E-Cat QuarkX Q&A Compilation (Updated: Safety Measures Will Reduce COP)

Since the short report of the internal R&D testing of the E-Cat QuarkX that was published on ecat.com yesterday there have been a barrage of questions submitted to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about this new E-Cat reactor and I thought it might be useful to try and compile them for an easy reference. I have been selective in the Q&As, trying to pick the relevant ones on technical (not business) points that can give as clear a picture as possible of what Rossi is telling us about the QuarkX. Rossi’s responses are in bold. I may add to the list as time goes on.

UPDATE (Jun 17, 2016)

Andrea Rossi has answered a question on the JONP today that gives more information about the developments that still need to be done with the QuarkX before it can be considered a safe technology, and note that he states the COP will need to be reduced:

Did I read correctly that the Quark X produced 0.1 KWh/h vs 0.0005 KWh/h electrical energy consumed?

Amos:
Before I answer a disclaimer must be repeated: the tests on the QuarkX E-Cat are still on course and all the results need repetitions and confirmations. The results obtained so far are very promising, but safety problems must be resolved and such safety problems will reduce the COP, independently from other factors. Nevertheless, I am very glad of the work done so far and the numbers you cited are the number we got, but, again, these numbers cannot be considered ¨five sigma¨.
It is also important the strong development we got for what concerns the theoretical bases of the effect, in full rtespect of the Standard Model. I strongly believe I have understood it. Soon will work on it with Prof. Norman Cook.
Nevertheless, again, much work has to be done before getting the five sigma and a solid theoretical interpretation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Does the QuarkX still use hydrogen? Yes

How long have these QuarkX modules operated providing these results consistently? about 100 hours of effective average

You say the photo was taken through a hole in a pipe — are the QuarkXs enclosed in a pipe during normal operation to provide eye protection? to provide protection not just to the eyes

You told us the QuarkX was as big as a pencil, now it turns out to be mm 30 x 1 instead of the expected mm 300 x 10. Why? We decided to make this test with the smaller possible unit, to define a fundamental element.

Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.

What was the longest period of self sustain in which the output remained steady or increased with zero input power? zero seconds. Always fed half Wh/h

What is the COP when only accounting for the input power and the 10% electricity being produced?  equivalence principle: the COP is always the same, does not depend on the eventual efficiency

Does the Quark X tested utilize lithium in the charge? yes

Does the Quark X tested utilize nickel in the charge? yes

You have mentioned that the Quark X uses titanium: is this a component in the charge? can’t answer in positive or negative

Did you measure any alpha particles being emitted from the reactor? If so, were their energies consistent with what would result from the proton + lithium reaction? no

The blue light from E-CatQX is the Čerenkov effect? We have understood what the blue halo is and I think we have resolved the theoretical issue. To be checked, obviously, with further study, probably in collaboration with Norman Cook.

QuarkX’s can be switched on and off in seconds? it will

QuarkX’s are very suitable for jets? premature to say

The tested 1x30mm Quarks will work for months on one charge? yes

QuarkX’s cannot be recharged. wrong

QuarkX’s outperform E-cats in many aspects? maybe

QuarkX’s differ so much from E-cats that they can hardly be compared and require new patents?  the work on patents is dynamic, not static

Do you know what the light output was in Lumens? The ratio between Lumens and Watts is not a constant, it is an integral and the value of the derivatives depend not linearly on the amount of Watts. For example: 40 W correspond to about 450 L, 100 W correspond to 1600 L.

How do you collect the electricity from the reactor? The electricity is collected with any classic and well known technology,not necessarily one in particular.

Is the produced electicity AC or DC? We can have either AC or DC.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Nixter

    Interesting timing, recently Jed Rothwell came to the conclusion that the whole E-Cat affair was fraudulent based upon IH provided documentation, now we see this QuarkX technology and it raises the question; if the QuarkX is really making gainful energy, isn’t it likely Rossi’s other designs were also functioning as advertised?

    • timycelyn

      Yep.

      Jed R seems to have developed a bad case of senioritis.

  • Nixter

    Interesting timing, recently Jed Rothwell came to the conclusion that the whole E-Cat affair was fraudulent based upon IH provided documentation, now we see this QuarkX technology and it raises the question; if the QuarkX is really making gainful energy, isn’t it likely Rossi’s other designs were also functioning as advertised?

    • Sandy

      Rossi gave us a fuzzy photograph that shows nothing. I am becoming more and more inclined to agree with Jed.

    • timycelyn

      Yep.

      Jed R seems to have developed a bad case of senioritis.

  • Bruce__H

    I would be glad to hear anyone’s suggestions as to why the unit cannot be disconnected from external power. I know Rossi says it is for safety by why might this be?

    • Ged

      Probably so it can be shut off reliably, and quickly. Self loop means if the control system broke or a disaster happened that cut off human control of the device, it could get stuck on with destructive consequences. An external supply means you can deadman switch it to shut off if anything went wrong (pull a breaker and cut the power).

      Think what would happen differently between if a self looped QuarkX versus an externally supplied one got buried in rubble after an earthquake; or if there was a fire; or if a tornado picked them up and flung them at someone’s house.

      Yeah, you -do Not want- these self looped. It is a Major risk and safety hazard to do so.

      • Pat

        Yes, though that cuts both ways. Should an exponential-growth event (runaway) happen, an electronic feedback circuit might have a better chance of shutting it down quickly, rather than waiting for a human to notice the event and then respond. I’m less sure that Rossi really mean’t that it be put in SSM, and more likely actually meant that he chooses not to put it in SSM at this time (since that does nothing to further the discovery of science for him.) Time will tell.

        • Rene

          I wonder if the reason he chooses not to put it into SSM is to avoid the big issues of SSM: runaway. In the larger e-cats, he said the best COP out of SSM was 6. Maybe this really small form factor is what permits COP 200 *without* SSM.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        In certain applications you WOULD need self-looped systems. Multi-year space journeys, surveillance buoys, etc.

        • cashmemorz

          Maybe what it will be used for eventually is not known. By that time many tests and installation failures, some disasterous, will have been learned from. To have any use, powered externally or otherwise, the E-Cat must be carefully developed with an eye to erring on the side of caution. We don’t want to develop something that will turn out to be a monster just because we didn’t think of something. Hot fusion was supposed to be the end all to end all end alls in terms of abundant power. Now it’s developing radioacativity and control problems just because of things that were not thought of early on. The worst thing that was not thought of was not studying stars in general and our sun in particular until all that could be learned was totally refutable. It was assumed that the first theory of its workings was sufficiently known to allow us to recreate the power of the sun on Earth. We now are beginning to see that this is not so. And after wasting many billions in dollars and several decades. Sure there will be spin-off tech. The core goal is all but kaput. We don’t want a repeat of that with LENR.

      • Rene

        No, in all the previous versions of the e-cat, the way to stop runaway reaction is to pour power into it. Shutting off the power when it is in SSM seems to let the reaction climb exponentially.

  • Bruce__H

    I would be glad to hear anyone’s suggestions as to why the unit cannot be disconnected from external power. I know Rossi says it is for safety by why might this be?

    • Dave

      My guess is danger of a runaway reaction.

      • Bruce__H

        I agree. But I still don’t understand why a fail safe system can’t be engineered without an external power supply.

    • Ged

      Probably so it can be shut off reliably, and quickly. Self loop means if the control system broke or a disaster happened that cut off human control of the device, it could get stuck on with destructive consequences. An external supply means you can deadman switch it to shut off if anything went wrong (pull a breaker and cut the power).

      Think what would happen differently between if a self looped QuarkX versus an externally supplied one got buried in rubble after an earthquake; or if there was a fire; or if a tornado picked them up and flung them at someone’s house.

      Yeah, you -do Not want- these self looped. It is a Major risk and safety hazard to do so.

      • Bruce__H

        Put a kill switch in the loop.

        • Rene

          The kill switch is a lot of power to quench runaway.

      • Pat

        Yes, though that cuts both ways. Should an exponential-growth event (runaway) happen, an electronic feedback circuit might have a better chance of shutting it down quickly, rather than waiting for a human to notice the event and then respond. I’m less sure that Rossi really mean’t that it be put in SSM, and more likely actually meant that he chooses not to put it in SSM at this time (since that does nothing to further the discovery of science for him.) Time will tell.

        • Rene

          I wonder if the reason he chooses not to put it into SSM is to avoid the big issues of SSM: runaway. In the larger e-cats, he said the best COP out of SSM was 6. Maybe this really small form factor is what permits COP 200 *without* SSM.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        In certain applications you WOULD need self-looped systems. Multi-year space journeys, surveillance buoys, etc.

        • cashmemorz

          Maybe what it will be used for eventually is not known. By that time many tests and installation failures, some disasterous, will have been learned from. To have any use, powered externally or otherwise, the E-Cat must be carefully developed with an eye to erring on the side of caution. We don’t want to develop something that will turn out to be a monster just because we didn’t think of something. Hot fusion was supposed to be the end all to end all end alls in terms of abundant power. Now it’s developing radioacativity and control problems just because of things that were not thought of early on. The worst thing that was not thought of was not studying stars in general and our sun in particular until all that could be learned was totally irrefutable. It was assumed that the first theory of its workings was sufficiently known to allow us to recreate the power of the sun on Earth. We now are beginning to see that this is not so. And after wasting many billions in dollars and several decades. Sure there will be spin-off tech. The core goal is all but kaput. We don’t want a repeat of that with LENR.

      • Rene

        No, in all the previous versions of the e-cat, the way to stop runaway reaction is to pour power into it. Shutting off the power when it is in SSM seems to let the reaction climb exponentially.

    • Wholewitt

      My guess is that the output electrical power of the device varies during testing. It is far easier to use standard power supplies to control input power than to convert and regulate some output of the device. It is also easier to measure any output by feeding a known load (electronic or resistive) than to have some of the output feeding back to the input via a control circuit. If computer control is also used, that is best fed from external power.

    • Byron McDonald

      The external “power” input can be in many forms and .5 w could be a moderating or catalytic force. There have been many attempts at replication and papers which point to the effect of microwaves or other EM signals as a catalyst / control mechanism. Most important is Rossi’s indication the underlying theory may be in hand.

  • Nelson Vogel

    Heureka, finally, we see a blue light in the end of the tunnel !!!

  • Steve Swatman

    I am optimistic, even more so, I find a certain clarity and optimism in Mr Rossi’s replies as well as a confident humour which I find refreshing and oddly exultant.

    I am going to sit back and relax while the show goes on.

  • Steve Swatman

    I am optimistic, even more so, I find a certain clarity and optimism in Mr Rossi’s replies as well as a confident humour which I find refreshing and oddly exultant.

    I am going to sit back and relax while the show goes on.

  • Nelson Vogel

    Believe as the electric energy is produced by the QuarkX as pulses, it probably can’t be a source for SSM to not happen a power supply sycronism that may lead to an explosion.

  • Gerard McEk

    I think the answer on the question whether or not the QuarkX is suitable for jet engines was changed from “Yes” to “Permature to say”. The latter seems in view of the stage of development more suitable.

  • Gerard McEk

    I think the answer on the question whether or not the QuarkX is suitable for jet engines was changed from “Yes” to “Permature to say”. The latter seems in view of the stage of development more suitable.

  • Charlie tapp

    Has anyone else noticed that his replies are very well spelled and make perfect since unlike before when he would make short words and add stuff in that made no since?

  • Charlie tapp

    Has anyone else noticed that his replies are very well spelled and make perfect since unlike before when he would make short words and add stuff in that made no since?

    • Wholewitt

      sense, not since.

    • LookMoo

      Not only that. .. the phase Rossi is keeping is a indication that he is working with a partner with considerably resources. Normally, Its not possible for a small company like Rossi Leonardo Corp. to alone develop this kind of products (and several version of them) as it requires thousandths of engineering hours..

      During the last 6 months he have moving faster than he did the previous 5 years.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Is this to prevent runaway reactor?

    • Ged

      What would happen in the event of a fire? Would you want a self powered 1500 C experimental reactor running in a burning building? Even without the risk of overload and meltdown from a self powered feedback loop, self powering it is insanity from a risk management standpoint.

      • Private Citizen

        Far, far fetched attempt. But if that were a genuine concern it would be trivial to add a fireman’s switch or other failsafe to the power controller. A controlled power source would actually be safer than using public mains.

        Even if this ludicrous edge case were valid, i’d settle for a self-looped exhibition with a human flunky on hand 24/7 to turn off the device in case smoke detectors sounded.

        But what if there were a simultaneous earthquake, fire, asteroid strike, terrorist attack and zombie apocalypse? Yeah, guess it’s best not to demonstrate the device in the obvious undeniable manner.

        • Ged

          Pop quiz! Are nuclear power plants self powered or powered from the mains? Answer: the mains (or backup generators). Why? Safety.

          It is never safe to make a self powered anything. There must always be an intrinsic limit for shut down. The most common self powered phenomenon you run into are 1) fire and 2) explosion.

          You need basic safety training or a course in risk management. Managing risk is all about the edge case. What if your humans are incompacitated? Well then you are screwed if it is self powered and no one from the outside can shut it off. What if the control mechanism fails? Then you are screwed. What if the device itself ignites due to contamination by someone foolish with flammable a that will auto ignite long before 1500 C, preventing approach and keeping a fire blazing that you now can’t turn off? You are screwed.

          It isn’t just about your safety, but everyone around you. And risk and safety are not about planning for what you can foresee, but for unforeseen events of every type. If something is intrinsically safe, then your got your asteroids and zombies covered.

          But a self powered device is intrinsically unsafe.

          Note: yes, a battery is an external power source. So if we are using a battery for external power, that would be fine. But if you loop back to self power, you are putting more into the battery than taking out (COP > 1), so the battery would explode or ignite depending on type (same for capacitors). Not safe!

          • Rene

            They are self-powered with both battery and genset backup. The specific reason for backup power is two-fold: to ensure power is available to do SCRAM, and to running cooling water (for many days) on the decay heat of the core.

          • Ged

            That is external power, not self power (doesn’t charge it’s own batteries). Study Fukushima and why that failed and it’ll lead you down that interesting path.

          • Rene

            They do charge their own batteries, because the power they generate does run the plant (and charge batteries), but that is not the issue. Batteries are there only to provide uninterrupted power until the backup gensets are operational. That is the definition of backup power.
            Fukushima was the unfortunate case where the backup gensets got nailed by the tidal wave. No external mains, no backup, big oops.

          • Ged

            Yep. But it was still making power, so why not plug it into itself? Why rely on backup power? There are very good reasons, including blowing out the entire plant, and there is no coming back from that. Also, the batteries are on the mains, not its own power.

          • Rene

            Once a nuclear reactor goes into SCRAM it is definitely not making any useful electrical power, just a ton of decay heat.

          • DrD

            hehe, where can I get some of this dietary magnesium?

      • Rene

        A buffer mitigates that issue handily.

        • Ged

          Only if the buffer stays in spec. Not in any failure condition.

          • Rene

            Yes, the same can be said of transformers, inverters, charge controllers. They seem to do that just fine for decades.

          • Ged

            But they are never in a feedback loop. What happens if you do put more energy into a transformer than it can output (i.e. lightning strike)? It explodes spectacularly. We’ve seen numerous cases of all those devices you list exploding or melting down in feedback conditions over all these years. You’ve just gotten numb to them failing.

      • Gerard McEk

        I totally disagree. If you have a reliable power source like multiple diverse battery system, you can make it also from reliabilityy point of view very safe and it would not differ from a mains supply with regards to safety. Besides that, the consequence of a meltdown of a small LENR system cannot be compared with a nuclear fission reactor. So I do not understand AR’s concern. See also my comment above.

        • Ged

          Any time more energy goes into batteries than is being drawn out, what happens? This is a positive COP, remember. You can engineer the sub systems to fail, but it will still never be intrinsically safe. The only intrinsically safe mode is an external supply. Makes control easier, power in is always the same and not affected by output fluctuations, and you can remote shutdown.

          I utterly disagree with you.

          • Rene

            Ged, I utterly disagree with you on this. I’d guess by your reasoning you also have issues with off-grid photovoltaic systems.
            A self-powered e-cat (which is to say an e-cat running with buffered power) would be just as safe if simple safety measures were in place to force it out of SSM when the power source capacity dropped below a threshold where it has only enough capacity to do, say, two quenching events.
            You really have to look at what ‘meltdown’ means. It means the reaction went exponential and it self-quenched by melting the fuel matrix, and destroying the reactor core but it by no means suggest a classic china syndrome event or even lingering radiation.
            Handling 1500C is not a big deal. Gas stove tops and ovens do 2000C. Water heaters, hydronic boilers, do that. And were all the safeties go bad, they too destroy themselves. Yes, there are external means to shut off the gas or electrical supply.
            In the case of the e-cat it will self quench in the end, but you end up with a non-working, maybe non-repairable device too. This is really what he’s been trying to avoid.
            As for the quark, if it is his intention to not run it in SSM, then that indeed makes it safer than the previous version of the e-cat.

          • Ged

            PV are externally supplied by the sun. You can also get rid of the excess energy from the sun as heat. That is not the same as here where input is much smaller than output. It isn’t about quenching. Everything you list is not self powered. You haven’t considered what an asymmetric self powered device really means and does. If control systems break and all the output rushes into the input (even if just the 10% electricity which is 20 times more than the input) you have a destructive feedback condution. And a 1500 C device you can’t turn off or quench is an utter nightmare. Look at metal oxide fires, self powered bursaries that they are, they are not fun.

          • cashmemorz

            Are there currently any “asymmetric self powered device”s out there . Is so, how are they handled in terms of internal or external power up and/or control? This aspect of LENR may be a key to if or how it is to be allowed to enter the general use market.

          • Ged

            I don’t think any such thing exists. This is intentionally avoided with nuclear power plants though it could be done. They output more than they need, so if you loop back, you melt down the reactor or blow out all the wiring in the plant. It is never done, for good reason.

          • Rene

            Ged I think you lack an understanding of power systems.

    • Rene

      Yes, he has said so in the past. It takes power to quench runaway SSM.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Is this to prevent runaway reactor?

    • Ged

      What would happen in the event of a fire? Would you want a self powered 1500 C experimental reactor running in a burning building? Even without the risk of overload and meltdown from a self powered feedback loop, self powering it is insanity from a risk management standpoint.

      • Bruce__H

        Why would the meltdown of a 1mm x 30mm piece of metal be a concern?

        In fact I would like to see an unpowered meltdown. If we have a COP >1 then this should at least be a possibility no?

        • mcloki

          Because its a concern since you don’t know what the outcome of the experiment is.

          • Bruce__H

            In that case they should let one burn down on purpose and find out what the hazards are. I think it would be very informative. In fact I should imagine it would be an essential part of the safety engineering here. You would want a containment that would keep the unit safe in case of a runaway.

            Don’t see what connecting to an external supply has to do with this though.

          • Ged

            External supply you can shut down remotely and has a fixed input.

            I would love to see an intentional meltdown via feedback. But it is very dangerous and would need a lot of intentional setup. Don’t try it at home. It would not be the normal operating parameters. It must always be on external power to be safe, just like any power plant.

          • Bruce__H

            Why can’t power generated by this system be shut down remotely and have a fixed input?

          • Rene

            But Rossi has seen meltdowns. He’s written about it over the 5+ years of this story. He’s seen quiet meltdowns, he’s seen exploding meltdowns.

          • Ged

            Why would you subject bystanders to such danger? It could be set up, but a lot of precautions are needed for an intentional meltdown. Would be cool though. But this would not be the normal operating mode or parameters. Very dangerous.

          • Rene

            If you thought I suggest letting meltdown happen, that is not what I meant or wrote. His entire 5+ years has been getting the COP high but preventing the runaway (exponential) reactions that lead to meltdown. One way he has demonstrated that is not promote SSM, but that leads to a COP of 6 and requires multiple units to overlap the ones that have fizzled and require power to restart the reaction.

        • Ged

          1500 C is well above the flash point of basically any flammable substance. This is immensely dangerous if you can’t remotely cut power to shut it off. And what do you do with the extra energy it is making since it makes more than it needs? Where will that go if your output circuit fails and all that energy is going into the loopback? Seriously, this is ridiculous suggestions from a safety standpoint.

          You could still run it to destruction if you treat it the same as a nuclear bomb test. Nuclear bombs are a self powered reaction.

          • Bruce__H

            What differnce does being attached to an external source make to your argumentsÉ

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I doubt it is a problem or worry. And Rossi has melted devices in the past to see how they behave. So as far as I can tell, Rossi not worried about melting this small device or even self-looping it. Rossi is however worried about production devices.

          There nothing stated here that says self looping cannot be done in this case. Rossi simply stating “in general” this is a bad idea.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bruce__H

            The interpretation you offer could be correct.

            I suppose we are back to an old question then. Why has Rossi never looped the harvested power back to any of his devices? It can’t always have been for safety reasons. You would think it would have been a dynamite demonstration for investors such as IH. Two weeks of generation isolated from an external energy source would have removed all their doubts about the basic effect and left only engineering to do.

      • MorganMck

        “What would happen in the event of a fire?”

        Say you are right about this rationale for AR’s insistence on an external power source for commercial reactor deign. That still does not explain why a test setup with internal (self looped) power could not be set up with appropriate fire protection and precautions in place. Certainly any danger could be mitigated during this sort of test which (if of sufficient duration) would be bullet-proof evidence of Quark-x claims.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Rossi never said that self-looping is impossible. He stated that it not in the cards due to safety issues.

