QuarkX News Watch Thread (Update: Rossi to Write Report Monday, Publish Tuesday)

Andrea Rossi has repeated today that on Monday, June 13, 2016 he will be providing news about the testing of the E-Cat QuarkX reactors he has been testing. Rossi has reported that today (Sunday) is the last day of the testing he has been conducting with a potential customer/partner.

When asked about details concerning the QuarkX reactor, Rossi has repeatedly said that they would be provided when the preliminary testing was completed. I asked Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics whether the conclusion of this period of testing signaled the ending of the preliminary R&D testong for the QuarkX reactor and he responded “Yes.”

So tomorrow might be a significant day in the E-Cat story. I don’t know what kind of details we can expect to be provided, but I’ll certainly be paying attention. Rossi also said today: “Will be Interesting.”

UPDATE: (Jun 12, 2016)

Andrea Rossi just posted this on the JONP:

Andrea Rossi
June 12, 2016 at 6:10 PM
Robert Dorr:
I will. The test is finished right now.
Tomorrow we will make a short report. The day after tomorrow it will be published.
Thank you for your kind words.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Mats002

    Think I heard a distant ho-ho-ho above the roof. Strange, it is far from december…

    • Gerard McEk

      I think he lost the way. Northpole ice has melted, it’s time for the New Fire!

  • CambriaJohn

    Perhaps the lawsuit will be like the Miracle on 34th Street – prove the LENR is real in a court of law.

  • fusionrudy

    Should we call Monday 13 June: BIG BANG 2?

    • MasterBlaster7

      no

    • Michael W Wolf

      Let the event happen, then name it.

  • MasterBlaster7

    In addition to the information we already expect tomorrow…I want 2 things.

    1. A picture of the QuarkX

    2. Time table on mass production (in Europe, or where distribution is not legally contested)

    • Steve Swatman

      I have the feeling that you might go on wanting for a while, this is business, you do not tell the opposition what you are doing and post real photos of your product, you keep all the opposition guessing for as long as possible. This way you keep an edge on the market, on the profits and on the future.

      • sam

        Samec
        June 12, 2016 at 11:06 AM
        Dear Dr. Rossi,
        please some (at least) symbolic/illustrative photo from test
        (for our blogs). As always, please give all to us for free, no copyright on them !
        Best Regards Samec

        Andrea Rossi
        June 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM
        Samec:
        I will see what I can do…
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Steve Swatman

          That is what my mom used to say too us kids… in reality it means, “I will see what I can do” it is not a promise to do what you ask.

      • clovis ray

        There is nothing, that can stop , e-cat now, what competition,

        • roseland67

          Clovis,
          You’re Putting a lot of faith in a person you have never met, a phenomenon you can’t explain, a product You have never seen and a process that you have never witnessed?
          Must be a very religious person.
          Not me, I’ll just wait until I can see, touch, smell, hear etc etc, just like 5 years ago.

          Oh well, there’s always next year.

          • clovis ray

            Sorry, you feel that way, what you say has a ring of truth, but that only our opinion if i had to write down all the things that points to the truth, i would be here for awhile , firstly I am a christian, and the hundreds ifnot thousands, of data points, hundreds of eyewitnesses, and not one has said that it was not credible, I don’t know how it works, it a NEW thing.
            I have seen credible photos,of the device,as well as a LOT of credible able people. i have seen video of the very first experiment, quite impressive, so is Dr. Rossi.

          • Steve Swatman

            I smiled overly long at that, well done you sir!

        • Steve Swatman

          Hi Clovis, I believe the E-cat is a dead horse now, it was a great proof of concept and may still have a market, but the QuarkX is the future, the “opposition” is in every aspect of business, market strategy, bottom line, power to manufacturing ratio, whoever has the edge on power/manufacturing ratio has the edge on the market, autonomous robotics, the lsit is mind boggling, any field that you can of in manufacturing, if you can lower the power costs you can lower the market cost and raise the bottom line.

  • SD

    Rossi on Monday: “The results were positive.” – I don’t really expect to learn more than that.

    • Gerard McEk

      He already said so, that’s not very interesting.

  • artefact

    Rossis answers sound positive. I look forward to tomorrow.

