ERV’s report the outlet pressure was constantly 0 bar. This can only be gauge pressure – which means absolute pressure was atmospheric. And he is now suddenly talking about a temperature of 103.9C:

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3311-Now-IH-have-lost-E-Cat-License-and-IP-who-will-manufacture-E-Cats-in-the-US/?postID=23157#post23157

      I could live with 103.9C at 1 bar abs, provided that the other figures (20 kW input, 36 m^3 water per day, inlet temperature about 60C) are halfway correct. There have also been discussions about the flowmeter, but one would have to assume here a huge error to bring the COP below 2.6. We will see…

      • Engineer48

        Amazing statement:

        And don’t be confused when you see 103.9C for every single steam temp measurement for March and April 2015 when the ERV finally publishes.

        I’m telling you, even with all the variable power input on the same graph, this was one hell of a steady state system.

        Absolutely spot on, dead nuts perfect temp performance for 60 straight 24/7 days.

        The world has never seen such an amazing device

        So outside the March and April data we can expect to see temperatures vary? Seems so. All this says is the load during those 2 months was very constant, the control system was doing it’s job correctly and Weaver spot picked his data points.

        Interesting he has dropped the mention of the 100.1 steam temperature.

        • Robert Dorr

          It is very interesting how Dewey Weaver keeps changing the data. It seems now that the main complaint is that the data was too good instead of non existent. I think they got spooked at what Thomas Clarke had said about the Lugano test and I also think that Clarke may have contacted I.H. and convinced them that anything that the ERV was telling I.H. about the 1MW plant operation had to be wrong. Clarke has convinced himself that he is now a Thermal Engineer and his calculations are from God. I think Clarke’s calculations are very suspect. It’s too bad that I.H. has fallen into his web of miscalculation.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Robert,

            It has been clear that Weaver cherry picks the data he discloses to gain max benefit at that moment and then later releases more like the real data.

            As I noticed before, his statement about the steady temperature was only for 2 months and made no mention of the other 10 months.

            What Weaver seems to forget is the temperature of just boiled wet steam is always 100C at 0 barG and it stays at that temperature during the entire heating of the wet steam into dry steam. So it is not that difficult to keep superheated steam at a constant 103.9C as very little energy is needed to do that, assuming the superheated steam is above mon superheat temperature.

            I wonder if Weaver also thinks it is amazing that boiling water is always at 100C?

            All I see is a person feeding misinformation onto others who do not understand the physics and engineering of steam production.

            Which says to me that Rossi is right, the reactor works and Ih are working very hard to get out of the $89m payment. Why? Just maybe they believe they no longer need Rossi’s input and continual innovation to go to market?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Or, they are simply trying to delay, delay, delay, until their backers have positioned themselves in the markets.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andreas,

        Weaver seems to be very selective about the data he quotes, claiming constant temp in March and April 2015 but he says nothing about the other 10 months.

        And his 100.1C temp is suddenly missing.

        Rossi told me to design for superheated steam at 105C, which fits with a measured 103.9 assuming 1 bar abs, even if the temp location is not known.

        BTW you can run 1.164 bar abs (16.9 psi abs) pressure and still have 103.9C superheated steam as attached. Just maybe the 2 PSI Weaver mentions is 16.9 internal – 14.7 external = 2.2 PSI differential? hard to tell as it seems Weaver may not really have a good understanding of steam engineering.

        Rossi did say the customer’s external heat exchanger was complex, which I can also agree with.

        • Engineer48

          Here is a better screenshot of the 103.9C superheated steam and max pressure calc.

        • TomR

          Thank you Engineer48 for having the answers at your fingertips and being to answer these questions with the truth.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Tom,

            Steam engineering is just engineering.

            What is tricky for some to understand is that wet steam will not increase it’s temperature until all the wet steam’s clumped together water molecules are broken apart by continually added thermal energy into individual water molecules.

            This is an excellent video that shows the difference between just boiled wet steam and dry steam that has had additional heat applied:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9uvIhgVz04

            Would suggest maybe 0.1% of people would accept that steam could light a match or start a fire.

            https://youtu.be/14RvYbYIImY?t=233

            Please watch the 2nd video as well.
            .

      • Mats002

        Jed Rothwell clearify the ERV problem: ERV was not allowed to inspect the customer container (and therefore could not verify the thermal load I suppose).

        See https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3330-IH-preventing-Rossi-from-publishing-ERV-according-to-Dewey-Weaver/?postID=23841#post23841

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002,

          IH pre agreed, before the plant was installed, that their people would never go into the customer’s space and likewise the customer’s people would never go into the IH reactor space.

          There were a few offices at the front of the warehouse unit that were used for meetings between the parties and for IH’s visiting potential investors and potential licensees.

          There was no need for the ERV to visit the customer’s space as his instruments were installed on the reactor to measure reactor input and output. The ERV had no reason to verify the thermal load.

        • Barbierir

          How does it make sense? I suppose the ERV installed measuring instruments for the returning water unless he was a complete idiot. The customer could be just cooking pasta or whatever and it doesn’t change anything.

        • sam

          Jed RothwellJune 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM
          Robert Dorr wrote: “The only theory that I have heard as to why Rossi’s ecat doesn’t work is that he is scam artist. I don’t consider that much of an alternate theory.”

          That is not what I.H. and I have said. We say that there were “flawed measurements” using “unsuitable measuring devices.”

          “They have not produced one piece of evidence that the ecat doesn’t work, other than various ideas as to how Rossi has performed some sort of slight of hand.”

          That is false. No one has said sleight of hand is involved. The methods and instruments are absurd. They are grossly wrong. The instruments are the wrong types, deployed in ways that do not work correctly, and they produce meaningless numbers. For example (as has been pointed elsewehere) unless the pressure was 1 atm or less, the water was not boiling. Most of the enthalpy Rossi computed disappears from that alone.

          Also, Rossi has not given you one piece of evidence that the ecat does work. I just now gave you far more information than he has revealed. Everything I say is based on information from him, that he does not want made public.

          Ask Rossi why he has not provided any technical details.

          Robert DorrJune 10, 2016 at 5:06 AM
          That’s what you say Jed, but that’s the problem, it is just what you say, you have provided no evidence other than what you say. Name the instruments, site the actual numbers, describe the faulty measurements in detail, not just what “you say”.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Andreas,

        The same Weaver was quoting 100.1 as the temp when it was 103.9. So I would hold off on his 0.0 barG pressure as being a real value.

        Max pressure for 103.9 superheated steam is 16.9 PSI abs or 1.164 bar abs.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ec208caaaa51c6de32dcb24d66a681800aa103c205836c6c27fa71a11c77b2b.jpg

      • Ged

        Wow. Weaver is that unreliable a source, changing his story once again. This guy reminds me of everything I hate about politics.

    • Ged

      Still don’t know why IH hasn’t reined this guy in. His constantly being shown wrong/changing his story/illogic is undermining them completely. If it didn’t work at all, why did they partner with Rossi, do all those test milestones and pass them, keep the 1 year test going, file for patents, and give interviews just a couple months prior praising Rossi and the progress of the 1 year test (Darden himself)?

      Such a bad taste in the mouth whenever I read this guy. Maybe once this is all over he’ll stop being disingenuous or we’ll finally get a better context for his words that make them less nonsensical–but for now he’s hurting IH’s credibility at every turn.