          However, one perhaps should have asked will Rossi do a self looped demo?

          As several stated, you have a bunch of these in your basement, and the house colipases due to a fire. Now you have these units running with a pile of rubble on top, can’t cut the power, and lo and behold you find out that you have a gas leak too! Or there is a tank next door from the gas station that is also leaking fuel into the pile of rubble.

          As several pointed out, a self-powered device that can run for a year without re-fueling is not a safe way to proceed with such a technology. I mean, even a lawn mower running in that pile of rubble will run out of gas in a few hours.

          At least with gas, you can spray the rubble with firefighting foam that will starve out the oxygen, or even in some cases spray a chemical that binds with the fuel to stop the fire.

          LENR don’t need oxygen to run and thus such a device is a nightmare to put out with water or firefighting foam.

          Will these things be self-looped in the future – sure, but there are few if any devices we have today that compare to such a device that has months if not a year of fuel supply. And at 1400+C, we talking about a high temperature device that can melt many kinds of metal.

          I don’t think a self-powered device that can’t be put out with water, foam or any traditional firefighting approach is a good idea at this point in time.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Ged

            Every risk manager and fire fighter would be in agreement with you. Self looping this thing is a nightmare. Complete and utter.

            Could be done purposefully for destruction testing out in a desert. Don’t want a China Syndrome happening in your back yard.

          • Bruce__H

            A China syndrome from a 1mm x 30 mm wire? That has to be substantially less than 1 gram of material.

        • Ged

          Dangers you think about, maybe. But safety is planned for dangers you don’t think about, and 1500 C is an enormous fire hazard. You would be in unimaginable legal trouble if the fire fighters came and couldn’t turn the thing off from a distance.

          There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how safety works around here.

          Worst, the device makes more than it takes, so how do you safely and intrinsically deal with the extra energy it doesn’t need but is being fed into itself? That is a positive feedback loop, and will result in disaster. You can never promise you can design a way to get rid of that energy that wouldn’t be able to fail and leave you in feedback mode.

      • Private Citizen

        Far, far fetched attempt. But if that were a genuine concern it would be trivial to add a fireman’s switch or other failsafe to the power controller. A controlled power source would actually be safer than using public mains.

        Even if this ludicrous edge case were valid, i’d settle for a self-looped exhibition in a fireproof room with a human flunky on hand 24/7 to turn off the device just in case smoke detectors sounded.

        But what if there were a simultaneous earthquake, fire, asteroid strike, terrorist attack and zombie apocalypse? Yeah, guess it’s best not to demonstrate the device in the obvious undeniable manner.

        • Ged

          Pop quiz! Are nuclear power plants self powered or powered from the mains? Answer: the mains (or backup generators). Why? Safety.

          It is never safe to make a self powered anything. There must always be an intrinsic limit for shut down. The most common self powered phenomenon you run into are 1) fire and 2) explosion.

          You need basic safety training or a course in risk management. Managing risk is all about the edge case. What if your humans are incompacitated? Well then you are screwed if it is self powered and no one from the outside can shut it off. What if the control mechanism fails? Then you are screwed. What if the device itself ignites due to contamination by someone foolish with a flammable that will auto ignite long before 1500 C, preventing approach and keeping a fire blazing that you now can’t turn off? You are screwed.

          It isn’t just about your safety, but everyone around you. And risk and safety are not about planning for what you can foresee, but for unforeseen events of every type. If something is intrinsically safe, then you’ve got your asteroids and zombies covered.

          But a self powered device is intrinsically unsafe.

          Note: yes, a battery is an external power source. So if we are using a battery for external power, that would be fine. But if you loop back to self power, you are putting more into the battery than taking out (COP > 1), so the battery would explode or ignite depending on type (same for capacitors). Not safe!

          • Rene

            They are self-powered with both battery and genset backup. The specific reason for backup power is two-fold: to ensure power is available to do SCRAM, and to running cooling water (for many days) on the decay heat of the core.

          • Ged

            That is external power, not self power (doesn’t charge it’s own batteries). Study Fukushima and why that failed and it’ll lead you down that interesting path.

          • Rene

            They do charge their own batteries, because the power they generate does run the plant (and charge batteries), but that is not the issue. Batteries are there only to provide uninterrupted power until the backup gensets are operational. That is the definition of backup power.
            Fukushima was the unfortunate case where the backup gensets got nailed by the tidal wave. No external mains, no backup, big oops.

          • Ged

            Yep. But it was still making power, so why not plug it into itself? Why rely on backup power? There are very good reasons, including blowing out the entire plant, and there is no coming back from that. Also, the batteries are on the mains, not its own power.

          • Rene

            Once a nuclear reactor goes into SCRAM it is definitely not making any useful electrical power, just a ton of decay heat.

      • Rene

        A buffer mitigates that issue handily.

        • Ged

          Only if the buffer stays in spec. Not in any failure condition.

          • Rene

            Yes, the same can be said of transformers, inverters, charge controllers. They seem to do that just fine for decades.

          • Ged

            But they are never in a feedback loop. What happens if you do put more energy into a transformer than it can output (i.e. lightning strike)? It explodes spectacularly. We’ve seen numerous cases of all those devices you list exploding or melting down in feedback conditions over all these years. You’ve just gotten numb to them failing.

      • Gerard McEk

        I totally disagree. If you have a reliable power source like multiple diverse battery system, you can make it also from reliabilityy point of view very safe and it would not differ from a mains supply with regards to safety. Besides that, the consequence of a meltdown of a small LENR system cannot be compared with a nuclear fission reactor. So I do not understand AR’s concern. See also my comment above.

        • Ged

          Any time more energy goes into batteries than is being drawn out, what happens? This is a positive COP, remember. You can engineer the sub systems to fail, but it will still never be intrinsically safe. The only intrinsically safe mode is an external supply. Makes control easier, power in is always the same and not affected by output fluctuations, and you can remote shutdown.

          I utterly disagree with you.

          • Rene

            Ged, I utterly disagree with you on this. I’d guess by your reasoning you also have issues with off-grid photovoltaic systems.
            A self-powered e-cat (which is to say an e-cat running with buffered power) would be just as safe if simple safety measures were in place to force it out of SSM when the power source capacity dropped below a threshold where it has only enough capacity to do, say, two quenching events.
            You really have to look at what ‘meltdown’ means. It means the reaction went exponential and it self-quenched by melting the fuel matrix, and destroying the reactor core but it by no means suggest a classic china syndrome event or even lingering radiation.
            Handling 1500C is not a big deal. Gas stove tops and ovens do 2000C. Water heaters, hydronic boilers, do that. And were all the safeties go bad, they too destroy themselves. Yes, there are external means to shut off the gas or electrical supply.
            In the case of the e-cat it will self quench in the end, but you end up with a non-working, maybe non-repairable device too. This is really what he’s been trying to avoid.
            As for the quark, if it is his intention to not run it in SSM, then that indeed makes it safer than the previous version of the e-cat.

          • Ged

            PV are externally supplied by the sun. You can also get rid of the excess energy from the sun as heat. That is not the same as here where input is much smaller than output. It isn’t about quenching. Everything you list is not self powered. You haven’t considered what an asymmetric self powered device really means and does. If control systems break and all the output rushes into the input (even if just the 10% electricity which is 20 times more than the input) you have a destructive feedback condution. And a 1500 C device you can’t turn off or quench is an utter nightmare. Look at metal oxide fires, self powered beasties that they are, they are not fun.

          • cashmemorz

            Are there currently any “asymmetric self powered device”s out there . Is so, how are they handled in terms of internal or external power up and/or control? This aspect of LENR may be a key to if or how it is to be allowed to enter the general use market.

          • Ged

            I don’t think any such thing exists. This is intentionally avoided with nuclear power plants though it could be done. They output more than they need, so if you loop back, you melt down the reactor or blow out all the wiring in the plant. It is never done, for good reason.

          • Rene

            Ged I think you lack an understanding of power systems.

    • PappyYokum

      I do not understand how an electrical feed from the outside with a on/off switch or other monitor, fuse, circuit breaker, on the input line would be different, as far as safety is concerned, from an electrical loop back with same sort of switch or breaker on it. If the reaction is controlled via control of the input power, what difference does it make if that comes from the outside or generated by the reaction itself?

      • Rene

        There are many assumptions that need to be addressed. One assumption is that the DC (or apparently AC) is anywhere near constant. I suspect it is quite variable and that makes collecting the power a more challenging endeavor, something like a super-cap to absorb voltage spikes, some conditioning circuitry that can then charge a battery. It is not stated that the e-catx quark is sent 0.5W continuous. If the quark is stimulated like its predecessors, then it is being pulse powered. That means the power tapping circuitry has to get out of the way during the stimulation pulses.
        Rossi said the quark is not running in SSM, so that does imply repeated stimulation to cause rundown LENR between the stimulations. That he is still concerned the device has to be mains powered suggests to me that it *could* runaway and he needs to be able to hit it with a strong continuing power to heat it enough to stop runaway. So, any buffer system needs enough power stored in it at all times to supply a couple of quenching events.
        This must-be-mains-connected concern of his suggests his mastery of the reaction controls is still not at hand. At this point I think he needs help with the controls theoretic and engineering. Though he discovered one of the most important parts, how to make strong LENR, he does not have the equally important recipe to control it well. He lost Focardi and he needs someone to help him cross into the reliability zone.

        • cashmemorz

          So now there are two points on which substantiation depends. First is the robust, unrefutable, theory of how the E-Cat version of LENR works, the other is reliability. Industrial Heat did not see these two points in place so “unsustantiated”. I’d bet the farm on it.

    • Rene

      Yes, he has said so in the past. It takes power to quench runaway SSM.

  • Bob Matulis

    The following makes no sense to me:

    “Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.”
    The electricity produced has to go somewhere. I cannot think of any reason why it could not charge a UPS or some type of battery. That battery could be the “External Source”. Said another way, the “external source” has to be getting its electricity from somewhere… why not from the output of the reaction.
    Using a UPS would not create a runaway reaction more than any other power source.
    Complete standalone is the best way to demonstrate this is the real deal. Anything else introduces the opportunity fudging the amount of power in. I find this caveat by Rossi very suspicious. Perhaps someone can explain to me what I am missing (I am a mechanical engineer – perhaps an electrical can set me straight.)

    • LuFong

      This has been Rossi’s standard reply for years. I think he just doesn’t want to do a demonstration of a standalone system.

      • Bob Matulis

        Your take makes sense to me. I cannot think of any good reason he wouldn’t want to demonstrate a standalone system.

        • LuFong

          Well I didn’t give a reason but I can only think of one plausible reason….

        • Pat

          The longer Rossi can keep BIG money from nations, universities and industrialists out of the game, the better chance he has to totalally dominate. Proving the “reality of LENR” to others would spur on those investments and lessen Rossi’s lead. Yes, that behavior probably slow down the development of LENR and is selfish. But, without that reward aspect, Rossi may not have struggled nearly so hard to get to where he is (wherever that ).

          • Private Citizen

            Clever, clever Rossi: performs 6-month test by eminent professors with full report including ash analysis, does multiple other publicly reported tests including 1-yr test, publishes ostensibly replicable patents, answers questions daily to affirm his device is working as promised.

            But he’s just clever enough not to demonstrate his perpetual motion magic machine undeniably making magic perpetual motion because he doesn’t want to be believed by those big universities and industrialists? Devilishly clever, that.

          • MorganMck

            PC, Its not “perpetual motion” as there is a fuel that is consumed over time.

          • Private Citizen

            “perpetual motion”

            figure of speech

          • HS61AF91

            He’s clever alright. Countries like Japan, India, and Russia are devilishly spending resources and research on LENR too. Large bureaucracies, as in nation states, tend to move lethargically, so that’s double clever of him: already having a lean, mean, working machine.

    • Robert Dorr

      It doesn’t make any difference where .the .5 watts of energy comes from. If you use some of the 10 watts of electrical energy to charge a battery then use that charged battery to provide the .5 watts of energy needed to produce the 10 watts of electrical output plus whatever would be required to run the control circuitry it would certainly work. My guess you should have at least 6 to 8 watts of energy left over from the initial 10 watts for whatever else you would want to accomplish. So it should be able to run completely self contained.

    • mcloki

      It could be a for saftey. You create a loop where the machine could run into run away mode with it self feeding electricity. External power means you can shut down the reaction or process.

    • Gerard McEk

      There can be two reasons:
      First a technical reason: Assume the electrical source is a current source, which requires that the current runs ALWAYS, otherwise the voltage increases to unacceptable levels (for battery and control equipment) and would lead to destruction of the reactor. Obviously it’s easy to make a safety circuit for it like a crowbar, which triggers if the voltage becomes to high and would short-circuit the current source. Additionally you can install more than one and diverse so it can never be a real safety issue. But maybe AR has a very conservative design strategy. Only in nuclear power stations (of the energy sector) you will find that kind of safety strategies because it could have vast consequences, but a small LENR device would not be that destructive.
      Secondly: The QuarkX does not produce more energy.
      So yes, there is reason for some suspicion, but maybe there is another safety issue?

    • cashmemorz

      From looking at what the out put energy is, say electricity, if it is stored in what may appear to be an external storage, like a battery, it really is not external to the whole system. When the system depends on “only” the battery when charged by the E-Cat, then, if anything happens to the battery, such being discharged by working on the E-cat, or anything else that causes it to discharge, then if the E-cat needs any power from the battery, then there may not be any power available to keep the E-cat going or to be adjusted for amount of power put out by the E-Cat. To be totally dependable there cannot be any real chance of disruption to the internal workings of the system. From first glance it may appear that as long as the E-Cat is putting out any power than that will keep the battery charged. If the battery, under those conditions is totally dependent on the E-cat for being charged up then it is a closed circuit in terms of power available to keep each other going. A totaly external power source is needed to avoid this.

      • Ged

        And if a spike of output power overcharged the battery… bad day for everyone.

        • An overload-protected constant voltage (‘regulated’) power supply unit would prevent this from happening. I have a couple of old bench units that would do the job adequately – they aren’t hard to find.

      • DrD

        Except the same problem arises in his current set-up because the grid could go down.
        Therefore he has a back up.
        The same applies to the battery case but in that event he could use the grid itself as the back up and/or a second battery as a back up to the back up if it needs to be ultra safe.
        Even 3 phase can be generated from a battery.
        I’ve little doubt the power wouldn’t be required once it’s shutdown.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I agree that the term “not possible” is somewhat semantics. I think a better term would have been never going to do that! (which means it not possible). So this is not impossible from a physics or technical point of view – but from a general idea of how Rossi will make these devices work is what he really means.

    • I don’t think you are missing anything. As you suggest, electricity is electricity, and it wouldn’t matter a jot whether it comes from the mains or a buffer/storage system such as a UPS. Most battery UPS devices can switch to a ‘good’ supply in milliseconds, in the event of problems with the ‘duty’ feed, and in many locations and situations are more reliable than the mains supply (which is why they were invented of course).

      I have a feeling that Rossi’s reluctance to engage with this possibility is more down to politics than engineering.

  • Bob Matulis

    The following makes no sense to me:

    “Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.”
    The electricity produced has to go somewhere. I cannot think of any reason why it could not charge a UPS or some type of battery. That battery could be the “External Source”. Said another way, the “external source” has to be getting its electricity from somewhere… why not from the output of the reaction.
    Using a UPS would not create a runaway reaction more than any other power source.
    Complete standalone is the best way to demonstrate this is the real deal. Anything else introduces the opportunity fudging the amount of power in. I find this caveat by Rossi very suspicious. Perhaps someone can explain to me what I am missing (I am a mechanical engineer – perhaps an electrical can set me straight.)

    • Bruce__H

      Exactly right!

    • Wholewitt

      I posted a reply further down that would answer this question but it seems it disappeared. For testing a new device you would want to keep input and output separate. The electrical output of the Quark X may be variable and is easier to measure using electronic or resistive loads. Any computer control needs a stable power and it is easier to control and measure the Quark device input power using an external source as well. A UPS is designed to have a normal input (120/240 VAC) not a wildly varying voltage, frequency or current (I really don’t know what the output of the device is). Keeping things separate is far better, especially for initial tests.

      • Bruce__H

        Makes sense for testing purposes but this cannot be the safety issue. So it can’t be the reason that Rossi is talking about

        • DrD

          Yes, as you say, it can’t be for that reason.

    • Robert Dorr

      It doesn’t make any difference where .the .5 watts of energy comes from. If you use some of the 10 watts of electrical energy to charge a battery then use that charged battery to provide the .5 watts of energy needed to produce the 10 watts of electrical output plus whatever would be required to run the control circuitry it would certainly work. My guess you should have at least 6 to 8 watts of energy left over from the initial 10 watts for whatever else you would want to accomplish. So it should be able to run completely self contained.

    • mcloki

      It could be a for saftey. You create a loop where the machine could run into run away mode with it self feeding electricity. External power means you can shut down the reaction or process.

    • Gerard McEk

      There can be two reasons:
      First a technical reason: Assume the electrical source is a current source, which requires that the current runs ALWAYS, otherwise the voltage increases to unacceptable levels (for battery and control equipment) and would lead to destruction of the reactor. Obviously it’s easy to make a safety circuit for it like a crowbar, which triggers if the voltage becomes to high and would short-circuit the current source. Additionally you can install more than one and diverse so it can never be a real safety issue. But maybe AR has a very conservative design strategy. Only in nuclear power stations (of the energy sector) you will find that kind of safety strategies because it could have vast consequences, but a small LENR device would not be that destructive.
      Secondly: The QuarkX does not produce more energy.
      So yes, there is reason for some suspicion, but maybe there is another safety issue?

    • cashmemorz

      From looking at what the out put energy is, say electricity, if it is stored in what may appear to be an external storage, like a battery, it really is not external to the whole system. When the system depends on “only” the battery when charged by the E-Cat, then, if anything happens to the battery, such as being discharged by working on the E-cat, or anything else that causes it to discharge, then if the E-cat needs any power from the battery, then there may not be any power available to keep the E-cat going or to be adjusted for amount of power put out by the E-Cat. To be totally dependable there cannot be any real chance of disruption to the internal workings of the system. From first glance it may appear that as long as the E-Cat is putting out any power than that will keep the battery charged. If the battery, under those conditions is totally dependent on the E-cat for being charged up then it is a closed circuit in terms of power available to keep each other going. A totaly external power source is needed to avoid this.

      • Ged

        And if a spike of output power overcharged the battery… bad day for everyone.

        • An overload-protected constant voltage (‘regulated’) power supply unit would prevent this from happening. I have a couple of old bench units that would do the job adequately – they aren’t hard to find.

      • DrD

        Except the same problem arises in his current set-up because the grid could go down.
        Therefore he has a back up.
        The same applies to the battery case but in that event he could use the grid itself as the back up and/or a second battery as a back up to the back up if it needs to be ultra safe.
        Even 3 phase can be generated from a battery.
        I’ve little doubt the power wouldn’t be required once it’s shutdown.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I agree that the term “not possible” is somewhat semantics. I think a better term would have been never going to do that! (which means it not possible). So this is not impossible from a physics or technical point of view – but from a general idea of how Rossi will make these devices work is what he really means.

    • I don’t think you are missing anything. As you suggest, electricity is electricity, and it wouldn’t matter a jot whether it comes from the mains or a buffer/storage system such as a UPS.

      Most battery UPS devices can switch to a ‘good’ supply in milliseconds, in the event of problems with the ‘duty’ feed, and in many locations and situations are more reliable than the mains supply (which is why they were invented of course).

      A UPS would be necessary anyway if constant supply is critical, and it would be a simple matter to add a circuit that used ‘Quark’ electrical output when available to charge the batteries (I find it hard to believe that they haven’t tried it).

      I have a feeling that Rossi’s reluctance to engage in public with this possibility is more down to politics than engineering.

      • Bruce__H

        Well there are other possible motivations too. But whatever the motivation Rossi’s reluctance to engage with this possibility yields 2 results …

        1) He never has to exhibit any of his inventions in a standalone configuration … a demonstration of which would be extremely convincing to everyone including investors. .

        2) He has an explanation for wires that connect his system to the outside.

  • LuFong

    I find the notion of “equivalence principle” that Rossi uses strange. Can anyone explain this?

    Note: Rossi says that the COP is the same no matter what the energy output mix because of the equivalence principle.

    • Ged

      I think he misunderstood the question. It looks like he means the sum of the outputs will be roughly the same COP whatever the ratio is (that is, same energy out, but can change forms or partition that energy between forms, but forms doesn’t change how much comes out in total (conservation of energy)).

      The question is really asking that given a 200 COP, what is the COP of the 10% electricity output only (20… very basic math, dunno why it was asked, probably why Rossi misunderstood).

      • LuFong

        “It looks like he means the sum of the outputs will be roughly the same COP whatever the ratio is”

        Yes that’s what he means but he says this is a result of the ‘equivalence principle’. What equivalence principle is he referring too? You can perhaps claim that heat, light, and electricity [of sorts] are all forms of the same thing (equivalents) but then you would expect ranges to be the same. But they are not. So it seems to me that it’s quite plausible that COP would vary based on the mix but Rossi seems to be saying, no the COP is the same.