    • kenko1

      It will be ‘entertainment’ nontheless. Or :’Yawn….snort….harrumph….cough…cough…’

      • Ged

        Hey, free entertainment, who can complain about that?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    No big deal. Just erase the left side of this chart and replace it with QuarkXs.
    http://static1.techinsider.io/image/56129918bd86ef20008bf405-1200-800/energy_2011_world.png

  • orsobubu

    I copied Tom Conover idea hehe

    • Buck

      IMHO, a picture of Jefferson or Lincoln or Gandhi would have been better than Lenin. Lenin’s history as an authoritarian and willing executioner puts him in a different class compared to those others who brought about revolutionary changes with different motivations and techniques.

      • cashmemorz

        This montage implies a break with north american business style and also shows more current personality of the european ties and power of the politics that were and still linger all rolled into one powerful impact statement that is on a par with what AR has achieved (Conditional on we are not being had). SUre no one is perfect, its just an apt montagte nevertheless.

        • Buck

          ????

          I think correlating Lenin with “sure no one is perfect” and “more current personality of european ties and power” is a bit of a stretch.

          Please know that I think the theme of the message is otherwise excellent.

      • Skeptik

        Well , capitalists really hate Lenin as founder of first socialist state. Yes, sure 8 hours working day, state paid healthcare and education, legal equity of man and women is serious reason to hate. And first decree of Lenin government was stopping war with Germany.

        And if I remember , there was occupation of “far east” part of Russia by USA military in 1919, until they have been kicked out . So much for peace loving capitalism.

        • BadgerWI

          I don’t think it’s the Health care and 8 hour days people have a problem with. It’s men women and children he had put up against the wall that give people pause…

      • sam

        Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905
        In some ways special relativity was not so revolutionary, because it preserved a lot of classical physics. But come on. It merged space with time, matter with energy, made atomic bombs possible and lets you age slower during spaceflight. How revolutionary do you want to get?

        • Buck

          Excellent point.

          And, I think Albert would be very excited about the peaceful nature of LENR versus fission science. I recall he did not like the atom bomb . . . a consequence of his work.

          • sam

            To be honest it was somebody else’s remark I
            found on the Internet.
            I think it is a good point to.

  • disqus_Wytyu1fa2J

    An ABB Speaker was announced for Mats Lewans planned event in Stockholm, do we know, whether and how this person was asked or interviewed about his view of the aktual situation so far?

  • jaman73

    Populus qua arx sumus.

    People are the focal point.

  • Roland

    The bulk of the speculation here about ABB as the potential customer/manufacturing partner testing the Quark has centred on ABB’s power generation division while overlooking the implications for another ABB division that is also a world leader in its field.

    The robotics division of ABB has the largest installed base of industrial robots on the planet and has consistently led the industry, through innovation, for over 40 years. The latest generation, the YuMi line, breaks fresh ground on a number of fronts;

    YuMis are heuristic (self learning/self programming) small scale assembly robots that can interact directly with humans in a production setting, i.e. a human can actually manually guide the robot ‘arms’ through procedures to help the robot ‘learn’ tasks.

    YuMis are situationally aware, industrial robots have typically been caged off the prevent accidents as these previous generations will stay on task even though they just completely crushed a human being. YuMis don’t require caging as they have sensors and programming that allow the robot to know exactly where a human is located relative to the robot with such sensitivity that the robot will modify its movements in real time to avoid injuring the human.

    Capital and programming costs for the YuMi line are 75% lower than any other industrial robot of similar capacity.

    Why is this germane, other than for manufacturing Quarks?

    Anyone who has tracked the DARPA sponsored research into autonomously powered robots should be having an ah ha moment right about now, it’s the current holy grail of robotics.

    Coincidentally the robotics division of ABB is the baby of the Swedish half of ABB, known as ASEN prior to the 1988 merger.

  • Barbierir

    My two cents:
    1. It would be very unwise to bet that there is no real customer or test. Rossi has always said the truth in this regard, sooner or later we’ll get to know his Identity.
    2. If Rossi himself writes the report it will probably be substandard, both because he is sloppy and/or hides details. Please don’t raise your expectations. At least with it and many follow up questions on Jonp we’ll get a much better picture of the QuarkX.
    3. It will be important to know if the customer continues to work with Rossi or it doesn’t. It certainly knows the controversies and the lawsuit, if the collaboration continues it’s a good sign that Rossi has the real McCoy.

  • tlp

    Monday morning, no more F8:
    javier cartier
    June 12, 2016 at 11:56 PM
    Mr Andrea Rossi:
    after the completion of the preliminar R&D phase, as you call it, will the QuarkX be put in operation in a real context, to test its validity in the real world ?
    Thanks,
    JC

    Andrea Rossi
    June 13, 2016 at 6:16 AM
    Javier Cartier:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Sounds like a successful week-long test.