        • Ged

          Equivilance is just another way of saying conservation of energy. Nothing mysterious. But yes, I doubt the exact COP is the same between different output ratios unless the energy is being released as a common output to all three… light.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The energy clearly is common in all cases. The device produces energy in the form of light. You can have that light escape as light, or hold up a black piece of wood and the energy is now being converted from light into heat.

            Or you can have the light hit a solar cell, and now some of that energy is being converted into electricity. In all cases, the energy output of the device (and hence the COP) never changes because you decide to have the light hit something and thus convert the light into heat. I fail to see how the COP would change here – that’s all Rossi is saying.

            So the energy output and COP is always the same = equivalence.

            What you decide to do with that energy output is up to you – it don’t change the COP.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob Greenyer

            This would be true if all the light was not able to be absorbed easily, ie – blacklight.

            However, I feel that there is another aspect, control of the drive or field potential will determine the output wavelength of light and this may result in some photons that are already in the IR or visible band and therefore not require conversion through a proxy.

            Given supply power of 0.5W, even if this was restively dissipated, the heat output would be meaningless in a open environment, if this control energy was supplied as RF/MW then there would be the potential for near negligible heating… it would effectively be a cold cathode.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg/2560px-Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg

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

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure, I have to agree if the “light” output and spectrum of the light output can be changed by changing or modulating the drive circuits – then yes.

            However, Rossi has quite much “implied” that the conversion of the output from light to heat or electric is achieved by standard means. In this context, then Rossi is quite much stating the output is the output and what you do with it after that occurs will not change the COP.

            I had thought that perhaps the electricity was being produced by some un-known means, but now it not clear. If the electric is not a simple solar cell or some such, and the electricity is by some un-known LENR means, then I think the COP output would most certainly change.

            However, right now, my bets are that the devices produces light – you can THEN
            do what you want with that light. So that light can become heat, or light, or
            that light can be converted into electricity. Rossi quite clearly suggested
            that what you do with this energy does not change the COP of the device. That
            means the output is one form of energy, and one is free to convert that energy
            into other forms such as electricity, but it not the LENR effect that producing
            the electricity, but the seabeck effect, or the photovoltaic effect. This is really the only way Rossi would state the COP don’t change regardless of what you do with the output of the device.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob Greenyer
          • LuFong

            I think you are on the right track. My original thinking was that the device produces each directly but it’s never been clear.

    • giovanniontheweb

      equivalence principle is the limit not the condition, if this applies within all the possible conditions you might have electricity and light without heat at given temperature which make this really revolutionary

  • mcloki

    Because its a concern since you don’t know what the outcome of the experiment is.

    • Bruce__H

      In that case they should let one burn down on purpose and find out what the hazards are. I think it would be very informative. In fact I should imagine it would be an essential part of the safety engineering here. You would want a containment that would keep the unit safe in case of a runaway.

      Don’t see what connecting to an external supply has to do with this though.

      • Ged

        External supply you can shut down remotely and has a fixed input.

        I would love to see an intentional meltdown via feedback. But it is very dangerous and would need a lot of intentional setup. Don’t try it at home. It would not be the normal operating parameters. It must always be on external power to be safe, just like any power plant.

    • Rene

      But Rossi has seen meltdowns. He’s written about it over the 5+ years of this story. He’s seen quiet meltdowns, he’s seen exploding meltdowns.

      • Ged

        Why would you subject bystanders to such danger? It could be set up, but a lot of precautions are needed for an intentional meltdown. Would be cool though. But this would not be the normal operating mode or parameters. Very dangerous.

        • Rene

          If you thought I suggest letting meltdown happen, that is not what I meant or wrote. His entire 5+ years has been getting the COP high but preventing the runaway (exponential) reactions that lead to meltdown. One way he has demonstrated that is not promote SSM, but that leads to a COP of 6 and requires multiple units to overlap the ones that have fizzled and require power to restart the reaction.

  • bachcole

    Rossi says. Only because of the startling advancement in his apparent ageing decline do I not trust him, and the nearly miraculous developments. Up to about the middle of the 1 year test I was 100% believing him. I still need some confirmation. I don’t disbelieve him. I don’t say that he is a crook or crazy or even demented. I do say that he might be suffering from severe age related decline. This may not necessarily be the case, and I hope that it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then were are definitely seeing the beginning of a new technological age.

    • sam

      I think A.R. Just keeps plodding
      along like an old work horse.
      One that is still as sharp as a tack.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Rossi never said that self-looping is impossible. He stated that it not in the cards due to safety issues.

    However, one perhaps should have asked will Rossi do a self looped demo?

    As several stated, you have a bunch of these in your basement, and the house colipases due to a fire. Now you have these units running with a pile of rubble on top, can’t cut the power, and lo and behold you find out that you have a gas leak too! Or there is a tank next door from the gas station that is also leaking fuel into the pile of rubble.

    As several pointed out, a self-powered device that can run for a year without re-fueling is not a safe way to proceed with such a technology. I mean, even a lawn mower running in that pile of rubble will run out of gas in a few hours.

    At least with gas, you can spray the rubble with firefighting foam that will starve out the oxygen, or even in some cases spray a chemical that binds with the fuel to stop the fire.

    LENR don’t need oxygen to run and thus such a device is a nightmare to put out with water or firefighting foam.

    Will these things be self-looped in the future – sure, but there are few if any devices we have today that compare to such a device that has months if not a year of fuel supply. And at 1400+C, we talking about a high temperature device that can melt many kinds of metal.

    I don’t think a self-powered device that can’t be put out with water, foam or any traditional firefighting approach is a good idea at this point in time.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Ged

      Every risk manager and fire fighter would be in agreement with you. Self looping this thing is a nightmare. Complete and utter.

      Could be done purposefully for destruction testing out in a desert. Don’t want a China Syndrome happening in your back yard.

      • Bruce__H

        A China syndrome from a 1mm x 30 mm wire? That has to be substantially less than 1 gram of material.

  • Rene

    Cool blurry blue picture, a brief summary and a statement that this is just a release of sanitized process notes. OK, that tells me this is early alpha for the e-catx.
    Frank, would you ask Rossi if he saw beta emitting from the peephole?

  • Rene

    Cool blurry blue picture, a brief summary and a statement that this is just a release of sanitized process notes. OK, that tells me this is early alpha for the e-catx.
    Frank, would you ask Rossi if he saw beta emitting from the peephole?

  • Rene

    There are many assumptions that need to be addressed. One assumption is that the DC (or apparently AC) is anywhere near constant. I suspect it is quite variable and that makes collecting the power a more challenging endeavor, something like a super-cap to absorb voltage spikes, some conditioning circuitry that can then charge a battery. It is not stated that the e-catx quark is sent 0.5W continuous. If the quark is stimulated like its predecessors, then it is being pulse powered. That means the power tapping circuitry has to get out of the way during the stimulation pulses.
    Rossi said the quark is not running in SSM, so that does imply repeated stimulation to cause rundown LENR between the stimulations. That he is still concerned the device has to be mains powered suggests to me that it *could* runaway and he needs to be able to hit it with a strong continuing power to heat it enough to stop runaway. So, any buffer system needs enough power stored in it at all times to supply a couple of quenching events.
    This must-be-mains-connected concern of his suggests his mastery of the reaction controls is still not at hand. At this point I think he needs help with the controls theoretic and engineering. Though he discovered one of the most important parts, how to make strong LENR, he does not have the equally important recipe to control it well. He lost Focardi and he needs someone to help him cross into the reliability zone.

    • cashmemorz

      So now there are two points on which substantiation depends. First is the robust, unrefutable, theory of how the E-Cat version of LENR works, the other is reliability. Industrial Heat did not have these two points in place so “unsustantiated”. I’d bet the farm on it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I am a patient guy, but playing the “safety card” again is grating. When Nicholas Chauvin approached Rossi in Switzerland back in 2012 on behalf of the MFMP to request an opportunity to test any E-Cat as a black box, even in a facility of his choosing – he declined, reason, safety.

        I do support whole heatedly extreme caution in reference to anyone attempting completely novel experiments that could possibly have a nuclear nature, but Rossi has claimed time and again that this technology fails safe so playing the safety card on a well tested device on this scale is bordering on specious.

        Nuclear events happen in femtoseconds, if it was going to go ‘nuclear’ bad – then it would happen with or without closing the loop.

        Rossi needs to close the loop eventually – and if the claims of this recent device are valid, then this should be easier than finding the surface on a Möbius strip.

        I would go further and argue that doing so would end all debate about the validity of the technology, as my brother says “don’t talk to me until someone closes the loop”.

        The only reason to not do so, in the case the technology is real, would be to ensure potential serious threats would default to dismissing the claims – in this case, the ‘safety’ would be for his stakeholders commercial interests.

        • Observer

          The reason not to do it is a matter of priorities. Its purpose would only be to persuade the skeptics who are just going to say “Rossi Says!” anyway. There are a lot more tests to be run to characterize this amazing object in order to satisfy Rossi’s questions. The skeptics’ questions will have to wait.

        • NT

          Tom Conover

          June 15, 2016 at 3:38 PM

          Dear Andrea,

          Please pass my congratulations and praise on to your team for me, would you?

          Does the 0.5 Wh/h drive power still need 240v three phase power to run the QuarkX?

          Thank you,

          Tom

          Andrea Rossi

          June 15, 2016 at 3:48 PM

          Tom Conover:

          I will pass you congrats to my team right now!

          Answer: yes.

          Warm Regards,

          A.R.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nt,

            These HotCat Rossi reactors ran from a single phase but used 3 to provide phase balance.

            I believe Rossi did say he used 3 QuarkX reactors in his tests, so probably each reactor used 1 phase of the 3 phases.

          • Stephen

            Is there something about 3 Phase power supply systems that makes it more robust if very large power spikes are drawn all over three phases at the same time rather than if drawn over a single phase power supply at different times? (Even if each phase is is distributed over 3 different devices?)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Stephen,

            In 3 phase Delta configuration there is no neutral line that can carry phase unbalanced loads as in 3 phase Y configuration.

            Industry normally uses 3 phase Delta as yes is can deliver higher surges from a non balanced load as can 3 phase Y that uses a lighter gauge neutral and expects the phase loads to be balanced.

          • Rene

            Yes, you can see each phase going to one terminal of each e-cat. The other side of the loads are connected to each other. Looks like a Wye configuration, though I can’t make out a neutral.

            http://weknowsolar.com/images/blog-images/3_phase_4_wire_wye.png

          • sam

            A.R has said none of his team is with him
            that worked on the Ecat.
            I am curious if anyone knows if they could
            be hired by anyone who wanted to try and
            build there own LENR device.
            Thanks

          • Jimr

            I believe many of them worked for Darden. I believe Rossi just gave up on the 1meg unit and has let Dardens group , and the few of his people go with Darden and continue the developement.

          • sam

            I don’t think A.R give up on it.
            He said he has sold and is
            building 3 more.
            T.D is the one who gave up on it.

          • cashmemorz

            T.D. did not give up on anything. He said that the E-Cat was unsubstantiated. The E-Cart is unsubstantiated on two very important and basic points. The first point is that the E-Cat has no substantiated firm theory of how it works. There are many proposed theories but not one that has been confirmed or substantiated. The second point is that its safety has not been substantiated during operation in COP of greater than 6 and in SSM mode. When these two points are covered than Industrial Heat and its investors and clients will be able to put the E-Cat on the open market without any qualms. Also I would want to purchase one only when I knew it was covered on those two point for use in my business or home.

          • Pweet

            I think it would be quite safe in your business or home because the other unsubstantiated point was that it produced excess heat. They couldn’t find any. Thus if it ever went wrong, as most things eventually do, you could just turn it off at the wall. Mr Rossi always claimed they were fail safe and on that point, I believe him.

          • cashmemorz

            I’m not being on the side of the established science but reiterating what Industrial Heat has put out in their statement of what is lacking in the E-Cat to make it satisfactory in their business. If you just think its safe doesn’t make the grade in the real world of practicality and safety. These two points have to be proven to show that it is OK.

          • Robert Dorr

            Industrial Heat said they couldn’t substantiate the results claimed by Rossi’s E-Cat technology. They never said they couldn’t substantiate it because there was no acceptable theory or that it wasn’t proven to be safe. You should reread I.H’s response to Rossi’s lawsuit. And it certainly never said anything about COP values or SSM mode.

          • sam

            Here is some competition for the Quark X.

            https://youtu.be/Wt4R-QrmfJY

          • Brokeeper

            The kind of competiton I want to hear about. Thanks Sam.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I also saw that comment and wrote a reply – but the comment did not appear here.

            Essentially he was saying in the comment I read, that Rossi was prepared to demonstrate to serious customers and that he would show his partners. I replied the following.

            It would be beyond disingenuous to not show it working to a real customer.

            Has he shown it to you or your stakeholders? Or is the state play currently that he would?

            If the latter, what de we learn by acknowledging that he would do what he would have to do when he had to do it? I have already noted that he must do it eventually.

            It is obvious that the device as claimed would allow the loop to be closed, even if this has not been done – but if it has not been done, then the claims are easy to dismiss and that allows him to ‘fly under the radar’. One could argue that this is a valid approach for a technology that is simple to replicate but is either not protected, ready for or in mass production.

            The nature of the promise of this technology is that you cannot trust anyone – look at those that are rushing to patent aspects before having something to show – and the bigger they are the more capable they are of finding a way round patent claims. I have seen even suppliers and distribution partners of inventors try to directly copy or produce analogues of a technology as they are working with the inventor.

            Unless an inventor becomes immortal, there is no reality that would allow them to reap all the value from an invention, the main prize is to be credited with the invention, Rossi knows this and is why he attacks Piantelli’s patents alone. The second is to be properly rewarded for the invention, but after the first several billions what difference does it make? You can’t eat more, you can sleep in 1000 beds… the technology itself will do more good for all time than any philanthropic act and control of philanthropy dies with the philanthropist to a large degree.

            In addition, inventions don’t happen in isolation, LENR is an intensely complex discipline and no one, not even P&F started at the beginning. Even an inventor may have been provided with education by their state or fed by poor farmers. Perhaps there are people that helped finance a thing through various stages, would the particular invention iteration have occurred without this investment, maybe… maybe not. Even the properties of the elements and materials have required fantastic amounts of human effort over the centuries. Credit where credit due. This is why the patent laws have an end to their protection, the inventor gets a window in which to profit from the inventive step then the invention reverts to global ownership – this is exactly as it should be, its not like any human invented Hydrogen, Nickel, Palladium, Chromium, Platinum, Silver etc.

            On the 2 key rewards of invention.
            1. Rossi says that the current claimed device is protected by his patent, if this is the case, every minute it is not categorically proven and defined presents a risk that he will not be credited with the invention, since if someone else goes public, the public might say Rossi copied the proven claim.
            2. The clock is now ticking for Rossi to make money from the invention, that includes any investing party whose shareholders would want to look at the amortized reward over the lifetime of the patent. Having it proven beyond doubt so early in the life of the patent would allow him to open the bidding – there is no doubt of the value of the claimed device.

            For the above two reasons, it would benefit Rossi to demonstrate as widely as possible the validity of the tech and closing the loop would do this more than anything else.

            In contrast, every “customer” that he shows the product to without full disclosure, however they present themselves, is another party that will be driven by greed or virtue to fill in the gaps and deliver it themselves if it is not shown in full. This has seemingly happened in the case of two partners (DGT & IH), in both cases, the pursuit of developing the tech was done against the background that Rossi had no Patent protection. The situation now is very different, he has and this should afford him a different strategy.

            One strategy is to update his patent to make it ridiculously easy to copy the device, then he’d never have to stress about the manufacturing – it would happen and massively. So what if non-controlled persons make it. He will not even have to fight the legal claims, I’ll explain.

            There is this guy in the UK, for near 30 years he invented stuff and patented them, his wife got so tired of poverty and constantly telling him to go and get a “proper job” that they divorced. A few years later, he sold a patent to a patent litigation agency for tens of millions of dollars. The infringer was Apple.

            With an updated and clear patent, full disclosure and closing the loop, Rossi would be credited with the invention and rewarded beyond all imagining without having to worry about manufacturing. Of course, he could, if he wanted to.

          • Rene

            As important is the basic LENR+ means and methods patent, he needs to file his “Means and methods to control and maximize a LENR effect” patent. That control patent, with its teaching of the mechanism to tame otherwise exponential reactions both protects his work and provides definitive proof the e-cat is not a science project.

          • Mats002

            Agree, the underlying mechanics is science. It’s happening now:
            http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25655

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            What I said was during my discussions with Rossi, never did he ask for anything that was not what one would expect when dealing with costly high tech power generating equipment.

            My potential client needed to pass Leonardo due diligence, which it seemed they did.

            Next Rossi said we needed to work on a mutually acceptable MOU, which laid down due diligence questions from our side, that once resolved in the affirmative, would quickly lead to a sales contract being signed and money placed into escrow. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

            As part of our sides due diligence, our team of seriously experienced high energy steam engineers could visit a working 1MW reactor and do their inspections and testing. Again nothing out of the ordinary here.

            From this experience, nothing occurred that suggested to my engineer’s gut that Rossi could not deliver. He also knew and realised he was potentially dealing with a owner and operator of a large number of thermal power plants and part of a larger owner group. So a bad due diligence report would not be what Rossi would want to go forward to a large part of the worldwide thermal power plant business.

            I must add that Rossi said straight out that he could not deliver 600C steam for some time, which for my potential clients was ok as this purchase was to get their toe wet, so to speak, in the reality of using a LENR reactor to heat steam. No way was this test plant going online and driving a steam turbine as it was both too low a steam temp and the reliability was totally unknown.

            I did get an understand that the fossil fuel plant owners and operators have been watching the LENR space for some time now and realise, assuming the reactors are reliable, replacing their existing coal / gas burners can easily be paid for by fuel savings over the life of the plant, plus no more carbon and other not nice emissions, nor any cost to pay for them. So doing this is a no brainer, easy for them to finance, again assuming they are happy with the plant retrofit cost, fuel cost and reliability.

            So there is a low hanging fruit that is just waiting for LENR 600C boilers that can cost effectively replace their fossil boilers.

          • Rene

            I am curious what would be the ratio of energy required to generate steam at 101C from water versus superheating that steam to 600C. In other words, how much would introducing an e-cat preheater/low temp steam generator save in the overall 600C generation of steam?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            I’m not a steam engineer but as I understand it going sub or supercritical at the steam temp and pressures required for efficient turbine operation is a big step above generating superheated steam at 105C.

            http://www.desein.com/sub_super_critical.php

            http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/32896-how-are-supercritical-boilers-different-from-subcritical-boilers/

            Large Subcritical thermal power plants with 170 bar and 540 / 540 ° C (SH / RH) operate at an efficiency of 38 %.

            Supercritical units operating at 250 bar and 600 / 615 ° C can have efficiencies in the range of 42 %.

            Ultra supercritical units at 300 bar and 615 / 630 °C will still increase the efficiency up to 44 %

          • Oystein Lande

            To heat steam from 100 degC to 600 degC will take 1000 KJ/kg steam. While it will take 2259 KJ/kg to boil water to steam, ie twice the energy of steam heating.

            A few data that is easy to use for calculating power requirements for water and steam heating:

            Heat of vaporization = 2259 KJ/kg
            specific heat capacity for liquid water = 4.184 KJ/kgKelvin
            specific heat capacity for gaseous water (steam) = 2.02 KJ/kgKelvin

            So evidently it takes 13.5 times more energy to boil water to steam than to heat same amount of liquid water 40 degC (60 to 100 degC)

            And it takes Twice the amount of energy to heat 1kg of liquid water compared to heat 1kg steam for equal delta temperatures.

          • Bob Greenyer

            So, you are at the “waiting for a 1MW reactor to visit” stage?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Bit before that stage.

            My potential client & Leonadro need to agree on a MOU & then execute it. It is basically a precursor Sales Contract that defines the due diligence issues that Leonardo needs to show compliance with, which cover a lot more than just doing a few tests, such as meeting QA standards, manuals, training, backup, spares, installation & commissioning, warranty, MTBF, etc. Understand my potential client is basically an engineering firm that ownes & operates many large and varied fuel sourced thermal power plants. To them this is like buying a new boiler, or turbine or generator or control system from a major established industry player. Massive compliance paper work issues without ever going close to the elephant in the room that this is a NUCLEAR REACTOR with an unknown fuel cycle, with no accepted theory as to what radiation is produced & how it is prevented from escaping the reactor under ALL nirmal & fault conditions.

            It is still not clear if http://www.arpansa.gov.au and http://www.ansto.gov.au will allow the reactors to be imported into Australia and if so, if they can be installed & commissioned.

            I believe the existing 1MW ECat safety certification is for a boiler and not a nuclear boiler.

          • Bob Greenyer

            given the few long term installations – understanding of the MTBF would be limited.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Bob: This Supreme Court decision should help.

            https://www.yahoo.com/news/sup

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Bernie, so even more reason to put it all out there.

          • cashmemorz

            I know what Industrial heat said. I’m adding my understanding of science and what is required to make the E-Cat work dependably. When and if it ever gets to the point of confirming the order I have for the two units I have placed with Leonardo Corp. I want it to be fully dependable for my safety.

          • cashmemorz

            When the heat is not being produced, without the theory you have no way of knowing if the problem is sporadic, if it will get worse when you unplug it or anything. All you know is that it “somehow” works until it doesn’t. Rossi may be the most trust worthy fellow around. What I want to actually trust is the E-Cat itself and that I know for sure that when something goes wrong that I know and the guy who comes to replace it also knows for sure what is going on with it and what to do, unplug it, re-stimulate it to knock it out or whatever. Anything else is ad hoc and you just put blind faith behind it. Religious belief is good for things that may or may not exit. E-Cat is physical which requires robust scientific support behind it.

          • Omega Z

            ->”the E-Cat has no substantiated firm theory of how it works”

            This is not required. If it works it works. If this is an issue for T.D. then he should never have become involved.

          • cashmemorz

            Without a firm theory or understanding of how it works then if something unexpected happens you won’t know why it went wrong and also you won’t know what exactly is required to fix it. With a theory you know these things and have realistic control.

          • Omega Z

            Refrigeration is merely a working theory(Incomplete), but we still have realistic control. Was a time when nothing was explained by theory, but we used it anyway. Should it require a 1000 years to develop a theory of LENR, should we wait till then to make use of it.

            Theory is just a tool for better understanding and hopefully improvements. It is not a necessity before making use of a technology…

          • cashmemorz

            My understanding that theory is more than ‘just a tool”. It gives the underpinnings of how something actually works. With that “tool” you have a powerful way of quickly closing in on what the actual problems are. This then allows one to fix anything that goes wrong much faster and precisely. Without the theory repairs tend to be more ad hoc, take more time to narrow down to what “maybe” the problem is, the actual problem may not be solved, and the root cause of the problem may be allowed to fester in the background because it “appears” to be working ok. With the theory you don’t have these worries hanging over your head like the sword of damocles. You know for sure when a problem is fixed or not.

          • Engineer48

            Some good answers from Andrea:

            Engineer48
            June 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            In reference to my earlier questions:

            1) Each QuarkX reactor needs 240vac single phase to operate it and the control system?

            2) Is DC or AC output available directly from the reactor, without needing any type conversion? Ie rectification for AC to obtain DC or inversion for Dc to obtain AC?

            3) If AC is available directly from the reactor, is the output frequency dependent on the input frequency or is it some other frequency?

            4) For either DC or AC output, is the output voltage stable under different loads or will voltage regulation be needed to provide stable direct DC or AC output?

            I have a number of potential remote area QuarkX projects currently under design, including direct water extraction from the atmosphere and water purification, and your news that QuarkX reactors will be commercially available in 2016 is REALLY good and exciting news!

            Is it too soon to publish the spectrum of the light output? I ask as if the spectrum fits, it may be able to assist water purification.

            Andrea Rossi
            June 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM
            Engineer48:
            1- not necessarily
            2- AC
            3- can’t answer, but we can obtain 50 or 60 Hz
            4- we give stable output
            5- to soon to publish the spectrum
            Disclaimer: even if the preliminar R&D has been completed, more R&D is necessary to verify and confirm the data.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            The direct QuarkX reactor electrical output is AC, at either 50 or 60 Hz and the voltage output is stable.

          • Rene

            But be careful as he did not state how it is made stable (external conditioning, etc.). AC yes, but did not say whether this is zero crossing AC or, for that matter, whether the AC is sinusoidal. A DC bias makes matters a little more complicated.
            I am not surprised about being able to control the frequency as the electron surge is probably tied to each excitation event. Do that 60 times a second and between the excitation pulses you get a surge of electrons.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            Yes could easily have a DC offset. But then again if the AC output is synchronised to the mains it may be OK.

            Don’t expect it will be sinusoidal. That would be way too much to expect.

          • DrD

            I’m confused.
            First he was saying *(more than once) the direct output was DC, then he said AC or DC. Now he’s just said it is AC.
            Edit, when he said AC or DC I assumed it ws AC via an inveter but apparently not.

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            I was also confused, which is why I asked the questions I did. Anyway now we know a lot more.

            Direct electrical output is AC at either 50Hz or 60Hz and is stable.

            We also now know the QuarkX reactor can be fed from 120vac single phase to 416vac 2 phase, 50 or 60Hz.

            So I’m happy to start designing a remote area / emergency QuarkX reactor that is run from a battery & some of the direct electrical energy is used to recharge the battery.

          • DrD

            I wish you success.
            I wonder how long before we can buy one, a bunch of Quarks that is. Which poses the question, what will be the name for a grouping of Quarks?
            I would like to do the same or perhaps I could be one of your first customers and maybe we could set up an ECW fund so that we can fulfill George’s dream?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Look I’m a realists and expect the 1st delivered units to need maybe some external processing.

            What yet to be determined is how stable is the thermal output and electrical output as load changes (thermal and electrical) occur.

            My approach would be to rectify the prime AC into WELL filtered DC and then to use that to feed an inverter, well maybe several inverters and Dc to Dc converters to generate a range of stable DC and AC outputs at various voltages. Such that variations to the prime output Ac voltage or waveshape will not propagate to the various output voltages.

            The thermal output can then be fed into enclosures, such as warming command posts, communications, medical facilities and water conditioning. If the intense light is of the proper wavelength, it could do the job of sterilization of dirty water, or just use the 1,500C temp to boil any water and turn it into very pure water.

            The various output configuration are exciting to design with and yes this could be crowd funded to get it off the ground. But 1st I need to build a battery powered self looper to eliminate any doubt this is real, which I can do with personal funds.

          • cashmemorz

            Why a theory is more necessary in LENR than in some areas such as refrigeration, is that if a fridge acts up or goes wrong then it will have little or no impact on your health, whereas a a device that uses nuclear reactions might hurt via radiation. It is unknown at this time just how the nuclear particles are all kept inside and /or at low speeds in the cold fusion effect. On the other hand if, after a few million device-hours distributed over thousands of E-Cats nothing harmful occurs, then statistically speaking LENR is reasonably safe to use unattended in peoples homes. The guinea pigs will be the industrial units’ operators. They will presumably be wearing dossimeters for the first few decades until all or nearly all units get a clean bill of health.

          • Ted-X

            Frank,
            Could you implement a red-flagging device, where people would flag postings suspected of being authored by trolls? These postings are quite easy to identify. They are bringing long-dead issues (zombie-type things or Lazarus-type issues) back to life and are trying to derail the discussion.

          • bachcole

            Right Arm!! Observation trumps theory.

          • cashmemorz

            That only takes you just so far. After all the observations are in, get on a theory that fully explains everything about which observations are important to the actual mechanics, quantum or large scale. The final theory is what allows one to, not only fully understand what it is doing, but allows one to quickly narrow in on the actual cause of any problems. Without the theory fixing problems is trial and error and may not address the actual cause of the problem.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Yeah, fine. No photo, no video, no design, no replication, nothing. Just a virtual black box with fancy name. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure what 1mwt e-cat reactor is working thing, well, probably with multiple glitches, but. And hot cat has been replicated at least 3 times already. But I just do not see the point to discuss totally hidden gem.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            I will certainly try to be one of the 1st OEMs to integrate a QuarkX reactor into a real world product.

            Andrea knows that, so we engage on his forum as he releases info when I ask the right questions.

            BTW Andrea has always released photos of every product he has ever claimed he has built. He has stated the QuarkX reactors will be available in 2016, so I expect to see photos and a specification data sheet soon.

          • Mike Ivanov

            No problem. I just do not see a point for over hype for completely unknown device…

          • Jas

            There has been some duscussion on here recently about whether lenr can be used as a weapon. Take a look at the Quark and its size and output. It could be used as a projectile. As a bullet. Fired from a railgun possibly? It gives light so can be used as tracer bullets. It gives electricity so could deliver shock to its target. It also provides heat so could ignite its targets. I havent done the math so this might be impossible. When the Secretary of Defense provides his briefing I wonder if this will be part of it?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Words can be weapons too.

          • Jas

            I’m not fascinated by guns and war machines. I would rather the Quark not be used to kill people but its a possibility given the size of the device. It just popped into my mind this morning on the way to work. I wonder if its possible?

          • US_Citizen71

            Sure why not anything can be a weapon. You could accelerate a Styrofoam BB to Mach 12 for a short ranged lethal projectile that doesn’t mean it would be an effective weapon over all.

          • Jas

            A Styrofoam pellet can not electrocute or ignite a person. A rifle bulllet reaches the temperature of 250-300C in flight. The Quark would be much much hotter. I’m not trying to advocate the use of Quarks as projectiles. Just guessing that the military would be interested.

          • Omega Z

            It brings backpack laser’s that much closer to reality.
            Drones that can remain airborne until it’s conventional weapons are exhausted.
            Laser mounted drones who’s weapon last a year.

            What you describe wouldn’t likely even be considered. As to firing a quark with a rail gun, just use a small tungsten bolt that would do far more damage much cheaper.

            As to military applications, possibly they will find uses that in turn will be of great benefit to society that wouldn’t have evolved otherwise or pave a fast track path to the consumer of other products.

            The U.S. military need for heavy bombers in WW II did what would be many decades of civilian development in just a couple years. Thus civilian air travel and cargo transport was fast tracked by decades due to the military need. The list of such benefits is very long.

          • akupaku

            What are those deadly words? Oh no, please don’t say them, lol! ;o)

            Seriously speaking, I have been married once, I know what you are talking about!

          • Bob Greenyer

            sad eh… a world of plenty would end oil and water wars and alleviate the march of global climate change but probably increase the divorce rate as selfishness would become a strongly exhibited trait.

          • Observer

            Great Idea! Lets use an energy source that lasts months and use it for a fraction of a second! A block of metal traveling 5000 mph in air does not need an internal heat source. It would make more sense to power the rail gun with Quarks than use them as a projectiles. So that would make the Quark no more a weapon than a diesel generator.

          • Rene

            Everything you mentioned is currently done quite effectively chemically and at a fraction of the cost.
            Thinking on this some more, I believe similar results could be obtained shooting slightly modified discarded mobile phones. 🙂

          • akupaku

            Armor piercing projectiles and bullets too usually use their kinetic energy produced by their mass and speed to get through the target. I doubt Quark’s heat or other attributes are especially usable in such weapons other than as an energy source in weapons with own propulsion. But I might be wrong, I am not a weapons engineer. Human kind is using enormous resources and ingenuity to develop weapons to kill each other. As Stanton Friedman likes to say “mankind’s favorite pastime is tribal warfare”.

          • cashmemorz

            Without the theory any problems would have to jerry rigged or ad hoc. That does not necessarily fix the actual problem but may look like it acts like a fix. A fix based on theory assures that the real problem at root is fixed. In other words no guess work is applied to the problem. Knowledge is applied when you have the theory. A much more powerful way for fixing any root problems that may appear. “As long as it works” is the approach a hill billy takes to make it “seemingly” ok. I don’t want a machine that is looked after in the way that a hill billy looks after it.

          • sam

            I hope it is that simple.
            But I think it is more complicated than that.

          • Observer

            My guess is IH assembled a scientific advisory board that consisted of people who cannot stand Andrea Rossi. It is hard to find experts that do not have a conflict of interest. The board’s ego probably cost T.D. billions.

        • NT

          Apparently not a simple thing to do given the three phase 240 volt power that Rossi say’s is required for control. Not impossible to do and would be a good lab demonstration closing the loop and proving Rossi’s LENR.

          https://youtu.be/GGyAcL0NLRA

          • Bob Greenyer

            Can it be done, the answer is yes – and a drive power requirement of 0.5W is hardly onerous.

          • NT

            Yeah!
            So why does not Rossi just do it? I would think proving his technology would also help his court case and his world wide credibility…

          • NT

            Bob, I realize you cannot answer this question – just myself questioning the obvious reality that SEEMS to be self evident to some of us….

          • Rene

            I think he won’t do it because he can’t make it work without a ton of manual tweaking. Closing the loop also means taking your hands off of it for a long while.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            Tweaking is what a control system does. For the 1MW plant to have run in SSM, means IH, when they built both plants, built in the ability to do the control. It is not something Rossi could have retrofitted in his container home.

            I expect what he actually did was to fix all the problems that cropped up. He was there as he wanted to be there and see 1st hand what was breaking down so as to do redesign such that it doesn’t happen in the later production units.

            Closing the loop is just feeding some of the output energy back to the reactor’s energising and control systems. As the control systems would be powered by the plant’s output, failure of the output electrical feedback could cause control issues if the voltage and current could not be maintained as to what as required.

            Assuming the reactor runs on AC, this would need to be generated by a very high capacity Dc to AC inverter, with sufficient capacity to handle the highest current surges. Then some of the output generated electricity can keep the batteries charged.

            I have designed and built systems like this and the inverter design to be able to deliver the current surge that the mains can deliver, requires the inverter and the battery to be massively over rated. IE imagine a thermal runaway control system that would need to draw say 200 amps when it normally draws say 1 amp. Why 200 amps? Just maybe Rossi has found a way to damp down the reaction by the application of a very large magnetic field?

            So I don’t discount Rossi’s claim about safety as we have no idea how he controls a very high gain thermal reaction, which with a COP = 200 could very easily lose control, go into thermal runaway and melt down.

          • Rene

            In the e-cats previous to the quark, he uses some kind of stimulation to start the reaction. Many of us posit some combination of heat, RF, magnetic secret sauce. It seems to take kilowatts for his larger units. He has said achieving higher COP gets into SSM territory and when that happens he needs much less power to keep whatever RF, magnetic other secret sauce going to keep SSM linear. I do agree with you that it is some kind of rapid negative feedback/backoff activity that micro quenches the otherwise exponential growth. But, sometimes it gets away, and then there is some third high power quench action (more secret sauce) to stop the reaction entirely.

            For the quark, he said that device does not enter SSM, so I assume he is doing some kind of rapid stimulation followed by a delayed strong negative feedback but something that is not high power. You can do that when the physical bulk of the reactor is very small. I can imagine too, that even in that punctuated super critical configuration the reaction could get away and require a lot of power to perform a hard reaction quench.

            I recall Rossi wrote/said (here we go again, ‘said’) that he made adjustments and control fixes to that 1MW plant (sorry no link, but it can be searched with some effort.)

            But here is the inconsistency: On the one hand Rossi says (and I have mentioned this previously) that the e-cat reaction is intrinsically safe in the sense that when it goes runaway, though damage is done, the reaction stops when the core matrix melts. It is not a nuclear hard end-reaction.

            On the other hand, he touts the safety card with respect to requiring mains power, and here I assume he means uninterruptable power, to quench a runaway reaction.

            There are many reliable ways to get uninterruptable power that is as reliable than the grid. You can order such units. They range from kilowatt to megawatts.

            There are ways to take the power generated from a device and condition it to store some of that power for the UPS.

            So which is it? Because if he has changed his tune abut the inherently safe melt-and-quench characteristic of the e-cat, then this is indeed bad news.

            I think he’s playing the safety card as a means to justify (and not well) why he simply does not want to open his process for true review. I can well understand why, given the IH fiasco.

            So here we are again, at the same crossroads. The best I can guess is he has something, it’s tricky and not fully mastered, he’s optimistic and not sharing. so we might be back to…

            http://www.sciencenutshell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/popcorn1.jpg

          • cashmemorz

            Needs a dependable power supply for months at a time without declining in available power. UPS are good for a few days or weeks. For months they get awfully big.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is what I meant by “Rossi needs to close the loop eventually” – no other act would be more convincing to the court.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            The action before the court only need IH to pay up as per the ERV report. They pre agreed to the ERV report being the only decider. So what IH need to do IN COURT and BEFORE A JURY, is to PROVE the ERV report is faulty and the real COP was 2.6 or less, despite the Rossi submitted documents claiming it was > 50.

            Doesn’t matter what is stated on any blog by anybody but Rossi, who is the only voice to carry weight in court.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nt,

            Andrea has said many times the only persons he will be proving his technology to are his customers.

          • Omega Z

            If the Quark works and Rossi knows it, he has zero reason to show it to those other then the people directly involved.

            In fact, if it works, he has ample reason not to show it. Best to let outsiders just wonder and speculate. Aside from that, demo’s cost valuable time and money and skeptics will always find something of question. No matter how fool proof the demo. Perhaps Rossi developed a super capacitor the size of a D-cell battery that can hold 1GW of energy. Just ignore how amazing that would be in itself.

            If however it doesn’t work, well, that’s kind of hard to reconcile. Rossi had a chance to exit with enough cash in hand to live out his life. Yet he continues on.

          • Bob Greenyer

            “Rossi needs to close the loop eventually” that is all I said, – principally that may happen to prove categorically that the technology is valid in his legal case. If not then, eventually it will happen – even if not by him, but by a third party – closing the loop is inevitable if the technology is as claimed since there is a lot of time in the future.

            I maintain that I find the safety card grating as it is becoming specious other than as I said for commercial ‘safety’ – I would much rather he said “There is zero reason to show closing the loop to those other then the people directly involved” than say “safety”.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Have asked Andrea this question:

            Engineer48
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            June 16, 2016 at 5:29 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            Is a battery operated QuarkX reactor a possibility? If so what a wonderful application to provide heat, light and electrical power in remote locations or where a disaster has occurred and normal services are not available.

            Appreciate all your great replies

            Of course a battery operated QuarkX could be closed looped via the QuarkX DC output charging the battery. Should add the battery may need to have very significant ability to properly deliver any large current spikes the QuarkX control system may need.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks for asking the Q.

          • artefact

            OT:
            BLP is teasing before the new demonstration on June 28th (COP 128+):
            http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
            Quote:
            “There are very interesting new developments at BrLP. The power of the plasma as shown for the first run of a new approach that we started about a month ago can be extraordinary, bursts of millions of watts in a volume of a coffee cup. Cell meltdown including the thick tungsten electrodes can occur in seconds. Five independent validators using four cross confirming methodologies, two absolute spectroscopic and two thermal techniques using a commercial calorimeter and a heat exchanger on the SunCell, have established that the power demonstrated is megawatt level with about 8 kW total input.”

          • optiongeek

            I tried to submit an article on this to e-catworld but it seems it was not accepted. I found the picture of the melted tungsten electrode to be extremely compelling. Whatever it was that melted them strikes me as being far beyond the state-of-the-art for modern metallurgy.

          • DrD

            So that must represent an electrical COP of atleast 30 but for how long.
            I wouldn’t want one in my basement, maybe at the bottom of the garden (it’ll keep the sheep away).

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No, he was just joking.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Artefact,

            Would seem the COP wars (my COP is bigger than your COP) have started!

          • tlp

            Actually QuarkX thermal COP (200) is higher than SunCell (125), but SunCell using around 40% efficiency PVs could get electrical COP of about 50 compared to QuarkX 10, maybe soon 20.
            Of course QuarkX could use PVs also.

          • artefact

            Yes. When and if they come to market their marketing departments will have lots of fun.
            I also look forward to the clone wars 🙂

          • Gerard McEk

            1MW during 1 nano second means an energy of 1 milli joules. It has no use to talk about watts, energy is all that matters when you want to generate it.

          • tlp

            Also you mentioned megawatt bursts but was the continuous power measured at the megawatt level in the new calorimeter validations?

            R. Mills:
            >>Continuous until the cell melted.

            I hope the melting problems can be controlled or was this allowed to happen merely for demonstration purposes?

            R. Mills:
            <<We have a refractory material design for the high powers and temperatures.

          • Gerard McEk

            It is just that electrical power does not say so much if you want to generate energy. They should talk about energy: kWh or kilojoules and not power kW or MW. It is all about how much energy goes in and how much comes out.
            Example:
            A small rechargeable battery can have a energy content of 6 joules. If you were able to consume that in 1 microsec, then you have done that with an integrated power of 6 MW.
            So BrLP should not talk about power and as long as they are using it I do not take them seriously.

          • tlp

            Power plants are measured using MW, like a typical nuclear plant, 1000 MW.
            Of course these means continuous power, so it is same as 1000 MWh in one hour.
            Also these calorimetric measurements they have done, though not hours but at least several seconds.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, but these are producing that power constantly. Mills does not, he produces 1MW during say a few seconds. In terms of energy it is just 1000.000×2/3600=0.555kWh…. Not much!

          • optiongeek

            A previous demo from January (posted on the BrLP site) showed continuous, indefinite operation with measured output of 564kW and COP ~= 100. It also had vaporized silver wafting about in the reaction chamber. If you look up latent heat of silver, it’s one of the most difficult substances to vaporize. Extremely energetic process.
            Rossi has shown nothing remotely close.

          • bachcole

            I find Rossi’s statement about having a secretary to be significant. People who have secretaries are not scrabbling for funds. This is good.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Sorry, I don’t get what you mean. He was joking with a reader LookMoo about a new secretary some time ago. Are you referring to that?

          • sam

            A good secretary helps to keep the operation running smoothly.
            A.R should not joke about the secretary.

          • Steve Savage

            It seems to me that BLP certainly is making progress in harnessing the “effect” however, I am much more confident in Rossi’s engineering approach and progress.

          • Roland

            Exactly, it sometimes seems the Mills team doesn’t take their own energy release numbers with appropriate seriousness as the apparatus to harvest these releases appear to be consistently under-engineered from iteration to iteration.

            The money and talent does appear to be in place to eventually overcome the engineering challenges but I’d tend to agree with your assessment that Rossi will be first to market with a stable reliable industrial product.