  • oldrolledgold

    The ‘Big News’ will be a joint press conference with Rossi,The CEO and the Chief Technical Officer of the client/partner imo.

    • You’re confusing what we all wish would happen with what usually happens — which would be a sloppy report that raises more questions than it answers and no immediate corroboration from the ‘other’ party.

      But I hope you’re right this time!

      • oldrolledgold

        I should have added ‘when it happens.’

  • georgehants

    Michael, you have the view that “god is letting them starve” that is fair, I have the view that people are letting them starve.
    We are all entitled to see things the way that suits us best.

    • Steve Swatman

      “it is not for us to judge” I agree, however George, you do appear to be judging Mr Rossi and placing the weight of blame and responsibility firmly upon his shoulders, which kinda makes your comments a bit, well, a bit hypocritical really.

      Mr Rossi is not to blame for the problems of the world, and the e-cat and Quarkx will not save the world and probably will not save many children, the poor cannot afford an e-cat, nor quarkx’s, and the governments and corporations of the world will not pay for them to have e-cats or quarkx’s either, just as they will not pay for the poor to have clean drinking water today.

      Why on earth you insist on laying the responsibility on mr Rossi’s doorstep I do not understand.

      • georgehants

        Steve, as I wrote above, it is and I hope you agree, the choice of everybody how they react to our selfish, greedy society’s.
        Mr. Rossi only has a responsibility to himself how he chooses to act, I do no more than to state my belief that Cold Fusion etc. belongs to everybody not just the rich and powerful and those in privileged countries etc.
        That as I clearly mark is my opinion and you and all are perfectly free to disagree, but it is a Fact that we each choose the direction in which we think and that is our own responsibility as members of the human race.
        It is also a Fact that had Mr. Rossi released his secrets five and a half years ago it is possible that people like MFMP or thousands of other researchers who work only for free science, could by now be offering Cold Fusion powered water filters or bore holes to those in most need.
        I believe that society should reward those working for society and that selfish capitalism is outdated and badly needs replacing. (that is my opinion)

  • Teemu Soilamo

    My guess as to what the “report” will be: Rossi saying that the preliminary R&D and the test went well, the potential customer is now a Partner, “proceeding to mass production as quickly as we can, need to see real-world performance in a prolonged test that lasts some months”.

    Nothing else. No data, no photos, no identity of the customer.

    • Ged

      Sounds like the start of a betting pool.

      • Winebuff67

        I think that is a great idea! Everyone puts 10$ in and gets to choose yes or no on a commercially viable product and we souls have an expiration date. We take the $$ and donate to MFMP at the end and one group gets to say I told you so.:)

    • Bruce__H

      At first I was wondered why he does this. What is the point of Rossi continually producing these reviews and reports of mass production and so on. But then I learned of IH and its investment in him. Here was a company that was willing to pay him $100 million for the technology he said he had. Why was it willing to do that? It was because of all the reports and so on and promises of major advances right around the corner.

      OK so it didn’t work out with IH. They pulled out. But now we hear of even greater advances and happy customers and robotocized plants just around the corner. The hook has been re-baited. Any nibbles?

      • Ged

        IH hid in the shadows for a few years. They only came out to everyone once they were making their own reactors and patents. But they could have stayed hidden and never have been revealed and all this now would be under the radar.

        The facts do not support your interpretation. IH invested due to data and results they got first hand which told them there was opportunity here (doesn’t mean it would be marketable in the end, but VCs must have real substance to invest). No one puts down such money just for promises, let alone when the publicly traded Woodford fund jumped in after 2 years of due diligence. That is not how the world works.

        • Bruce__H

          I disagree. This is exactly how the world works. The possible returns are so great that it makes sense to make a speculative investment which will provide money for researchers to burn through over a set amount of time. Even if you judge that you have only a 1 in 20 shot at coming up with the goods, if the possible return is say $10 billion you can afford to peel off $10 million at a time for say 20 different ventures and still hope to come out ahead.

          I was part of a group that was briefly funded in this way during the biotech bubble in the late 90s. I was amazed that the investors would so easily put up their money (the research didn’t work out) but they regarded themselves as aggressive speculators and were content to play the odds. Overall I don’t think they were all that wise — their judgment was affected by the bubble — but I believe there were some tax angles too so maybe they did OK in the end.

          • Mats002

            Risk capital is about 1/10, meaning for each successful project nine is not substantiated (note the wording).

            To me the core question is this a scam or a viable technology? Scam is by now excluded as a plausible outcome.

          • Ged

            That’s the risk about marketability. Or, for biotech, the risk in taking the animal or in vitro data and seeing if it works in humans. But pay -close attention-: In all cases there is data and a future path to build on that data to reach a goal (market and profit, aka ROI).If you want to just sell promises to VCs with no data (or biology in the case of biotech) to back them up and give something that can be built on, give it a shot and tell me how it goes :).

        • Mats002

          Indeed, yes.

    • LuFong

      I think this is a strong possibility but I’m kind of expecting a photo or two given that Rossi has been asked for this before. Of course it might just be a bright light with little detail revealed.

      The identity of the customer is critical to me. The initial publicity (probably very small) for the customer, especially if (hopefully) it is a large conglomerate, will not be a problem at all although Rossi may claim this as a reason for not disclosing it.

      The basic problem Rossi faces now is that he has no credibility, especially with the civil suit mess with IH. This actually may be a good thing as far as Rossi is concerned.

      All just my opinion of course.

      • kdk

        I hope that the partner stays secret for the time being, honestly. If they reveal themselves, they’ll have a bunch of goons jumping at them trying to sabotage things.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Kdk,

          Yup.

          Totally agree.

          Believe they will not reveal their identity or target markets until their QuarkX reactor powered commercial device are ready to be sold.

          Sorry folks but this is now commerce works.
          .

          • Ged

            Well, maybe they will be feeling generous. We can hope! Also possible the test was a production model, as Rossi has been working to get a factory going for years.

          • Mats002

            I guess they now understand the ‘modus operandi’ of AR and by that and combined with the progress made so far they (the partners) can show some generosity and share to us, the peanut gallery, some evidence. We are after all quite a knowledgable bunch of people.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            My call is Leonardo will manufacture the modular QuarkX reactors and then configure them into the bigger reactor sizes their clients need to incorporate into their commercial offerings.

            By designing the QuarkX to be highly configurable, one plant can handle many varied commercial build client requirements, with virtually what ever size reactor they need.

            Biggie for Leonardo as they never again need to share the reactor IP with anybody.
            .

          • kdk

            Honestly, it is a very good thing that they don’t, IMHO. Otherwise they will be subject to all sorts of sabotage and corporate spying. I hope it won’t be more than a year before it’s ready for deployment.

        • LuFong

          We now know why Rossi didn’t reveal the identity of “the customer of IH.”

          Without the customer’s identity, willing to stand up and be associated with the technology, it’s just Rossi’s word and it’s worthless.

          You very rarely see secret partnerships in business–only during negotiations–after that it’s good publicity for all concerned. A large company will have no problem with naysayers.

          I actually think we might see it in this case. Rossi has always liked to name drop. We shall see.

    • Mats002

      It’s easy to use acronyms like ‘ABB’ or ‘JM’. Could mean the company I just started. On the other hand – the sum of information out there is a guide to the plausible.

    • akupaku

      I think you are probably right, publishing any unnecessary details at this stage is bad business for Rossi & Co. The only one he needs to convince is his customer/partner, everybody else is an outsider and potential nuisance and time waster (like us begging for info!) or maybe even danger (competitors or TPTB).

      The old saying “speech is silver, silence is gold” is still good advice! ;o)

  • What?

  • I, for one, welcome my new robot overlord. 😉

    • Engineer48

      While we wait, here is a nice image of the gauge glass on one of the side wall mounted backup reactors inside the container. Next to the gauge glass is the control box that controls the excitation of the reactor’s heater. Note the thick wires.

      Also note the water level, which aligns with how I think these reactors both boil water and generate dry/superheated steam.

      The amount of air space in the reactor above the boiling water level is very clear in this image.
      .

      • Paul Smith

        In the picture and in the drawing we can see the Pressure Safety Valve “V”.
        Do we know the value of pressure for opening (set pressure)?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Paul,

          Have never seen it stated.

      • cashmemorz

        Re the “nice image of the gauge glass”. By “here” I take it it is to be seen somewhere in your comment. I don’t have it anywhere to be seen. Any help?

        • artefact

          reload the page

          • cashmemorz

            reloaded and see it now. Thanks.

      • Engineer48

        Guess what?

        The 1MWt prime reactor also has Gauge Glasses and right by the computerised volume controlled water pumps. Would then be easy to adjust the constant flow pumps to get the right water level in the reactors.

        BTW those pumps would deliver a very boring, day in – day out, constant flow of water into the reactors.