          • Brokeeper

            Agree, on the surface it appears BLP goes for the dramatic effect vs Rossi’s cautious and optimum approach.

          • Zephir

            In essence this effect can be explained classically with pointing to extremely high current densities, which BLP is reportedly using. The 2 Volts would correspond 4 kA current. Note also, that the whole electrode stack looks quite well thermally insulated.

            [Brilliant Light Power Inc. experiment after discharge](http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/060716-copy-2-e1465940718288.jpeg) [vimeo record of another experiment](https://player.vimeo.com/video/151151194)

          • US_Citizen71

            I’m not sure what we are seeing there. In many ways it resembles a metal fire.

          • Zephir

            You can see a very high current arc between silver electrodes running at low voltage (2 volts or so).

          • BillH

            This type of system appears to be like trying to store the energy generated by lightning, no one has managed to do that so far. It also looks rather expensive to set up. The bottom line is that any system has to be economic, and better than what is already available.

          • US_Citizen71
          • Ophelia Rump

            If the reactor is not safe in self sustained mode without a power source, then doesn’t that mean that it is unsafe if you experience a power outage while it is in self sustained mode?

            I thought the E-cat was supposed to fail safe. These reasons which he will not share make me a little apprehensive.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Good point. In the early phase of the 1 MW plant test I asked AR about possible power outages, and he answered that they had implemented measures for such a case. But what kind of measures might that be? We have no indications that there was an emergency generator on site. Maybe somebody wants to ask him again for details. If continuous electricity supply is required for safety reasons, power outages could be a serious problem, especially in domestic applications.

          • DrD

            Exactly.
            Something doesn’t compute.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Guys,

            I would expect, with a COP (energy gain) = 200, the QuarkX reactor is under continuous control to keep the reactor energy gain constant.

            With such a high gain, even small upward changes in input could result in a thermal runaway.

            I expect that because of the high gain, SSM may not be possible but with a thermal COP = 200 or say electrical COP = 100 with a high efficiency CO2 supercritical turbine, who cares as the input drive energy is only 1% of the electrical output from that turbine / generator.

            Much better to run this reactor ALL THE TIME, under control. That way, engineers sleep much better!
            .

          • DrD

            Hi Eng,
            The ones who care are those who are interested in portable applications and the “off-gridders”.
            Then there’s the puzzle as to why AR maintains it’s only not possible for safety reasons when we see no technical reason why that should be; even acknowledging what you pointed out.
            It’s a great shame your client can’t go-ahead, that court case could drag out for years, especially if IH appeal. Did AR have the production capacity, at the moment I think he’s only building three 1MWt?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Have asked that question:

            Engineer48
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            June 16, 2016 at 5:29 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            Is a battery operated QuarkX reactor a possibility? If so what a wonderful application to provide heat, light and electrical power in remote locations or where a disaster has occurred and normal services are not available.

            Appreciate all your great replies

            As for my potential client’s 10 x 1MWt plants, was quoted 6 months from money in escrow to being installed and ready for commissioning tests.

          • DrD

            6 months, not bad, yes I thought I remembered you had a timescale but wasn’t sure. It would be a great step forward.
            Maybe you will have more luck than the rest of us with that question, it’s been asked many times, including by me. He once said it was possible it might work from a cellphone battery but that was an exception as he always says NO for safety reasons.

          • It sounds almost as if the reaction process needs constant variable suppression (via EM or RF out-of-phase input perhaps) to keep it within bounds. I think it would need to fail safe to be acceptable in larger installations, although a need for active control intervention seems to be acceptable (to some, anyway) in fission plants.

        • Roland

          Perhaps another interpretation of safety is in order.

          E-cats and Quarks are destined for industrial settings. The industrial world runs on (multiples of) 240V 3 phase electrical power and industrial electrical codes are fairly uniform across international jurisdictions so that devices can be internationally sourced, deployed and, importantly, insured.

          All the electrical devices in industrial settings must adhere to existing codes for both safety and interoperability; E-cats and Quarks meet electrical codes because all the sub-systems run on 240V 3 phase industrial standard electricity by design.

          From this perspective the use of the word ‘safety’ is tongue in cheek humour, rather than a constraint imposed by LENR physics, and a bow to the realities of an industrial world were electrical devices don’t make energy out of ‘who knows what’. But, they will, by God, meet code while doing so, whatever that may be.

          P.S. If a Quark starts being an active LENR device seconds after one throws the ‘ON’ switch, and the newly engaged circuit is required to remain operational while the device is running, and the device shuts back down in seconds, why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „[…] why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?”

            Even if you could stop the LENR reaction within seconds it might be a difficult to withdraw the heat quickly enough. Maybe this is the main reason for the miniaturization of the Quark. The smaller a body is, the higher the surface-area-to-volume ratio, hence the efficiency of heat transfer.

          • Roland

            My thought precisely; downward scaling not only improves the energy transfer characteristics of the device it also allows for a much finer level of reaction control through continuously applied field effects without having to fight the inertia effects of a physically larger system that will respond much more sluggishly to control inputs.

            I expect that scaling will also impact the moderation of output modalities with, again, downward scaling favouring the nimble balancing of heat vs. light vs. electrical output. This would prove helpful when, for example, varying the electrical output to adapt to sub-system load requirements in real time in a fully engineered steam plant.

            The answer to „[…] why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?” has, almost, been offered by Rossi since the question was posed; the reaction stops when power to the device stops, we could imply from this that stopping power to the control circuit alone will have similar effect.

        • Gerard McEk

          Indeed. Starting the device doesn’t seem a problem anymore, but stopping it may be very difficult and require active and complex measures. SSM seems marvelous, but it may not be very stable and can run into a meltdown. The QuarkX seems to require a constant power supply feed and may run on the brink of instability, thus achieving such a high COP.
          It would be informative if AR would tell us what the safety issues are, but if radiation is one of them, then it would do his brainchild no good commercially.

          • DrD

            Agreed but even so, why would a battery sourced three phase supply (I doubt he really needs 3 phase) from a reliable high capacity battery, with a back-up for back-up plus a stanby connection to the grid be any less realiable than a direct connection to the grid?
            The batteries being trickle charge from the Quark of course.
            If there’s some strange reason why he cant trickle charge the same battery that’s simultaneously providing his input (which I doubt) then he could completely decouple by auto switching between 2 batteries, i.e. one being charged and a seperate battery providing the input.

          • Gerard McEk

            I can’t agree with you more! I do not see any reason at all why battery supply couldn’t work. Obviously battery supplies aren’t known for their high reliability, but that is based on closed/sealed lead batteries. Nowadays Li-Ion and NiMH batteries are so much more reliable than those. Beyond that, mains isn’t that reliable either. It strongly depends on where you are, so you would need back-up for that as well. But do not use a UPS with sealed lead batteries.

        • DrD

          I couldn’t agree more!
          All those thoughts have been going through my mind for some time.

          • DrD

            Yes and there was a sale to the English customer which I think at one time he said would be the next sale, before the three. Maybe it’s the same customer increased by two units?

        • Bob Matulis

          Thank you Bob!

        • NT

          Hello Bob,

          Truly remarkable turnaround statement by Rossi.

          Today Rossi has made this statement on his blog site, which seems to indicate/imply the loop can or has already been closed with the ecat/quark/x:

          Sebastian

          June 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM

          Dear Andrea,

          I think John Atkinson had an interesting question. Where I live, power goes down very frequently, sometimes for days.

          1) If you’re running a quark, and the power goes down, will it just turn off safely?

          2) If power is out for a few days, can you run a quark on back up generator?

          3) can you run it on a backup battery system safely?

          4) If yes to 3, can you use the same Quark to charge the battery it is running on?

          5) If no to 4, can you run a quark on battery, use it to charge a second battery, and switch batteries when needed?

          Thanks!

          Andrea Rossi

          June 16, 2016 at 4:03 PM

          Sebastian:

          Obviously with John Atkinson I was joking.

          Surely a back up generator resolves the problem.

          The answer is yes to the questions 1 2 3 4.

          Warm Regards,

          A.R.

          • Rene

            He must have been reading the inconsistency alerts over here. Glad all is back to expectations.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes NT, and superficially good news.

            Frankly his position was untenable, he could not on the one hand claim the capability of the device that he did and then make specious arguments implying that the loop could not be closed.

            It would be far simpler to demonstrate his credibility if, at the earliest opportunity, he closed the loop. The implied directness of his response means that he must have already closed the loop, or at the very least, realised the triviality of it and so why not do it in a demonstration.

            Other than wanting to deliberately create an air of unbelievability – there is no other commercial justification for not closing the loop at some point – even with the loop closed, there would be no ‘industrial secrets’ revealed – it would merely corroborate the claims.

  • Ged

    Dangers you think about, maybe. But safety is planned for dangers you don’t think about, and 1500 C is an enormous fire hazard. You would be in unimaginable legal trouble if the fire fighters came and couldn’t turn the thing off from a distance.

    There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how safety works around here.

    Worst, the device makes more than it takes, so how do you safely and intrinsically deal with the extra energy it doesn’t need but is being fed into itself? That is a positive feedback loop, and will result in disaster. You can never promise you can design a way to get rid of that energy that wouldn’t be able to fail and leave you in feedback mode.

  • Ged

    1500 C is well above the flash point of basically any flammable substance. This is immensely dangerous if you can’t remotely cut power to shut it off. And what do you do with the extra energy it is making since it makes more than it needs? Where will that go if your output circuit fails and all that energy is going into the loopback? Seriously, this is ridiculous suggestions from a safety standpoint.

    You could still run it to destruction if you treat it the same as a nuclear bomb test. Nuclear bombs are a self powered reaction.

  • Rene

    The kill switch is a lot of power to quench runaway.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I doubt it is a problem or worry. And Rossi has melted devices in the past to see how they behave. So as far as I can tell, Rossi not worried about melting this small device or even self-looping it. Rossi is however worried about production devices.

    There nothing stated here that says self looping cannot be done in this case. Rossi simply stating “in general” this is a bad idea.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Bob

    While all the attention has now been drawn to the QuarkX, what about the 1mw plant and the customer?
    .
    Rossi himself stated that the 1 year customer has bought 3 more plants. Not intended to buy but has done so via a company specifically setup for that purpose. Done deal according to:
    .
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/14/rossi-1mw-plant-customer-bought-three-more-plants/
    .
    This is the fourth announcement of 1 mw plants sales since 2011 and totals 20. If Rossi does not start delivering on some of these, the reputation for non-delivery is going to start to add up.
    .
    Perhaps someone that often asks questions on JONP what the status of these 3 plants are and report back the answer or if the post was removed? Again, these three plants going into production and the customer coming forth would be the fastest and best confirmation. After all, the secret customer setup a production facility which is a lot of work. They supposedly produced product for a year. At a savings of 50 to one, I would think they would be very eager to get these plants into place!
    .
    What is the status!?! (The lawsuit has no impact on this sale as the customer was supposedly European and IH had no license for that area)

    • DrD

      Yes and there was a sale to the English customer which I think at one time he said would be the next sale, before the three. Maybe it’s the same customer increased by two units?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bob,

      I have been talking with Rossi about delivering 10 x 1MWt reactors that a potential Australian client of mine desires to purchase. I have written about this, in the forum, quite a bit.

      The 4 major points from that discussion are:

      1) Following MOU signing, my client’s engineers and myself could visit a working 1MW reactor and do preliminary due diligence inspection and testing.

      2) Following the successful visit and due diligence completion, my potential client would sign a Leonardo Sales contract and place the full purchase price in escrow. Max 6 months later, the 10 plants would be delivered, installed and ready for acceptance testing. No money changes hands until the mutually agreed acceptance testing is completed.

      3) My potential client has decided to wait out the legal issues. BTW they owns and operates a large number of fossil thermal power plants, so the engineers going to do the visit would eat steam engineering for breakfast.

      4) Nothing in that process was outside normal procedures and due diligence checks by BOTH parties.

  • sam

    I think A.R. Just keeps plodding
    along like an old work horse.
    One that is still as sharp as a tack.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am a patient guy, but playing the “safety card” again is grating. When Nicholas Chauvin approached Rossi in Switzerland back in 2012 on behalf of the MFMP to request an opportunity to test any E-Cat as a black box, even in a facility of his choosing – he declined, reason, safety.

    I do support whole heatedly extreme caution in reference to anyone attempting completely novel experiments that could possibly have a nuclear nature, but Rossi has claimed time and again that this technology fails safe so playing the safety card on a well tested device on this scale is bordering on specious.

    Nuclear events happen in femtoseconds, if it was going to go ‘nuclear’ bad – then it would happen with or without closing the loop.

    Rossi needs to close the loop eventually – and if the claims of this recent device are valid, then this should be easier than finding the surface on a Möbius strip.

    I would go further and argue that doing so would end all debate about the validity of the technology, as my brother says “don’t talk to me until someone closes the loop”.

    The only reason to not do so, in the case the technology is real, would be to ensure potential serious threats would default to dismissing the claims – in this case, the ‘safety’ would be for his stakeholders commercial interests.

    • Observer

      The reason not to do it is a matter of priorities. Its purpose would only be to persuade the skeptics who are just going to say “Rossi Says!” anyway. There are a lot more tests to be run to characterize this amazing object in order to satisfy Rossi’s questions. The skeptics’ questions will have to wait.

    • NT

      Tom Conover

      June 15, 2016 at 3:38 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      Please pass my congratulations and praise on to your team for me, would you?

      Does the 0.5 Wh/h drive power still need 240v three phase power to run the QuarkX?

      Thank you,

      Tom

      Andrea Rossi

      June 15, 2016 at 3:48 PM

      Tom Conover:

      I will pass you congrats to my team right now!

      Answer: yes.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Nt,

        These HotCat Rossi reactors ran from a single phase but used 3 to provide phase balance.

        I believe Rossi did say he used 3 QuarkX reactors in his tests, so probably each reactor used 1 phase of the 3 phases.

        • Stephen

          Is there something about 3 Phase power supply systems that makes it more robust if very large power spikes are drawn all over three phases at the same time rather than if drawn over a single phase power supply at different times? (Even if each phase is is distributed over 3 different devices?)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Stephen,

            In 3 phase Delta configuration there is no neutral line that can carry phase unbalanced loads as in 3 phase Y configuration.

            Industry normally uses 3 phase Delta as yes is can deliver higher surges from a non balanced load as can 3 phase Y that uses a lighter gauge neutral and expects the phase loads to be balanced.

          • Rene

            Yes, you can see each phase going to one terminal of each e-cat. The other side of the loads are connected to each other. Looks like a Wye configuration, though I can’t make out a neutral.

            http://weknowsolar.com/images/blog-images/3_phase_4_wire_wye.png

    • NT

      Apparently not a simple thing to do given the three phase 240 volt power that Rossi say’s is required for control. Not impossible to do and would be a good lab demonstration closing the loop and proving Rossi’s EcatX.

      https://youtu.be/GGyAcL0NLRA

      • Bob Greenyer

        Can it be done, the answer is yes – and a drive power requirement of 0.5W is hardly onerous.

        • NT

          Yeah!
          So why does not Rossi just do it? I would think proving his technology would also help his court case and his world wide credibility…

          • NT

            Bob, I realize you cannot answer this question – just myself questioning the obvious reality that SEEMS to be self evident to some of us….

          • Michael W Wolf

            Unless he wants to keep the technology hampered while he perfects the manufacturing. If he were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, thousands of people and billions of funding would begin to flow and threaten his monopoly, so to speak.

          • Rene

            I think he won’t do it because he can’t make it work without a ton of manual tweaking. Closing the loop also means taking your hands off of it for a long while.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            Tweaking is what a control system does. For the 1MW plant to have run in SSM, means IH, when they built both plants, built in the ability to do the control. It is not something Rossi could have retrofitted in his container home.

            I expect what he actually did was to fix all the problems that cropped up. He was there as he wanted to be there and see 1st hand what was breaking down so as to do redesign such that it doesn’t happen in the later production units.

            Closing the loop is just feeding some of the output energy back to the reactor’s energising and control systems. As the control systems would be powered by the plant’s output, failure of the output electrical feedback could cause control issues if the voltage and current could not be maintained as to what as required.

            Assuming the reactor runs on AC, this would need to be generated by a very high capacity Dc to AC inverter, with sufficient capacity to handle the highest current surges. Then some of the output generated electricity can keep the batteries charged.

            I have designed and built systems like this and the inverter design to be able to deliver the current surge that the mains can deliver, requires the inverter and the battery to be massively over rated. IE imagine a thermal runaway control system that would need to draw say 200 amps when it normally draws say 1 amp. Why 200 amps? Just maybe Rossi has found a way to damp down the reaction by the application of a very large magnetic field?

            So I don’t discount Rossi’s claim about safety as we have no idea how he controls a very high gain thermal reaction, which with a COP = 200 could very easily lose control, go into thermal runaway and melt down.

          • Bruce__H

            If the system is hard to control then let it go out of control just as a demonstration that the basic effect is real. Would you not like to see this as a proof of principle?

          • Rene

            In the e-cats previous to the quark, he uses some kind of stimulation to start the reaction. Many of us posit some combination of heat, RF, magnetic secret sauce. It seems to take kilowatts for his larger units. He has said achieving higher COP gets into SSM territory and when that happens he needs much less power to keep whatever RF, magnetic other secret sauce going to keep SSM linear. I do agree with you that it is some kind of rapid negative feedback/backoff activity that micro quenches the otherwise exponential growth. But, sometimes it gets away, and then there is some third high power quench action (more secret sauce) to stop the reaction entirely.

            For the quark, he said that device does not enter SSM, so I assume he is doing some kind of rapid stimulation followed by a delayed strong negative feedback but something that is not high power. You can do that when the physical bulk of the reactor is very small. I can imagine too, that even in that punctuated super critical configuration the reaction could get away and require a lot of power to perform a hard reaction quench.

            I recall Rossi wrote/said (here we go again, ‘said’) that he made adjustments and control fixes to that 1MW plant (sorry no link, but it can be searched with some effort.)

            But here is the inconsistency: On the one hand Rossi says (and I have mentioned this previously) that the e-cat reaction is intrinsically safe in the sense that when it goes runaway, though damage is done, the reaction stops when the core matrix melts. It is not a nuclear hard end-reaction.

            On the other hand, he touts the safety card with respect to requiring mains power, and here I assume he means uninterruptable power, to quench a runaway reaction.

            There are many reliable ways to get uninterruptable power that is as reliable than the grid. You can order such units. They range from kilowatt to megawatts.

            There are ways to take the power generated from a device and condition it to store some of that power for the UPS.

            So which is it? Because if he has changed his tune abut the inherently safe melt-and-quench characteristic of the e-cat, then this is indeed bad news.

            I think he’s playing the safety card as a means to justify (and not well) why he simply does not want to open his process for true review. I can well understand why, given the IH fiasco.

            So here we are again, at the same crossroads. The best I can guess is he has something, it’s tricky and not fully mastered, he’s optimistic and not sharing. so we might be back to…

            http://www.sciencenutshell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/popcorn1.jpg

            [edit] – Happy to point out Rossi replied to the questions of safe quench, off mains operation, charging, et-al:

            “…The answer is yes to the questions 1 2 3 4.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.”

          • cashmemorz

            Needs a dependable power supply for months at a time without declining in available power. UPS are good for a few days or weeks. For months they get awfully big.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is what I meant by “Rossi needs to close the loop eventually” – no other act would be more convincing to the court.

          • Bruce__H

            Just letting the thing become unstable and run to destruction while in a standalone configuration would be pretty convincing I would have thought.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            The action before the court only need IH to pay up as per the ERV report. They pre agreed to the ERV report being the only decider. So what IH need to do IN COURT and BEFORE A JURY, is to PROVE the ERV report is faulty and the real COP was 2.6 or less, despite the Rossi submitted documents claiming it was > 50.

            Doesn’t matter what is stated on any blog by anybody but Rossi, who is the only voice to carry weight in court.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nt,

            Andrea has said many times the only persons he will be proving his technology to are his customers.

        • Omega Z

          If the Quark works and Rossi knows it, he has zero reason to show it to those other then the people directly involved.

          In fact, if it works, he has ample reason not to show it. Best to let outsiders just wonder and speculate. Aside from that, demo’s cost valuable time and money and skeptics will always find something of question. No matter how fool proof the demo. Perhaps Rossi developed a super capacitor the size of a D-cell battery that can hold 1GW of energy. Just ignore how amazing that would be in itself.

          If however it doesn’t work, well, that’s kind of hard to reconcile. Rossi had a chance to exit with enough cash in hand to live out his life. Yet he continues on.

          • Bob Greenyer

            “Rossi needs to close the loop eventually” that is all I said, – principally that may happen to prove categorically that the technology is valid in his legal case. If not then, eventually it will happen – even if not by him, but by a third party – closing the loop is inevitable if the technology is as claimed since there is a lot of time in the future.

            I maintain that I find the safety card grating as it is becoming specious other than as I said for commercial ‘safety’ – I would much rather he said “There is zero reason to show closing the loop to those other then the people directly involved” than say “safety”.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Have asked Andrea this question:

            Engineer48
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            June 16, 2016 at 5:29 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            Is a battery operated QuarkX reactor a possibility? If so what a wonderful application to provide heat, light and electrical power in remote locations or where a disaster has occurred and normal services are not available.