        • Steve H

          I believe they are PID tuned, mass flow controllers – so no worries, as long as they behave themselves. Probably fed from a common manifold, kept at constant pressure using a pressure control valve and dual redundancy water pumps.
          Or maybe you were being very British and ironic!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Steve,

            Pump spec is attached.

            Pump sucks from below, discharge straight out, degas output straight up.

            If you look at the end image you can see the feed is from the lower white insulated pipes & the degas discharge is straight up into what I suggest is a feed back to the condenser to remove the air bubbles.

          • Steve H

            Thanks Eng48
            I couldn’t find the actual instruments and the closest match appeared to be mass flow controllers.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Steve,

            ??

            The pump I listed is the one Rossi used. 24 of them in fact. 6 on each of the 250kWt flat bed reactors.

      • Pweet

        -> Eng48;
        The problem with the design you have shown above is the same as the problem in the original ecat reactor used in the early rests of 2011, and that is, when the water reactor has reached a temperature above boiling point, there is so much bubbling of steam at the reactor/water interface that large amounts of water would erupt very much higher than the tops of the heat exchange fins, and more critically, as high as the steam exit pipes. Thus the outlet pipe would certainly contain wet steam, that is, some steam at 100deg C and some water at 100deg C, or fractionally below.
        If you have a glass bodied electric kettle, and I have, you can demostrate this very easily by putting 25 mm of water in teh kettle and bringing it to the boil, then hold the switch down with your finger to disable the auto off and keep the water boiling.
        You will see the water erupts pretty much to the very top of the kettle. And that’s with a power of 2 kilowatts.
        To guarantee the steam is all superheated and above 100 deg C the design would have to have a separate chamber whereby the section where the steam is superheated is totally separated from the area where the water is initially boiled, to the extent that only steam can exit that section and no water at all.
        The design as shown above does not do that. Thus any volume measurements of the condensate further down the system will consequently be false on the high side. That has always been the criticism of the early reactor design and the test results did not account for it. That was a source of major error to the extent that I believe it accounted for all the supposed excess heat.
        Also, by logical consequence, the volume of supposed steam. and thus excess energy, can be increased to whatever level is required by simply raising the water level in the reactor body, which would result in more and more un-boiled water droplets (or wet steam) being ejected directly out of the steam exit pipe. That is why there could be a guaranteed COP of 6 because the water flow could be increased until it appeared that to be the case.
        In that respect, the design shown above is seriously flawed.

        • Observer

          The problem with your tea kettle comparison is that the heat source of the tea kettle only heats the water and not the steam. aerosoled water droplets entering near atmospheric pressure 103C gas will immediately evaporate. If the steam exiting the chamber at near atmospheric pressure is 103C, then no water droplets can be present. If you want to test this, tilt your electric tea kettle so that half of the heated bottom is exposed only to the steam.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Observer,

            Correct.

            To produce superheated / dry steam, the superheater needs to directly heat the wet steam, which occurs via the heat radiating fins in the upper steam space.

            As far as I know, it is not possible to produce superheated steam by just boiling the water.

          • Superheated steam could be produced if pressure downstream of the NRV at the exit is somewhat lower than within the boiler. Water droplets exiting the valve would then contain enough excess thermal energy to change to the gas phase without additional heat input, as soon as they encounter the reduced pressure.

            That said though, I’m not convinced that ‘fins’ on the topside would be able to conduct enough heat away from the directly immersed main body of the reactor to provide sufficient superheating, and I agree with Pweet that excessive ‘splash’ from furious boiling might be an issue with the ‘flat’ design shown.

            I would expect a more vertically oriented design in which the reactor main body is positioned more or less at the water level so that it is only partially cooled by water, allowing whatever heat exchange surface is employed to become much hotter than the output steam.

          • This is something I suggested back in 2014. The reactor assembly might consist of an insulated solid thermal mass such as a block of cast iron or stainless steel, with multiple cores housed in horizontal bores through the block, closer to the top than the bottom of the mass.

            Separate coolant bores would run vertically through the block, and water level would be maintained at a point slightly below the reactor level.

            This would result in a temperature gradient in the thermal mass, allowing water to pre-heat in the lower part of the bores, boil a little further up, then superheat in the upper parts of the bores next to the reactor cores. The relatively small diameter of the bores and the thermal gradient would act to control boiling ‘splash’, and the design would allow the cores to operate at their optimum temperature of several hundred degrees, as they wouldn’t be directly cooled as in the ‘finned’ design.

          • Rene

            Look at the water level – at the 50% mark. Now look at the entry point of the control wires – at the 25% mark more or less. That could place the upper fins just above the water line to let them be hot enough to superheat the saturated steam. Also, small adjustments of the water level could be one part (the slow part) of the reaction controls. Raising the water level significantly might assist in quenching runaway situations (my guess).

          • Pweet

            The problem is, the whole volume of the kettle is filled with an exceedingly turbulent mass of bubbling water, even though it was only filled to 25mm of water in the bottom.The bubbling is so extensive I can’t see any way that it would not be blown out the exit pipes by the very large volume of steam generated, be it wet or dry.
            I don’t dare tip my kettle on it’s side because it would quite probably crack the glass, even though it’s pyrex, so that point will have to remain unproven.
            However, one point which has been proven is, a watched kettle boils just as fast as an un-watched kettle. But then I think we all knew that.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Actually, having some water in the boiler is a requirement for correct operation of the boiler. We not talking about super-critical steam, but super-heated. In fact as LONG as there is water then you have super-saturated steam.

          So for correct operation even a “tiny” bit of water on the bottom will ensure good contact with the heat source and AS LONG as there is SOME water, then the heat is STILL being used to CONVERT the water into a gas (and NOT attempting to heat the gas which don’t absorb much of if any energy).

          So the diagram in question is 100% correct since the top part shows heating fins exposed to the water vapor (steam area). This additional heat would produce super-heated steam (a trap will remove the water droplets if any in the vapor).

          The superheated steam thus really only needs a “bit” more of additional heat to become that dry steam.

          So given that the steam area and diagram shows heating fins exposed in the steam area at the top – then yes, that would constitute super-heated steam. This is especially the case if the “level” is set to keep the water level shown in that diagram.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Hi Albert,

            Found the pumps Rossi used on the 1MW plant.

            They have an inbuilt facility to degas the output, which if you look closely at the pump end of the reactor you can see has been implemented.

            Nice work, which would never have been done if this was a scam.

            The more I look at the photos, the more I understand the engineering design & effort that when into building the reactor and the more my engineer’s gut tells me this is a real COP> 50 reactor.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, a stream trap is common and little surprise. They are common in steam heating systems.
            Still, a rather NICE find on your part!

            While this is “interesting”, I think this shows that this is just not a big box with some tubes, but something with REAL WORLD engineering that solves the obvious issues and problems of a setup.

            So having the correct designs, pumps and setup that mimics what Rossi stated about how the plant works does bode well for Rossi. And how such a setup would work also is reflected in this design and pictures.

            In fact, as I pointed out above – pictures give away HUGE amounts of little details that allow one to build up parts of a puzzle. I see the design of this plant MUCH more clearly in my mind as a result of your diagram.

            I thus now see why Rossi is hesitant to release pictures of the Quark-X – it is amazing what one can deduce from just a single picture.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Rene

            Something like this is what I recall of steam superheaters: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m6EDc76cQjs/TPCO_Alo4yI/AAAAAAAAAD8/FUZoEpKCGS0/s1600/Water_tube_boiler_schematic.jpg
            There is usually a second separate super heating section done to minimize droplets getting through. Is there enough separation, or, is there enough time in the e-cat’s steam section to vaporize any water droplets before they can exit the chamber?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            Look at the massive surface area and density of the fins above the water.

            I expect the drawing is incorrect and that the area above the water is at least 50%, maybe even 60% of the total volume. Then make the upper fins length 3x longer.

          • Rene

            That photo of the opened e-cat is a predecessor to the 1MW one. Not sure it applies directly. I am going to assume that the tap points of the water gauge are at the very top and bottom of the latest e-cat boiler chamber. That then suggests half the boiler chamber has water in it. The e-cat could then be placed at the 25% point (I think it is much flatter than shown in the diagram) and have asymmetric fins, taller on the topside, to maximize super heating the saturated steam.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Pweet,

          We must agree to disagree.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Robert,

      I really doubt the water is boiling at such a fierce rate.

      Assuming each reactor is 15m long & 3m wide that is 45m^2 of water surface area per reactor x 4 reactors = 180m^2 of boiling surface area.

      Doesn’t need to boil a lot to generate the 25kg/minute of required steam. At 180m^2 surface area that is 140g/m^2/minute of steam generation.

      • akupaku

        You are quite right I think, nothing can be excluded. Scam is not excluded but IMHO is not likely in light of everything we know. Certainly Rossi has made many apparently false promises and announcements in the past but the explanation does not need to be fraud but could be unfounded enthusiasm and optimism or could even be deliberate exaggerations for one purpose or another, either to throw off competition or lure investors to fund an invention that he does not yet have full control and understanding over but sees as promising.