            Appreciate all your great replies

            Of course a battery operated QuarkX could be closed looped via the QuarkX DC output charging the battery. Should add the battery may need to have very significant ability to properly deliver any large current spikes the QuarkX control system may need.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks for asking the Q.

      • US_Citizen71
      • Ophelia Rump

        If the reactor is not safe in self sustained mode without a power source, then doesn’t that mean that it is unsafe if you experience a power outage while it is in self sustained mode?

        I thought the E-cat was supposed to fail safe. These reasons which he will not share make me a little apprehensive.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Good point. In the early phase of the 1 MW plant test I asked AR about possible power outages, and he answered that they had implemented measures for such a case. But what kind of measures might that be? We have no indications that there was an emergency generator on site. Maybe somebody wants to ask him again for details. If continuous electricity supply is required for safety reasons, power outages could be a serious problem, especially in domestic applications.

          • DrD

            Exactly.
            Something doesn’t compute.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Guys,

            I would expect, with a COP (energy gain) = 200, the QuarkX reactor is under continuous control to keep the reactor energy gain constant.

            With such a high gain, even small upward changes in input could result in a thermal runaway.

            I expect that because of the high gain, SSM may not be possible but with a thermal COP = 200 or say electrical COP = 100 with a high efficiency CO2 supercritical turbine, who cares as the input drive energy is only 1% of the electrical output from that turbine / generator.

            Much better to run this reactor ALL THE TIME, under control. That way, engineers sleep much better!
            .

          • Bruce__H

            No one else has ever been able to reliably produce runaways to my knowledge. A demonstration of a runaway reaction while in standalone configuration would be pretty informative would it not? You could measure spectra, which particles are emitted, and estimate total energy released.

            Would this not go a long way toward reassuring you that the Rossi effect exists in the first place? Would you not like to see something like this before you buy your ecats? I would even call this due dilligence

          • Rene

            Yes, this is the strong LENR effect. That seems to be Rossi’s secret sauce. To date replications have been weak LENR, within challengeable error margins.

          • DrD

            Hi Eng,
            The ones who care are those who are interested in portable applications and the “off-gridders”.
            Then there’s the puzzle as to why AR maintains it’s only not possible for safety reasons when we see no technical reason why that should be; even acknowledging what you pointed out.
            It’s a great shame your client can’t go-ahead, that court case could drag out for years, especially if IH appeal. Did AR have the production capacity, at the moment I think he’s only building three 1MWt?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Have asked that question:

            Engineer48
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            June 16, 2016 at 5:29 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            Is a battery operated QuarkX reactor a possibility? If so what a wonderful application to provide heat, light and electrical power in remote locations or where a disaster has occurred and normal services are not available.

            Appreciate all your great replies

            As for my potential client’s 10 x 1MWt plants, was quoted 6 months from money in escrow to being installed and ready for commissioning tests.

          • DrD

            6 months, not bad, yes I thought I remembered you had a timescale but wasn’t sure. It would be a great step forward.
            Maybe you will have more luck than the rest of us with that question, it’s been asked many times, including by me. He once said it was possible it might work from a cellphone battery but that was an exception as every other time he said NO for safety reasons.

          • It sounds almost as if the reaction process needs constant variable suppression (via EM or RF out-of-phase input perhaps) to keep it within bounds. I think it would need to fail safe to be acceptable in larger installations, although a need for active control intervention seems to be acceptable (to some, anyway) in fission plants.

      • Robert Horst

        There is a simple way to do it using a 3-phase solar micro inverter. Here is an Enphase inverter that supplies 250W 3-phase from 60 VDC at an efficiency of 96.5% for just $130. A DC-DC could be added if needed to match the input voltage. That should be plenty of power given the claimed COP, but if not, several could be paralleled.
        https://www.altestore.com/store/inverters/micro-inverters/enphase-energy-micro-inverters-p40450/#ENPC250722LNS2

    • DocSiders

      Yes, closing the loop is about the only “proof” that would be (almost) universally accepted.

      As I’ve mentioned before, with a Stirling engine and battery storage, a self sustaining loop wouldn’t even be very expensive to build…And with a COP > 10 wouldn’t be very difficult. I could build it in a month.

      Heat engines and batteries are not dangerous.

      Rossi would probably be the world’s first trillionaire if he could and would just build a closed loop demonstration ( ~$10,000). But it looks to me like he won’t because he can’t. Hope I’m wrong.

    • Roland

      Perhaps another interpretation of safety is in order.

      E-cats and Quarks are destined for industrial settings. The industrial world runs on (multiples of) 240V 3 phase electrical power and industrial electrical codes are fairly uniform across international jurisdictions so that devices can be internationally sourced, deployed and, importantly, insured.

      All the electrical devices in industrial settings must adhere to existing codes for both safety and interoperability; E-cats and Quarks meet electrical codes because all the sub-systems run on 240V 3 phase industrial standard electricity by design.

      From this perspective the use of the word ‘safety’ is tongue in cheek humour, rather than a constraint imposed by LENR physics, and a bow to the realities of an industrial world were electrical devices don’t make energy out of ‘who knows what’. But, they will, by God, meet code while doing so, whatever that may be.

      P.S. If a Quark starts being an active LENR device seconds after one throws the ‘ON’ switch, and the newly engaged circuit is required to remain operational while the device is running, and the device shuts back down in seconds, why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        „[…] why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?”

        Even if you could stop the LENR reaction within seconds it might be a difficult to withdraw the heat quickly enough. Maybe this is the main reason for the miniaturization of the Quark. The smaller a body is, the higher the surface-area-to-volume ratio, hence the efficiency of heat transfer.

        • Roland

          My thought precisely; downward scaling not only improves the energy transfer characteristics of the device it also allows for a much finer level of reaction control through continuously applied field effects without having to fight the inertia effects of a physically larger system that will respond much more sluggishly to control inputs.

          I expect that scaling will also impact the moderation of output modalities with, again, downward scaling favouring the nimble balancing of heat vs. light vs. electrical output. This would prove helpful when, for example, varying the electrical output to adapt to sub-system load requirements in real time in a fully engineered steam plant.

          The answer to „[…] why would we assume that stopping the Quark’s LENR reaction is any more complicated than changing the ‘ON’ switch back to ‘OFF’?” has, almost, been offered by Rossi since the question was posed; the reaction stops when power to the device stops, we could imply from this that stopping power to the control circuit alone will have similar effect.

    • Gerard McEk

      Indeed. Starting the device doesn’t seem a problem anymore, but stopping it may be very difficult and require active and complex measures. SSM seems marvelous, but it may not be very stable and can run into a meltdown. The QuarkX seems to require a constant power supply feed and may run on the brink of instability, thus achieving such a high COP.
      It would be informative if AR would tell us what the safety issues are, but if radiation is one of them, then it would do his brainchild no good commercially.

      • DrD

        Agreed but even so, why would a battery sourced three phase supply (I doubt he really needs 3 phase) from a reliable high capacity battery, with a back-up with it’s own back-up plus a stanby connection to the grid be any less realiable than a direct connection to the grid?
        The batteries being trickle charge from the Quark of course.
        If there’s some strange reason why he cant trickle charge the same battery that’s simultaneously providing his input (which I doubt) then he could completely decouple by auto switching between 2 batteries, i.e. one being charged and a seperate battery providing the input.

        • Gerard McEk

          I can’t agree with you more! I do not see any reason at all why battery supply couldn’t work. Obviously battery supplies aren’t known for their high reliability, but that is based on closed/sealed lead batteries. Nowadays Li-Ion and NiMH batteries are so much more reliable than those. Beyond that, mains isn’t that reliable either. It strongly depends on where you are, so you would need back-up for that as well. But do not use a UPS with sealed lead batteries.

    • DrD

      I couldn’t agree more!
      All those thoughts have been going through my mind for some time.

    • Bob Matulis

      Thank you Bob!

    • NT

      Hello Bob,

      Truly remarkable turnaround statement by Rossi.

      Today Rossi has made this statement on his blog site, which seems to indicate/imply the loop can or has already been closed with the ecat/quark/x:

      Sebastian

      June 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      I think John Atkinson had an interesting question. Where I live, power goes down very frequently, sometimes for days.

      1) If you’re running a quark, and the power goes down, will it just turn off safely?

      2) If power is out for a few days, can you run a quark on back up generator?

      3) can you run it on a backup battery system safely?

      4) If yes to 3, can you use the same Quark to charge the battery it is running on?

      5) If no to 4, can you run a quark on battery, use it to charge a second battery, and switch batteries when needed?

      Thanks!

      Andrea Rossi

      June 16, 2016 at 4:03 PM

      Sebastian:

      Obviously with John Atkinson I was joking.

      Surely a back up generator resolves the problem.

      The answer is yes to the questions 1 2 3 4.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • Rene

        He must have been reading the inconsistency alerts over here. Glad all is back to expectations.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes NT, and superficially good news.

        Frankly his position was untenable, he could not on the one hand claim the capability of the device that he did and then make specious arguments implying that the loop could not be closed.

        It would be far simpler to demonstrate his credibility if, at the earliest opportunity, he closed the loop. The implied directness of his response means that he must have already closed the loop, or at the very least, realised the triviality of it and so why not do it in a demonstration.

        Other than wanting to deliberately create an air of unbelievability – there is no other commercial justification for not closing the loop at some point – even with the loop closed, there would be no ‘industrial secrets’ revealed – it would merely corroborate the claims.

        • Bruce__H

          On strictly logical grounds Rossi’s 2 sets of statements are not incompatible. One can read his original answer to Frank’s question as saying that for safety reasons the loop can not be closed in the version of the Quark destined for production and distribution (although I’m not sure I agree). His latest remarks would then be about the overall possibilities for what you can do with Quarks in research.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bob,

      In my commercial discussions to acquire 10 x 1MWt ECat reactors for a potential client, Rossi never had any issues with proving his technology to a real potential buyer.

      He would even allow my potential client’s thermal power plant engineers to inspect an operational 1MWt ECat reactor and to do engage their due diligence measurements and questions.

      What I saw there was exactly the Rossi response as given on the blogs:

      No interest to do tests for those who just seek to learn and profit from his hard work. However if Leonardo vets the potential client as a real industrial user, not interested in doing reverse engineering, then of course he says: let us get to know each other, then you can come for a visit and engage your questions and tests.

      I suggest the internet shite storm that happened with the Lugano test will never happen again as Rossi will never engage that sort of test again.

  • bachcole

    A very recent observation of Rossi via his written words (thoughts) outside of his statements about the QuarkX impels me to say that his mind does not seem like someone in age related decline. I have been in age related decline (and I saved my very, very sorry a$$ with an effective and massive infusion of dietary magnesium), so I sort of know how it feels. Rossi definitely seems like someone NOT in age related decline. He is very upbeat. His words are clear and concise. So, I confess that his off topic remarks have pushed my QuarkX certainty meter up to 75, from a stubborn 50.

    • NT

      Yeah, its enough to make want to scratch my seventy seven year old bald spot…

      • Charles

        I’m a lucky dog NT. 87 and a full crop of hair.

    • Timar

      We are all in age-related decline from the moment we are born…

      • Ged

        Well, actually decline really seems to start once your stem cells begin losing their telomeres around age 50. As long as you can regenerate, you won’t decline, but once that ability is lost and your body starts to choke on senescent cells… Aging (past normal development endpoint) is an interesting if annoying problem.

      • bachcole

        True, but at some point it accelerates alarmingly, usually when people stop absorbing certain minerals, especially magnesium.

    • DrD

      hehe, where can I get some of this dietary magnesium?

      • Jas

        Bachole was drinking water with a magnesium rod in the bottle. You can buy one off of ebay for a small sum. I bought the magnesium rods after doing research on the internet. Check out the molecular hydrogen foundation website. Sorry I dont have a link.

      • bachcole

        There are many ways to increase magnesium. The biggest bump is transdermal magnesium. Google that. It is easier than it seems. I am typing this comment wet with magnesium chloride “oil” all over my skin, waiting for it to absorb/dry. There is also magnesium bicarbonate, which is also very easy. You add magnesium hydroxide (Milk of Magnesia) to seltzer water which forms magnesium bicarbonate. Both of these methods are very easy and cheap and effective. Then there are magnesium rich foods: almonds, spinach, etc. Google “magnesium rich foods”.

        Pills work only so much, and then you get diarrhoea.

        Making home made soups is also a way of increasing mineral absorption in general. I make my soups with magnesium rich foods. Commercial soups are an embarrassment.

        Despite what Jas says, I am not putting magnesium rods in water any more and I never thought that it was a good way to get magnesium. It is a way to get hydrogen, but not a good way. It is a hassle and/or expensive and I have given up on it until someone comes of with a cheaper and/or hassle free way of getting more hydrogen. And anyway, a healthy large colon will generate it’s own hydrogen, so I don’t do that any more.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    OK, no alphas. It’s back to the April 1st 2013 proposal. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/03/31/senate-directs-e-cat-work/#comment-1061392141
    The rossion mechanism:
    Perhaps holes (+) in the valence band of nickel could pair with hydride H(-) to form an atomic (or would it be a molecular?) exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion. If this is a boson, perhaps it could form a Bose gas were fusion could take place.
    H(-), hydride + (+), electron-hole > H(-)(+), a rossion
    4 H(-)(+) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+ (a positron )
    6 H(-)(+) > 6[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > Li(6) (lithium) + 3 e+

  • Alan DeAngelis

    OK, no alphas. It’s back to the April 1st 2013 proposal. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/03/31/senate-directs-e-cat-work/#comment-1061392141
    The rossion mechanism:
    Perhaps holes (+) in the valence band of nickel could pair with hydride H(-) to form an atomic (or would it be a molecular?) exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion. If this is a boson, perhaps it could form a Bose gas were fusion could take place.
    H(-), hydride + (+), electron-hole > H(-)(+), a rossion
    4 H(-)(+) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+ (a positron )
    6 H(-)(+) > 6[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > Li(6) (lithium) + 3 e+

  • Timar

    We are all in age-related decline from the moment we are born…

    • Ged

      Well, actually decline really seems to start once your stem cells begin losing their telomeres around age 50. As long as you can regenerate, you won’t decline, but once that ability is lost and your body starts to choke on senescent cells… Aging (past normal development endpoint) is an interesting if annoying problem.

  • georgehants

    Self-evidently the first and most important principle of science is to posses an open-mind, unhindered by an education that promotes Dogma as Truth.
    Many of us on these pages have spent many hours trying to protect and support Mr. Rossi with open-minds for his right to work on a subject abused, denied and debunked by the majority.
    I have even had scientists on page who actually believe that they or any part of science know and can confirm that Fairy’s do not exist.
    Next comes Evidence, the only thing that is important for future progress.
    After over five years from when Mr. Rossi first announced a breakthrough in energy production with Cold Fusion, we are not yet in a position to openly and Factually confirm that his first basic discovery is genuine beyond doubt for honest, sensible, reasonable people.
    This could be corrected in a week if Mr. Rossi wished, he does not for his own reasons and that is his concern.
    An open-mind by definition works both ways.
    I look forward to any open repeatable conformation of Cold Fusion from anywhere in the World.
    Hope lives eternal.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If Rossi could have convinced the world in a week it would have been done long ago.
      The world simply cannot be convinced. Ask a flat Earther or one of the Christ on a dinosaur people. Or a “Scientist” who believes he can prove a negative.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, I do believe I said, ——
        “for honest, sensible, reasonable people.”
        I will include you in that category, in that you would be able to determine open, honest, reproducible, fully comprehensive, published Evidence performed by a third party, for instance MFMP.

        • Observer

          The proof of the leg is the weight it bears. The baring of the leg only pleases the eye.

      • Zephir

        /* If Rossi could have convinced the world in a week it would have been done long ago. The world simply cannot be convinced. */

        He just needs to convince his investors – the convincing of his potential competitors would be counterproductive for Rossi in current stage of development. As omega already said, if the Quark works and Rossi knows it, he has zero reason to show it to those other then the people directly involved. In fact, if it works, he has ample reason not to show it.

    • sam

      How much money would be needed
      for a team of scientists to do research
      in Cold Fusion.
      Thanks

      • georgehants

        sam, I did not mention Research only testing and replication.

        • sam

          Hello George If that is your name.
          Let’s say I am a Billionare.
          I want to do a 10 year project to
          try and build a LENR device.
          Hire 10 mix of Scientists and Engineers and what ever other
          workers they would need.
          I would fund labs materials etc.
          How much money would I have
          to put up.
          Also would provide a good profit
          share if we built a marketable
          device.
          Thanks
          Sam

  • georgehants

    Self-evidently the first and most important principle of science is to posses an open-mind, unhindered by an education that promotes Dogma as Truth.
    Many of us on these pages have spent many hours trying to protect and support Mr. Rossi with open-minds for his right to work on a subject abused, denied and debunked by the majority.
    I have even had scientists on page who actually believe that they or any part of science know and can confirm that Fairy’s do not exist.
    Next comes Evidence, the only thing that is important for future progress.
    After over five years from when Mr. Rossi first announced a breakthrough in energy production with Cold Fusion, we are not yet in a position to openly and Factually confirm that his first basic discovery is genuine beyond doubt for honest, sensible, reasonable people.
    This could be corrected in a week if Mr. Rossi wished, he does not for his own reasons and that is his concern.
    An open-mind by definition works both ways.
    I look forward to any open repeatable conformation of Cold Fusion from anywhere in the World.
    Hope lives eternal.

    • Bruce__H

      Well said!

    • Ophelia Rump

      If Rossi could have convinced the world in a week it would have been done long ago.
      The world simply cannot be convinced. Ask a flat Earther or one of the Christ on a dinosaur people. Or a “Scientist” who believes he can prove a negative.

      Half the population are by nature incapable of performing formal logic. That includes educated people who have studied formal logic. Logic is not some universal human quality. Humanity is like a mixed bag of nuts.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, I do believe I said, ——
        “for honest, sensible, reasonable people.”
        I will include you in that category, in that you would be able to determine open, honest, reproducible, fully comprehensive, fully independent with no NDA, published Evidence performed by a third party, for instance MFMP.
        That Evidence would then need to be repeatable for total conformation respected by a scientific principle.

        • Observer

          The proof of the leg is the weight it bears. The baring of the leg only pleases the eye.

      • Zephir

        /* If Rossi could have convinced the world in a week it would have been done long ago. The world simply cannot be convinced. */

        He just needs to convince his investors – the convincing of his potential competitors would be counterproductive for Rossi in current stage of development. As omega already said, if the Quark works and Rossi knows it, he has zero reason to show it to those other then the people directly involved. In fact, if it works, he has ample reason not to show it.

    • roseland67

      May I suggest “replicable evidence”

      • cashmemorz

        Also a firm substantiated theory and failsafe operation.

    • sam

      How much money would be needed
      for a team of scientists to do research
      in Cold Fusion.
      Thanks

      • georgehants

        sam, I did not mention Research only testing and replication.

        • sam

          Hello George If that is your name.
          Let’s say I am a Billionare.
          I want to do a 10 year project to
          try and build a LENR device.
          Hire 10 mix of Scientists and Engineers and what ever other
          workers they would need.
          I would fund labs materials etc.
          How much money would I have
          to put up.
          Also would provide a good profit
          share if we built a marketable
          device.
          Thanks
          Sam

  • artefact

    OT:
    BLP is teasing before the new demonstration on June 28th (COP 128+):
    http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
    Quote:
    “There are very interesting new developments at BrLP. The power of the plasma as shown for the first run of a new approach that we started about a month ago can be extraordinary, bursts of millions of watts in a volume of a coffee cup. Cell meltdown including the thick tungsten electrodes can occur in seconds. Five independent validators using four cross confirming methodologies, two absolute spectroscopic and two thermal techniques using a commercial calorimeter and a heat exchanger on the SunCell, have established that the power demonstrated is megawatt level with about 8 kW total input.”

    • optiongeek

      I tried to submit an article on this to e-catworld but it seems it was not accepted. I found the picture of the melted tungsten electrode to be extremely compelling. Whatever it was that melted them strikes me as being far beyond the state-of-the-art for modern metallurgy.

    • DrD

      So that must represent an electrical COP of atleast 30 but for how long.
      I wouldn’t want one in my basement, maybe at the bottom of the garden (it’ll keep the sheep away).

      • optiongeek

        The linked video captures a significant breakthrough in the efficiency of the energy output, beyond the capability of a tungsten reactor to contain and therefore this particular experiment was terminal.
        However, Mills previously demonstrated – in January – a configuration with the ability to run indefinitely at COP > 100.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Artefact,

      Would seem the COP wars (my COP is bigger than your COP) have started!

      • tlp

        Actually QuarkX thermal COP (200) is higher than SunCell (125), but SunCell using around 40% efficiency PVs could get electrical COP of about 50 compared to QuarkX 10, maybe soon 20.
        Of course QuarkX could use PVs also.

        • optiongeek

          Has Rossi actually produced any evidence of an energetic reaction. Will Mills, we get pictures of charred tungsten electrodes. We get spectrographic charts detailing the spectrum of the optical output power. I must have missed the part where Rossi actually gave any proof whatsoever of COP > 1

          • tlp

            Yes, much more evidence from Mills.