        Seems to me that during the years Rossi has been continuously improving and gaining better control of the e-cat making yesterday’s perspectives and promises obsolete. Hopefully the inventive cycle takes a pause soon to send something useful into mass production.

        I don’t think there is any definite proof that Rossi is completely black (fraudulent) but neither is there yet evidence that he is completely white (honest), probably he is some shade of grey (like most people, a normal person!) but not excluding the extremes as a deceitful crook or an ingenious honest inventor. Time will show but so far I am leaning towards the white end of the spectrum.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    June 13, 2016 at 9:36 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Compared to previous partners and licensees you have been involved with, how important for the development of the E-Cat is this new partner you have just been testing with.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    June 13, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Very important.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • Roger Roger

      THE HYPE IS KILLING ME

    • He doesn’t seem as effusive as he was around the signing of the agreement with Industrial Heat.

      Perhaps he’s learned to be more cautious, or perhaps there are some delicate negotiations underway. I would hope that he and his lawyers would have learned how to create an agreement with fewer loopholes that didn’t favor the other side so lopsidedly.

      All Leonardo really needs do at this point is build cores (not plants) and license their use to whatever industry wants to use them.

      • kdk

        I think it’s indicative of him being in a serious state of mind. He’s weighing lots of details and possibilities that he can’t talk about.

  • Engineer48

    I suggest we all need to understand how contracts with partners are written. As attached are the relevant “Not To Disclose” conditions imposed on the partners in the existing contract.

    If the new partner contract is anything like the attached, well don’t expect much release unless ALL parties see it is to their advantage to disclose.

    Sorry to be a wet sponge, but that is now business works.

    • Mats002

      I totally agree E48. I am an entrepeneur myself with a series of inventions, I know ‘death valley’ and what it mean to marry risk capitalists and big business.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Mats002,

        Been there myself.

  • Robert Dorr

    Depending on the type of relationship Rossi has with his new partner they may be willing to finance Rossi’s court fight with I.H.. I’m sure Rossi knows that his court action will potentially cost much more than the million dollars he stated earlier and it wouldn’t hurt to partner up with someone with deep pockets.

    • Anon2012_2014

      If a major corporation like Siemens or GE says they are manufacturing ECATs, the side show called Industrial Heat will be settled one way or the other on the best economic terms for the manufacturer.

  • First we had the low temp ecat, then we had the hot cat, now we have the quark X.

    Every time one version of the ecat reached reliability, Rossi comes up with a new one much better version and neglected the older versions completely.

    Working this way we will never see an ecat on market.

    Where would apple be without releasing one iPhone because better hardware came available in the last months before release?

    Rossi should develop one version, bring it to reliable performance and give it to another team doing the production engineering. In the meanwhile Rossi can work on the next version.

    But this way it will not work…

    • Ged

      The 1MW plants are for sale, as Engineer48’s people are standing by post-litigation. You have gotten the wrong impression. The QuarkX is a new product, but it hasn’t stopped production work of the current product as far as we know.

  • DrD

    Here is the report.
    http://ecat.com/news/ecat-quark-x-preliminary-report-findings
    June 14, 2016 on ECAT News

    Report Disclaimer:

    THIS IS NOT A THIRD PARTY REPORT AND ALL THE MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ANDREA ROSSI AND HIS TEAM. THEREFORE THESE RESULTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT ANY EFFECT OTHER THAN AN INTERNAL PROCESS CONTROL, NOTHING MORE.

    DESCRIPTION OF THE QUARK X:

    Cylinder made with proper material:

    Dimensions:
    length 30 mm
    diam 1 mm
    Energy produced: 100 Wh/h
    Energy consumed: 0.5 Wh/h
    Light produced (percentage of the energy produced): 0-50%
    Electric energy produced: 0-10%
    Heat produced: 0- 100%

    Light, energy and heat can be modulated to modulate the percentages within the limits above listed, provided the combined percentages must total 100%.

    Extremely interesting is the blue light, the analysis of which has resolved theoretical problems related to the roots of the effect.

    Temperature on the surface of the QuarkX: more than 1,500*C
    Note: 2 other QuarkX put in analogous situation gave the same results.

    Further disclaimer:

    THIS IS NOT A THIRD PARTY REPORT. IT IS AN INTERNAL REPORT RELATED TO MEASURES MADE BY LEONARDO CORPORATION

    End of the report.