          • Engineer48

            Hi OG,

            The QuarkX proof was seen by his newest partner, which I believe is as real as when he disclosed he had a new partner, about 2 years before we knew it was IH.

            Many questioned the claimed 1st partner but as we found out 2 years later, he was telling the truth.

          • Roland

            Yes you did miss it, and it occurred sometime ago. Frank has helpfully provided links to the relevant experiments and reports up at the top of the page.

          • Rossi is also trying to get safety certification; I don’t think charred electrodes are going to earn safety points from the certification agency.

      • artefact

        Yes. When and if they come to market their marketing departments will have lots of fun.
        I also look forward to the clone wars 🙂

    • Gerard McEk

      1MW during 1 nano second means an energy of 1 milli joules. It has no use to talk about watts, energy is all that matters when you want to generate it.

      • tlp

        Also you mentioned megawatt bursts but was the continuous power measured at the megawatt level in the new calorimeter validations?

        R. Mills:
        >>Continuous until the cell melted.

        I hope the melting problems can be controlled or was this allowed to happen merely for demonstration purposes?

        R. Mills:
        << We have a refractory material design for the high powers and temperatures.

        • Gerard McEk

          It is just that electrical power does not say so much if you want to generate energy. They should talk about energy: kWh or kilojoules and not power kW or MW. It is all about how much energy goes in and how much comes out.
          Example:
          A small rechargeable battery can have a energy content of 6 joules. If you were able to consume that in 1 microsec, then you have done that with an integrated power of 6 MW.
          So BrLP should not talk about power and as long as they are using it I do not take them seriously.

          • tlp

            Power plants are measured using MW, like a typical nuclear plant, 1000 MW.
            Of course these means continuous power, so it is same as 1000 MWh in one hour.
            Also these calorimetric measurements they have done, though not hours but at least several seconds.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, but these are producing that power constantly. Mills does not, he produces 1MW during say a few seconds. In terms of energy it is just 1000.000×2/3600=0.555kWh…. Not much!

          • optiongeek

            A previous demo from January (posted on the BrLP site) showed continuous, indefinite operation with measured output of 564kW and COP ~= 100. It also had vaporized silver wafting about in the reaction chamber. If you look up latent heat of silver, it’s one of the most difficult substances to vaporize. Extremely energetic process.
            Rossi has shown nothing remotely close.

          • Roger Roger

            Did you watch their presentations?

          • Gerard McEk

            I have watched them before also. The way they are going looks promising and also that they are now using proper calometry. It is just the words they are using. In my view they do this because they wand to impress investors and huge numbers impress.

      • optiongeek

        So how much energy is required to melt 1kg tungsten electrodes while at the same time vaporizing 500kg of molten silver? A lot. You’d need factory scale power systems to do that. Here’s the thing – Mills’ R&D lab isn’t in an area with the zoning he’d need to have that kind of equipment.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          500 kg? That is a lot of money’s worth of silver. About $250,000 at today’s silver price..

          Looks like a thermite reaction to me…

          • Roland

            Exactly where does the reference to 500kg of Ag in a single SunCell occur?

            Hi Tomas, if you follow the bread crumbs from the head of the trail this is not a thermite reaction whatever the visual similarities might suggest, there are third party validations of the described Hydrino reactions with an earlier apparatus at this link:

            http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

          • Thomas Kaminski

            OptionGeek quoted the 500kg. I have no ides where it came from. It was probably supposed to be 500g or 500mg.

            I said it “looks like” a thermite reaction. I know that they are used to field weld things. In particular, it is used to weld copper cable to copper ground rods for lightning protection on communication towers. Copper is hard to weld due to thermal connectivity. I have seen thermite reactions to weld copper connections between steel rails used in railway signaling conductivity.

            I have not investigated the technology. It is likely not thermite. However, the similarities are there. Probably due to the metal “burning” or whatever happens in the thermite reaction.

      • clovis ray

        Brilliant,cognitive,deductions,from all commenters. where do you think, it will all end, you know, i think, when something is first discovered, the obvious is always first, if one can envision such huge advantage as this device would give, you make it your lifelong dream, and work toward it, the more time you commit the more real it becomes, many such men has dedicated their lives to such endeavors, i include Dr.Rossi in this class, of great thinkers and doers .
        you guy’s, just give credit where credit is due. it’s always that fleeting dream,
        of the wonderful things the E-CAT, will bring,
        Our minds should be consumed with ideas, of how to put this thing to work, for us, there should be many many, my God at the work that will be created .
        HAPPY, happy HAPPY.

    • Steve Savage

      It seems to me that BLP certainly is making progress in harnessing the “effect” however, I am much more confident in Rossi’s engineering approach and progress.

      • Roland

        Exactly, it sometimes seems the Mills team doesn’t take their own energy release numbers with appropriate seriousness as the apparatus to harvest these releases appear to be consistently under-engineered from iteration to iteration.

        The money and talent does appear to be in place to eventually overcome the engineering challenges but I’d tend to agree with your assessment that Rossi will be first to market with a stable reliable industrial product.

      • Brokeeper

        Agree, on the surface it appears BLP goes for the dramatic effect vs Rossi’s cautious and optimum approach.

      • Bing78

        Just the opposite for me. I’ve been following both for 7 years or so and my gut trust level and confidence level in Mills is much higher than Rossi. They both frustrate me with the promise of a commercial devise in a perpetual year or two.

    • Zephir

      In essence this effect can be explained classically with pointing to extremely high current densities, which BLP is reportedly using. The 2 Volts would correspond 4 kA current. Note also, that the whole electrode stack looks quite well thermally insulated.

      [Brilliant Light Power Inc. experiment after discharge](http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/060716-copy-2-e1465940718288.jpeg) [vimeo record of another experiment](https://player.vimeo.com/video/151151194)

      • US_Citizen71

        I’m not sure what we are seeing there. In many ways it resembles a metal fire.

        • Zephir

          You can see a very high current arc between silver electrodes running at low voltage (2 volts or so).

    • BillH

      This type of system appears to be like trying to store the energy generated by lightning, no one has managed to do that so far. It also looks rather expensive to set up. The bottom line is that any system has to be economic, and better than what is already available.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bob,

    I have been talking with Rossi about delivering 10 x 1MWt reactors that a potential Australian client of mine desires to purchase. I have written about this, in the forum, quite a bit.

    The 4 major points from that discussion are:

    1) Following MOU signing, my client’s engineers and myself could visit a working 1MW reactor and do preliminary due diligence inspection and testing.

    2) Following the successful visit and due diligence completion, my potential client would sign a Leonardo Sales contract and place the full purchase price in escrow. Max 6 months later, the 10 plants would be delivered, installed and ready for acceptance testing. No money changes hands until the mutually agreed acceptance testing is completed.

    3) My potential client has decided to wait out the legal issues. BTW they owns and operates a large number of fossil thermal power plants, so the engineers going to do the visit would eat steam engineering for breakfast.

    4) Nothing in that process was outside normal procedures and due diligence checks by BOTH parties.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have watched them before also. The way they are going looks promising and also that they are now using proper calometry. It is just the words they are using. In my view they do this because they wand to impress investors and huge numbers impress.

  • tlp

    Yes, much more evidence from Mills.

  • Engineer48

    Hi OG,

    The QuarkX proof was seen by his newest partner, which I believe is as real as when he disclosed he had a new partner, about 2 years before we knew it was IH.

    Many questioned the claimed 1st partner but as we found out 2 years later, he was telling the truth.

  • interstellar hobo

    I’ll be interested when there’s more than Rossisays. There’s definitely something going on with LENR, but after years.. been following this since I was a kid in the late 80’s, I’d like to see some proof. Only MFMP has come remotely close to that in an open fashion, from what I can see. I’m on the fence when it comes to Rossi. He doesn’t need my support, and he hasn’t done anything wrong by me. I’m just a spectator. If he has something, I wish him well, but I really just come here for the MFMP updates now.

    It’s interesting though, to the true believers: if BLP had offered one grainy photo of a blue light as an update, there would have been mass condemnation. I much prefer open work like MFMP and Lawrenceville Plasma Physics.

    • orsobubu

      About the photo, interstellar, in the place of a would-be capitalist like Rossi, I’d not post anything more than a grainy photo, and only because my fan base requested something to see for countless times… no, if I had a revolutionary device in my hands, thinking to the IH story, thinking to the mounting competition, thinking to all the effort spent, thinking to communists hanging around like george and the orsobubu, ready to expropriate and collectivize at the earliest opportunity, I definitely would not publish anything at all

      • Pweet

        I guess that must be the reason he has never published photos of the original ecat which he has submitted to the regulatory authorities to get it certified for home use. You can never tell what secrets might be given away by the publication of pictures of a box with pipes going in and out.
        I’m surprised he even allowed an artist 3D impression of what one might look like.

  • Rene

    Yes, this is the strong LENR effect. That seems to be Rossi’s secret sauce. To date replications have been weak LENR, within challengeable error margins.

  • Andre Blum

    Off Topic:
    Who, like myself and at least one fellow Dutchman I know, had their tickets and hotel room booked for Mats Lewan’s conference in Stockholm on the 21st and 22nd, and still plans on going just for fun? Anyone who cares to still talk cold fusion over a cold beer on midsummer night? Let’s get together!

  • Andre Blum

    Off Topic:
    Who, like myself and at least one fellow Dutchman I know, had their tickets and hotel room booked for Mats Lewan’s conference in Stockholm on the 21st and 22nd, and still plans on going just for fun? Anyone who cares to still talk cold fusion over a cold beer on midsummer night? Let’s get together!

  • clovis ray

    Frank,many thanks buddy, very nice synopsis, and it ‘s a lot more clear, when it all is seem together,
    I can only imagine what Dr.R and his team or going through, at this time, i feel they are doing a fine job, and in due time he will offer more substance about the qx device, everything about it seems to be on cutting edge of this new frontier, from a tiny blue dot in space comes a tiny blue light, never seen much before,

  • sam

    A.R has said none of his team is with him
    that worked on the Ecat.
    I am curious if anyone knows if they could
    be hired by anyone who wanted to try and
    build there own LENR device.
    Thanks

    • Jimr

      I believe many of them worked for Darden. I believe Rossi just gave up on the 1meg unit and has let Dardens group , and the few of his people go with Darden and continue the developement.

      • sam

        I don’t think A.R give up on it.
        He said he has sold and is
        building 3 more.
        T.D is the one who gave up on it.

        • cashmemorz

          T.D. did not give up on anything. All he did was to say that the E-Cat was unsubstantiated. The E-Cart is unsubstantiated on two very important and basic points. The first point is that the E-Cat has no substantiated firm theory of how it works. There are many proposed theories but not one that has been confirmed or substantiated. The second point is that its safety has not been substantiated during operation in COP of greater than 6 and in SSM mode. When these two points are covered than Industrial Heat and its investors and clients will be able to put the E-Cat on the open market without any qualms. Also I would want to purchase one only when I knew it was covered on those two point for use in my business or home.

          • Pweet

            I think it would be quite safe in your business or home because the other unsubstantiated point was that it produced excess heat. They couldn’t find any. Thus if it ever went wrong, as most things eventually do, you could just turn it off at the wall. Mr Rossi always claimed they were fail safe and on that point, I believe him.

          • cashmemorz

            I’m not being on the side of the established science but reiterating what Industrial Heat has put out in their statement of what is lacking in the E-Cat to make it satisfactory in their business. If you just think its safe doesn’t make the grade in the real world of practicality and safety. These two points have to be proven to show that it is OK.

          • Robert Dorr

            Industrial Heat said they couldn’t substantiate the results claimed by Rossi’s E-Cat technology. They never said they couldn’t substantiate it because there was no acceptable theory or that it wasn’t proven to be safe. You should reread I.H’s response to Rossi’s lawsuit. And it certainly never said anything about COP values or SSM mode.

          • cashmemorz

            I know what Industrial heat said. I’m adding my understanding of science and what is required to make the E-Cat work dependably. When and if it ever gets to the point of confirming the order I have for the two units I have placed with Leonardo Corp. I want it to be fully dependable for my safety.

            In the end it will not be up to me or anyone on this peanut gallery that will require the theory and the safety. It will be the certification organizations such as the USA UL or Canadian CSA. that will need these points to be in place before they allow their logo on LENR powered devices.

          • cashmemorz “I know what Industrial heat said”

            It would help your case if you quoted them EXACTLY as they wrote it then.

          • cashmemorz

            When the heat is not being produced, without the theory you have no way of knowing if the problem is sporadic, if it will get worse when you unplug it or anything. All you know is that it “somehow” works until it doesn’t. Rossi may be the most trust worthy fellow around. What I want to actually trust is the E-Cat itself and that I know for sure that when something goes wrong that I know and the guy who comes to replace it also knows for sure what is going on with it and what to do, unplug it, re-stimulate it to knock it out or whatever. Anything else is ad hoc and you just put blind faith behind it. Religious belief is good for things that may or may not exit. E-Cat is physical which requires robust scientific support behind it.

          • Omega Z

            ->”the E-Cat has no substantiated firm theory of how it works”

            This is not required. If it works it works. If this is an issue for T.D. then he should never have become involved.

          • cashmemorz

            Without a firm theory or understanding of how it works then if something unexpected happens you won’t know why it went wrong and also you won’t know what exactly is required to fix it. With a theory you know these things and have realistic control.

          • Omega Z

            Refrigeration is merely a working theory(Incomplete), but we still have realistic control. Was a time when nothing was explained by theory, but we used it anyway. Should it require a 1000 years to develop a theory of LENR, should we wait till then to make use of it.

            Theory is just a tool for better understanding and hopefully improvements. It is not a necessity before making use of a technology…

          • cashmemorz

            My understanding that theory is more than ‘just a tool”. It gives the underpinnings of how something actually works. With that “tool” you have a powerful way of quickly closing in on what the actual problems are. This then allows one to fix anything that goes wrong much faster and precisely. Without the theory repairs tend to be more ad hoc, take more time to narrow down to what “maybe” the problem is, the actual problem may not be solved, and the root cause of the problem may be allowed to fester in the background because it “appears” to be working ok. With the theory you don’t have these worries hanging over your head like the sword of damocles. You know for sure when a problem is fixed or not.

          • So what. Birds fly and they understand not why …

          • cashmemorz

            Why a theory is more necessary in LENR than in some areas such as refrigeration, is that if a fridge acts up or goes wrong then it will have little or no impact on your health, whereas a a device that uses nuclear reactions might hurt via radiation. It is unknown at this time just how the nuclear particles are all kept inside and /or at low speeds in the cold fusion effect. On the other hand if, after a few million device-hours distributed over thousands of E-Cats nothing harmful occurs, then statistically speaking LENR is reasonably safe to use unattended in peoples homes. The guinea pigs will be the industrial units’ operators. They will presumably be wearing dossimeters for the first few decades until all or nearly all units get a clean bill of health.

          • Ted-X

            Frank,
            Could you implement a red-flagging device, where people would flag postings suspected of being authored by trolls? These postings are quite easy to identify. They are bringing long-dead issues (zombie-type things or Lazarus-type issues) back to life and are trying to derail the discussion.

          • bachcole

            Right Arm!! Observation trumps theory.

          • cashmemorz

            That only takes you just so far. After all the observations are in, get on a theory that fully explains everything about which observations are important to the actual mechanics, quantum or large scale. The final theory is what allows one to, not only fully understand what it is doing, but allows one to quickly narrow in on the actual cause of any problems. Without the theory fixing problems is trial and error and may not address the actual cause of the problem.

          • cashmemorz

            Without the theory any problems would have to jerry rigged or ad hoc. That does not necessarily fix the actual problem but may look like it acts like a fix. A fix based on theory assures that the real problem at root is fixed. In other words no guess work is applied to the problem. Knowledge is applied when you have the theory. A much more powerful way for fixing any root problems that may appear. “As long as it works” is the approach a hill billy takes to make it “seemingly” ok. I don’t want a machine that is looked after in the way that a hill billy looks after it.

            In the end it will not be up to me or anyone on this peanut gallery that will require the theory and the safety. It will be the certification organizations such as the USA UL or Canadian CSA. that will need these points to be in place before they allow their logo on LENR powered devices.

          • helo_lenr

            “Unsubstantiated” is a word which means nothing except hiding the real reason for not paying 89 million. Better not guess anything until the trial.

          • sam

            I hope it is that simple.
            But I think it is more complicated than that.

          • Observer

            My guess is IH assembled a scientific advisory board that consisted of people who cannot stand Andrea Rossi. It is hard to find experts that do not have a conflict of interest. The board’s ego probably cost T.D. billions.

  • Rene

    Frank, in light of Rossi’s recent comments, in JONP, can you update this question in your article:
    Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.

    …with the one Sebastian asked:
    1) If you’re running a quark, and the power goes down, will it just turn off safely?
    2) If power is out for a few days, can you run a quark on back up generator?
    3) can you run it on a backup battery system safely?
    4) If yes to 3, can you use the same Quark to charge the battery it is running on?
    5) If no to 4, can you run a quark on battery, use it to charge a second battery, and switch batteries when needed?
    The answer is yes to the questions 1 2 3 4.

    • SD

      This is a bit contradictory, so maybe someone could clarify with Rossi.

      • Rene
        • SD

          I meant that someone could clarify with Rossi because his response to Sebastian is a bit contradictory to his resposne to Barty. I don’t see a follow up after his response to Sebastian.

          • US_Citizen71

            I think it is just a interpretation issue. My thought is that Rossi viewed the previous questions as looping straight back into the reactor inputs or maybe he was purposely being obtuse.

    • NT

      Yes, this is a most significant statement from Rossi, Indeed!

  • Rene

    Frank, in light of Rossi’s recent comments, in JONP, can you update this question in your article:
    Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.

    …with the one Sebastian asked:
    1) If you’re running a quark, and the power goes down, will it just turn off safely?
    2) If power is out for a few days, can you run a quark on back up generator?
    3) can you run it on a backup battery system safely?
    4) If yes to 3, can you use the same Quark to charge the battery it is running on?
    5) If no to 4, can you run a quark on battery, use it to charge a second battery, and switch batteries when needed?
    The answer is yes to the questions 1 2 3 4.

    • SD

      This is a bit contradictory, so maybe someone could clarify with Rossi.

      • Rene
        • SD

          I meant that someone could clarify with Rossi because his response to Sebastian is a bit contradictory to his resposne to Barty. I don’t see a follow up after his response to Sebastian.

          • US_Citizen71

            I think it is just a interpretation issue. My thought is that Rossi viewed the previous questions as looping straight back into the reactor inputs or maybe he was purposely being obtuse.

    • Andy Kumar

      I have been wondering about the source of Rossi’s genius. I had suggested to him that, perhaps, his ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time may be the reason for the great leaps of intuition and creative thinking.
      .
      Contradiction (contrary voice) is hard to hold in the left hemisphere. Right hemisphere does not care about voices, contrary or otherwise. Perhaps, as Bachcole has suggested, age related changes (I prefer not to call them decline) may have caused bandwidth reduction between left and right hemispheres. So you can hold contrary thoughts for a short period of time, separately in the two hemispheres. The counter-intuitive result of all this is increased creativity rather than decline in mental faculties.
      .
      “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
      .
      http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353571-a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds-adored
      ***

      • Rene

        This age related issue is silly. It’s best dropped.

    • NT

      Yes, this is a most significant statement from Rossi, Indeed!

    • Gordon

      AR is doing what he is good at – inventing high COP lenr. Please leave the control systems, electronics, electrical power conversion to a qualified engineer please

      • Rene

        I am. How about you? Gordon, you don’t have to be a defender. He can handle his own quite well. But, when contradictions arise, it is good to clear them up.

        • Rene

          and he’s typing right now,

  • Thomas Kaminski

    500 kg? That is a lot of money’r worth of silver.

    Looks like a thermite reaction to me…

    • Roland

      Exactly where does the reference to 500kg of Ag in a single SunCell occur?

      Hi Tomas, if you follow the bread crumbs from the head of the trail this is not a thermite reaction whatever the visual similarities might suggest, there are third party validations of the described Hydrino reactions with an earlier apparatus at this link:

      http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

      • Thomas Kaminski

        OptionGeek quoted the 500kg. I have no ides where it came from. It was probably supposed to be 500g or 500mg.

        I said it “looks like” a thermite reaction. I know that they are used to field weld things. In particular, it is used to weld copper cable to copper ground rods for lightning protection on communication towers. Copper is hard to weld due to thermal connectivity. I have seen thermite reactions to weld copper connections between steel rails used in railway signaling conductivity.

        I have not investigated the technology. It is likely not thermite. However, the similarities are there. Probably due to the metal “burning” or whatever happens in the thermite reaction.

  • Roland

    Yes you did miss it, and it occurred sometime ago. Frank has helpfully provided links to the relevant experiments and reports up at the top of the page.

  • Pweet

    I guess that must be the reason he has never published photos of the original ecat which he has submitted to the regulatory authorities to get it certified for home use. You can never tell what secrets might be given away by the publication of pictures of a box with pipes going in and out.
    I’m surprised he even allowed an artist 3D impression of what one might look like.

  • cashmemorz

    Also a firm substantiated theory and failsafe operation.

  • sam

    Here is some competition for the Quark X.

    https://youtu.be/Wt4R-QrmfJY

    • Brokeeper

      The kind of competiton I like ‘hearing’ about. Thanks Sam.