    Description of the photo:

    Photo of the heat exchanger pipe that contains the QuarkX: the light spot is through a light eye holed in the pipe. The blue halo from the hole has been analyzed and has made possible to understand the theoretical roots of the effect: the QuarkX is inside the pipe .

    NOTE: THE PHOTO HAS BEEN MANIPULATED TO FORBID HIGH DEFINITION. The colors have been partially obscured. The light is much more intense.

    • DrD

      Rather dissapointing that only 10% can be electric when he previously stated it can be 100%.
      Not surpising in that case that he has concerns about safety when attempting to self drive and control from it’s own electric generation.
      COP = 200
      1 mm diameter ?????? WOW!

      • artefact

        That 10% is still a cop of 20

      • Engineer48

        Hi DrD,

        Direct electricity COP = 20!!!!!!!

        Frack man what more do you want????

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          I guess that DrD is only stating that it is a pity not being able to convert more than a 10%, not that it is not amazing . But of course, it could be improved in the future.

        • DrD

          I agree, it’s excellent! My surprise was just that it’s not what he previously said. EXCELLENT all the same!

        • tlp

          COP is infinite as soon as you get more electricity out than input.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yup. Just create a grid where you have connected each Quark-X to at least another 3 Quarks. If one doesnt deliver enough energy you always have another two as backup. Then you wont need energy input, they all would feed themselves and you get all the unused energy for any other use you want.

          • tlp

            Yes, and you can just discard the heat, if all you need is electricity, at least in small installations.

          • DrD

            Yep but what ever will we do with all that waste heat (in summer) and light. I know, Steam turbines, so more electric. Maybe some photovoltaics aswell.

          • tlp

            Similar situation as with BrLPs SunCell, their next demo is 28th June, in two weeks.
            They don’t yet have direct electricity harvesting but are using photovoltaics. Anyway about 60% is heat, mainly waste heat, but of course can be used if needed.

        • DrD

          Hi Eng,
          Sorry I gave the wrong impession.
          So what could we do with that excess heat in summer?
          Rankine engine? Steam turbine? to increase the % electric?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            A number of thermal coolers exist, but are less efficient than electrical-based refrigeration. With inexpensive, “waste” heat, you can cool as well.

          • tlp

            No refrigeration needed, just cooling like in a car engine.

      • Earlier, Rossi only has confirmed: “a quark that produces electricity only (no heat), with an efficiency of COP >1”

    • 100 Watts from something smaller than a matchstick, and a thermal COP of 200. OK the electricity output is smaller than previously stated, but otherwise – amazing!

      I wonder what the problem they encountered was? Perhaps it just melted!

      • Roland

        Unless my math is seriously defective there’s an implied power density of 16,978W/cc.

        I’ve run it a couple of times now; as the results are shockingly high perhaps a couple of the math minded posters here could run the numbers as well.

        • Roland

          See one issue already…

          4424W/cc

          • psi2u2

            Please explain. You mean the materials cannot withstand that density?

          • Engineer48

            Guys,

            At electricity COP = 20:
            Power density 424kWe/ltr
            Energy density 3.71GWhe/ltr/year assuming 1 year fuel life.

    • Rene

      Looks interesting. Electrical COP is 20, pretty good assuming it does that reliably. I just wish his photo did not look like a blurry Columbo intro. Clearly he wants to hide the details, so it is still a waiting game.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4913ee6c4bd5b22b1ec534c5ef2c02fda2583389763774cd73c530d0ff8ef953.jpg

    • Thomas Kaminski

      SO let me set the controls: 50% light out, 10% electricity, 40% heat… Hey Fresh vegetables year round in the frozen north! Hmmm.. Maybe the blue light isn’t good for photosynthesis…

      • tlp

        blue and red are optimal colors. Just add some red leds.
        But in many applications you can discard light and heat and just use the electricity.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          That’s good news. I know a local company had a NASA contract for space-based growth chambers and they used red LEDs. Now we can site the food production to areas with good, sustainable water resources like the Great Lakes regions, rather than regions with good climate but poor water resources (like California!).

          • tlp

            Red LEDs are easier to make than blue. Red is OK but blue+red is perfect.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Blue light is the basis of photosynthesis.

    • Ged

      Dang, >1500C at surface? I see now why they needed so much material RnD at the start of all this last year.

  • psi2u2

    Thank you for the wonderfully clear analysis.

  • cashmemorz

    Where is the report?