    • help_lenr

      Most of these news are not reliable.

      • sam

        Being 1st against 1700 competitors
        and winning $75000 is impressive.

  • bachcole

    I find Rossi’s statement about having a secretary to be significant. People who have secretaries are not scrabbling for funds. This is good.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Sorry, I don’t get what you mean. He was joking with a reader LookMoo about a new secretary some time ago. Are you referring to that?

      • sam

        A good secretary helps to keep the operation running smoothly.
        A.R should not joke about the secretary.

        • bachcole

          I think that he was making fun of his English.

      • bachcole

        I thought that he was commenting just a day or so ago about how his English had improved because he had a secretary.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          No, he was just joking.

  • Rene

    I am. How about you? Gordon, you don’t have to be a defender. He can handle his own quite well. But, when contradictions arise, it is good to clear them up.

    • Rene

      and he’s typing right now,

  • Rene

    This age related issue is silly. It’s best dropped.

  • pg

    Not much noise between Rossi and IH. Are they reaching a deal?

    • Roland

      IH is, temporarily, shell-shocked, with worse to come, and their proxies are in disarray.

      The deal with IH is burnt toast as those who relied on IH, to undertake certain tasks, are in the process of discovering.

    • Rene

      Motion to Dismiss (MTD) has a response due date of 6/20/2016, so it will be quiet until then.

  • pg

    Not much noise between Rossi and IH. Are they reaching a deal?

    • Roland

      IH is, temporarily, shell-shocked, with worse to come, and their proxies are in disarray.

      The deal with IH is burnt toast as those who relied on IH, to undertake certain tasks, are in the process of discovering.

    • help_lenr

      What IH can offer Rossi ? I don’t think that he wants to revive the agreement even for 89 million dollars, since their intention was not to help him selling his reactors. Maybe they wanted to be competitors, or to slow him down.

    • Rene

      Motion to Dismiss (MTD) has a response due date of 6/20/2016, so it will be quiet until then.

  • Jas

    There has been some duscussion on here recently about whether lenr can be used as a weapon. Take a look at the Quark and its size and output. It could be used as a projectile. As a bullet. Fired from a railgun possibly? It gives light so can be used as tracer bullets. It gives electricity so could deliver shock to its target. It also provides heat so could ignite its targets. I havent done the math so this might be impossible. When the Secretary of Defense provides his briefing I wonder if this will be part of it?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Words can be weapons too.

      • Jas

        I’m not fascinated by guns and war machines. I would rather the Quark not be used to kill people but its a possibility given the size of the device. It just popped into my mind this morning on the way to work. I wonder if its possible?

        • US_Citizen71

          Sure why not anything can be a weapon. You could accelerate a Styrofoam BB to Mach 12 for a short ranged lethal projectile that doesn’t mean it would be an effective weapon over all.

          • Jas

            A Styrofoam pellet can not electrocute or ignite a person. A rifle bulllet reaches the temperature of 250-300C in flight. The Quark would be much much hotter. I’m not trying to advocate the use of Quarks as projectiles. Just guessing that the military would be interested.

          • Omega Z

            It brings backpack laser’s that much closer to reality.
            Drones that can remain airborne until it’s conventional weapons are exhausted.
            Laser mounted drones who’s weapon last a year.

            What you describe wouldn’t likely even be considered. As to firing a quark with a rail gun, just use a small tungsten bolt that would do far more damage much cheaper.

            As to military applications, possibly they will find uses that in turn will be of great benefit to society that wouldn’t have evolved otherwise or pave a fast track path to the consumer of other products.

            The U.S. military need for heavy bombers in WW II did what would be many decades of civilian development in just a couple years. Thus civilian air travel and cargo transport was fast tracked by decades due to the military need. The list of such benefits is very long.

          • bachcole

            Only as an energy source. The heat of a bullet has never been a problem for me. I have always been concerned with the speed. E = 1/2mv^2

      • akupaku

        What are those deadly words? Oh no, please don’t say them, lol! ;o)

        Seriously speaking, I have been married once, I know what you are talking about!

        • Bob Greenyer

          sad eh… a world of plenty would end oil and water wars and alleviate the march of global climate change but probably increase the divorce rate as selfishness would become a strongly exhibited trait.

          • bachcole

            Not necessarily. I see most marriages break up because of stress, particularly financial woes. A marriage is usually like a helium atom. Once those protons get stuck together, it is a real bitch to get them apart, even when people do not “feel” love for each other. Most adultery is the result of a problem in the marriage itself. If people are under less financial stress, there will be less divorce. I think that it will probably be a toss up, a wash. If someone can think of a good reason why I am wrong, let us hear it.

    • Observer

      Great Idea! Lets use an energy source that lasts months and use it for a fraction of a second! A block of metal traveling 5000 mph in air does not need an internal heat source. It would make more sense to power the rail gun with Quarks than use them as a projectiles. So that would make the Quark no more a weapon than a diesel generator.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        If they make x rays, they might be used in beam weapons.

      • bachcole

        I am fascinated by guns and war (unfortunately), and I can’t see a quarkX being used as a bullet. Rail gun projectiles are already so fast that they ignite the freaking air as they pass through the air, as though they were actually the result of an explosion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4

        Keep in mind that E = 1/2mv^2. So faster is better (not so much for the target).

    • Rene

      Everything you mentioned is currently done quite effectively chemically and at a fraction of the cost.
      Thinking on this some more, I believe similar results could be obtained shooting slightly modified discarded mobile phones. 🙂

    • akupaku

      Armor piercing projectiles and bullets too usually use their kinetic energy produced by their mass and speed to get through the target. I doubt Quark’s heat or other attributes are especially usable in such weapons other than as an energy source in weapons with own propulsion. But I might be wrong, I am not a weapons engineer. Human kind is using enormous resources and ingenuity to develop weapons to kill each other. As Stanton Friedman likes to say “mankind’s favorite pastime is tribal warfare”.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Volume of the cylinder = 2.356 * 10^-8 m^3.
    Burning the same volume of gasoline would yield about 0.2 Wh (8760 kWh/m^3).

    Energy gain of the QuarkX (as reported) = 99.5 W * 100 h = 9.95 kWh.
    9.95 kWh / 0.2 Wh = 49700.

    • Observer

      If the Quark X lasts a year, that would be 871.62 kWh.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Volume of the cylinder = 2.356 * 10^-8 m^3.
    Burning the same volume of gasoline would yield about 0.2 Wh (8760 kWh/m^3).

    Energy gain of the QuarkX (as reported) = 99.5 W * 100 h = 9.95 kWh.
    9.95 kWh / 0.2 Wh = 49700.

    • Observer

      If the Quark X lasts a year, that would be 871.62 kWh.

  • Charles

    For whatever reason, Rossi continues to dabble rather than saying: “all right, with this version right here, we are going public with mass production. Prep it gang.” There may be a huge overriding technical reason that has him fearful or reluctant.

    The Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”. This time without the secrecy. By bringing the huge scientific community of physicists and engineer together, astonishing things may happen.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      At least he said he strives to improve the electric fraction from 10 to 20 percent. You are right, it’s hard to stop the R&D phase and go to the production one. Except that AR says he’s doing it with the 1MW plant tech already. If that rolls out, some delay with X is probably not so bad if it cuts the waste heat in electricity production applications by factor of two.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        The existing ECat reactor technology is fine for a low temp steam client who will enjoy their heat bill reduction by at least 20 times from the plants COP > 50.

        Plenty of potential customers all over the planet, who do not need electricity or light generation that would be very happy with the existing plant.

    • Gerard McEk

      He also said that there is still much to be done. Obviously the tests didn’t went as smooth as hoped for. The results were prommissing, but perhaps the reliability suffered, is my gut feeling anyway. Maybe another test with the Partner is needed in the future?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Or maybe there is a lot of work to do to convert this 1st prototype QuarkX reactor into a commercial product that can be mass produced?

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has committed to the low temp 1MW system. There are several ordered and some in process of being built.

      That said, It will take a while. All the problematic issues of the 1MW used in the test have to be addressed. Changes to be made etc and these will be hand built, not mass producded. Mass production can only happen once all the issues are answered.

      This is likely about 2 years away as 1st, these plants need built and put into operation and will be another drawn out year before mass production could even begin. That, Barring the discovery of other major issues of this redesigned generation of E-cat plants.

      • akupaku

        Fixing problems in prototypes is an iterative process. If there were say 100 problems in the first prototype, then the second one which corrects those might still have 10 problems left and the third prototype might still have one serious problem left. And once customers start using the plants some new unforeseen problems will appear, that is for sure.

        It takes several iterations to make a really reliable problem free product of this complexity. This phenomenon is seen in the development of complex mechanical systems like engines and even more so in computer software which is probably the most complex technical achievement of mankind. I have made my career in software engineering and no matter how many software bugs (errors) you fix there is always one more bug left.

        Take for example a modern car which is just a moderately complex system. I see news almost monthly of a car producer calling thousands of cars back to fix some serious problem. The same will happen to Rossi & Co and to whatever products he puts out to market.

        • Omega Z

          You left out one important aspect. When all the problems are eliminated to a reasonable degree,

          BAM-> A totally new model arrives and it starts all over.

          • akupaku

            Yes, of course, it’s just a question of terminology. A “new model” is the same as a “prototype” in the above algorithm. So a new revolutionary model starts as first prototype, just an evolutional new model might start at the level of second or even third prototype depending on how many changes and improvements were made compared to the older model. ;o)

        • cashmemorz

          I see two problems that have to fixed right off the bat. The actual theory of how it works. When this is in place many potential problems are immediately eliminated. There will be far fewer problems to fix because of ad hoc approach to LENR which is the present situation. The second very crucial problem to cover is control and reliability where certification is concerned. Other problems will be secondary.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      But you can’t have this both ways. People complain when Rossi talks about starting manufacturing, and then complain when Rossi does not?

      Rossi did a public demo of the 1MW plant. And he took orders for such plants. However, IH came
      along and made a better offer. So with a yearlong test and 90 million (which
      would seed more development and manufacturing), then Rossi course of action changed. After all, Rossi can’t go it alone, can he?

      And the new plant looks and runs a GAZILLION times better than the older original plant.

      So Rossi has several times stated he is preparing for manufacturing and selling of LENR
      systems. So you sounding like Rossi in saying “prep it gang” and yet such claims are a source of many complaints about Rossi. In other words, running ahead too fast and putting the cart before the horse seems to be a major source of Rossi troubles.

      So Rossi is stated that manufacturing plants are being setup in Sweden and also the USA. What more do you want?

      The
      Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and
      reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”.

      NEVER going to happen.

      The government will kick and scram against LENR all the way. (they have in the past). Only with the rise of the internet and people pointing fingers at the government is forcing
      them to pay lip service to LENR. Why you think the USA military puts out an endless stream of global warming articles? Such articles only fuel the environmentalists to oppose pipelines and domestic energy and oil production. As a result you need a huge military that justifies its existence to police the middle east and other hot spots to keep the oil flowing.

      While the military would love what LENR can do for battle field deployment, with LENR you hardly need that military to keep the world’s oil and energy supplies flowing – do you?

      And today most governments use energy as a form of taxation. (just look at the push for taxing harmless CO2. This explains the billions pledged at the last Paris climate summit. You
      think if global warming was the greatest challenge of our time, then a few billions would be tossed into LENR which CLEARY shows the most promise to solve CO2 emissions. Yet nothing at the Paris climate summit in terms of funding LENR.

      So the announcement of the house armed committee to look into LENR is ONLY due to the rise of the internet and the public realizing how far we been sold out by governments.

      With LENR, then the whole global warming movement (with the 20+ billion funding per year) will dry up. It is HARD to phantom, but 50,000 people attended the Paris climate summit.

      50,000 people! (please stop and think about this MASSIVE number!).
      All these people wined and dined on French food and stayed in nice hotels on YOUR tax
      dime. The idea that governments want to give up the CO2 tax scam is laughable!

      No more laughable then then attempting to find a government employee running up and down the halls of government saying we need less government, less government jobs and less taxes. It not going to happen with the current crowd running governments. In Alberta they just passed a CO2 tax – cost about $1000 per household per year – and that’s just the beginning.

      With LENR such tax grabs and control of industry will be eliminated. This removes the ability of governments to fleece more money from your wallets.

      When the BC government proposed a big tax hike on gas, people were on the legislative grounds with pitch forks. So they said we do a green tax to save the environment and reduce
      CO2.

      The people said ok SURE! They then bent over and opened up their wallets between their legs with little protest! So a green tax, or CO2 tax is simply a means for governments to
      guilt you into opening your wallet further. You remove the global warming guilt trip, you remove the government’s ability to guilt you into opening your wallet FURTHER then what the public currently is willing to give to their governments.

      People are already overtaxed and governments have FEW means to increase taxes –
      but the CO2 tax guilt and you telling you that you are destroying the world with CO2 is a perfect means for governments to tax YOU MORE!

      Any initiative by the government to look into LENR is simply lip service – governments have
      nearly EVERYTHING to lose to increase their tax based by supporting LENR. Supporting LENR means they lose the big hammer of guilt trip in regards to the global warming scam. With LENR, there no CO2 emissions and thus no guilt trip to expand the tax base beyond the current public resistance of current tax levels.

      Governments will fight LENR tooth and nail – they have nearly everything to lose with LENR.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Engineer48

        Hi Albert,

        The fossil thermal plant owners will be on Rossi’s side as his reactors can lower their generation cost, eliminate CO2 and other nasty emissions costs and maintenance cost (coal is a very dirty fuel!).

        So maybe not good for the gov to bite the hand that generates their electricity?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, there always parts of industry that stand to gain much with this new technology.

          Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

          So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant. In fact this is Brilioum’s business model for their LENR devices. I mean what faster way to make money then purchasing coal plants that no one wants and swopping them over to LENR?

          The problem however is often existing companies can’t see the forest for the trees. The French government (heavy nuclear – over 70% of energy in France is nuclear) had a LENR program around the year 2000. And in fact they were producing positive results. However, all these people looked at each other and said why are we working on a technology that will slaughter most of our jobs? As a result, they canned their LENR program. I think the better road would have been for the French government to regulate LENR and control the technology. And thus they could have moved forward with a LENR vision. However this is often hard to do.

          Nearly every city used to have some nice offices for Sperry, Burroughs and Digital computers (Dec). They leased out computers with rather lucrative contracts that included leasing and expensive maintains contracts. Such companies saw the personal computer as a threat. These companies were short sighted. If they changed their business model, then one of those companies could have become the next Dell. However, such a leap and change is VERY hard.

          I should point out that Dell is valued at over 20 billion, and at one time far more! So all those nice offices and those computer vendors are long gone – gone because they could not see the industry they were sitting on, and their self-interests keep them thinking in their old way of thinking and business models. Digital or Sperry should have been the next Dell. And if they have moved on this PC revolution, they would have been.

          And same occurred with Sony. They owned the music business, had just purchased MGM and their music rights. So they saw the rise of mp3 players as a threat to their existing business model. Apple saw the rise of digital music as an opportunity and they executed brilliantly. The result was now Apple ate Sony’s bacon and Apple now owns the music business (they are by far the world’s largest distributer of music and they dwarf Sony).

          So traditional energy producers, and even the French nuclear industry “can” make the jump and become LENR powerhouses in this industry. However, they have to take off their blinders and change how they think.

          My only point about governments is since the time of Pons and Fleeshman they see and view LENR as a threat to their tax base. And with the hoopla of CO2 and global warming being used as a means to raise taxes, then even more resistance exists to LENR in government circles.

          When you have oil, the financial industry (that wants to trade CO2 credits – Obama gave government O2 trading to Goldman Sachs), and governments all seeing LENR as a threat, then you have some rather powerful interests that really don’t want LENR. I mean opposing from just one sector of the economy is not a big deal, but combine the military, the government, the financial industry all seeing LENR as a threat to their “current” way of doing business, then their position is not any different than Digital computers seeing the rise of the PC as threat to their current way of doing business.

          Because LENR is small, then the LENR revolution can occur much like the computer industry – it can occur DESPITE major existing players not wanting LENR. It is the small, low cost and relative ease of manufacturing computers or in this case LENR devices that will win the day.

          So while the governments will be against LENR and kicking and screaming all the way, or how governments now kick and scream against the internet and the free flow of information, LENR will also win the day and is un-stoppable.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Albert wrote:

            Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

            So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant

            Yup and they are just waiting to be able to test someone’s LENR technology in a moderate way (10 x 1MW ECat plants is VERY small to these guys).

            A 750MWe subcritical plant would need around 2.25GWt or 2,250 x 1MW 600C steam QuarkX reactors to power the plant.

            For just ONE plant that is over $2.5 BILLION in sales to the 600C steam LENR reactor provider. Well maybe just a little less with a volume discount.

            So lets say $2 billion in reactors per average thermal plant times say 10,000 plants or $20 TRILLION dollars in sales!!!!!

            I suggest every major thermal power plant builder / boiler supplier on the planet will be fighting for market share in a $20 TRILLION dollar, end of CO2 and other nasty emissions, forever market.

            And some think govs will be able to stop or control this business?

            Who can stop a $20 TRILLION dollar market?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No more so then those opposing the personal computer industry. Like the rise of the computer industry, there will be MANY winners. From local computer stores, or now local LENR stores selling re-fill cartages for your beast Master 2000 LENR barbeque gill, a WHOLE industry will spring up around LENR. So be it re-fill LENR cartridges for your gill your fridge, we also see large scale electrical producers jumping on this bandwagon.

            While I believe that the government is paying lip service to LENR, let’s wait and see what the report from the house armed committee comes up – the report is due in September

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I don’t think the personal computer industry was opposed by those in the “big iron” game. They thought it would never amount to anything compared to their machines and markets. I have heard that many computer managers said “Who would want to lose control of the computing by giving everyone their own desk computer?”

            It is interesting to note that the trend is now back to central servers, though we now call them “cloud computing”. I have friends who are abandoning their laptops and desk computers for their phones and tablets.

          • Engineer48

            Some data to back that up:
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2236rank.html

            Installed capacity approx 6,800,000MWe which would need say 20,400,000MWt of steam and at $1m per 1MWt that equals $20 trillion in sales.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Albert,

            Much of what you say rings true, but I think you underestimate the competitive forces in the face of new technology for the energy generation industry. As an analogous industry, the HVAC industry was all against non-ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized how much money they could make changing out all of the old equipment. They became big fans of legislation practically overnight.

            I think that the energy generation industry will ignore LENR until one company realizes that they can get a competitive advantage and all of the rest will clammer to jump on board.

          • Omega Z

            Actually, HVAC’s biggest issues were that the new refrigerants weren’t any better and sometimes worse then what they were replacing. They actually saw what it was really about. Patents were expiring. Dow Chemical, Du Pont and a couple other Western chemical companies made a killing. Russia, China and I believe it was Brazil’s chemical companies took a beating. Dow among others got their replacement refrigerants approved according to TPTB plan.

            Patents are once again expiring and change has been mandated again. Precisely because the refrigerants in use today hurt the Ozone. The new chemical refrigerants are slightly to highly flammable. That’s what you get when you use butane, methane etc etc mixtures and combinations. Some of these had been tried in the previous change over, but the flammability issue came up putting a stop to it. There OK now??? Anyway, some type of GW tax will likely come into play. Methane is worse then CO2 for GW….

            In 20/25 years, yes, it will be time again…

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Okay! You win! That is a much more believable reason refrigerants were phased out than I can come up with..

            As for flammability and hazards, I spent many hours as a young boy pondering how that flame under my family’s Serval refrigerator could cool thing inside. Turns out, ammonia gas was used as the refrigerant. It is still in use today for commercial refrigeration. Hazardous? You bet! But so is that 20 gallon tank of gasoline parked in your garage, or the contents of that gas pipe running your furnace.

  • Charles

    For whatever reason, Rossi continues to dabble rather than saying: “all right, with this version right here, we are going public with mass production. Prep it gang.” There may be a huge overriding technical reason that has him fearful or reluctant.

    The Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”. This time without the secrecy. By bringing the huge scientific community of physicists and engineer together, astonishing things may happen.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      At least he said he strives to improve the electric fraction from 10 to 20 percent. You are right, it’s hard to stop the R&D phase and go to the production one. Except that AR says he’s doing it with the 1MW plant tech already. If that rolls out, some delay with X is probably not so bad if it cuts the waste heat in electricity production applications by factor of two.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        The existing ECat reactor technology is fine for a low temp steam client who will enjoy their heat bill reduction by at least 20 times from the plants COP > 50.

        Plenty of potential customers all over the planet, who do not need electricity or light generation that would be very happy with the existing plant.

    • Gerard McEk

      He also said that there is still much to be done. Obviously the tests didn’t went as smooth as hoped for. The results were prommissing, but perhaps the reliability suffered, is my gut feeling anyway. Maybe another test with the Partner is needed in the future?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Or maybe there is a lot of work to do to convert this 1st prototype QuarkX reactor into a commercial product that can be mass produced?

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has committed to the low temp 1MW system. There are several ordered and some in process of being built.

      That said, It will take a while. All the problematic issues of the 1MW used in the test have to be addressed. Changes to be made etc and these will be hand built, not mass producded. Mass production can only happen once all the issues are answered.

      This is likely about 2 years away as 1st, these plants need built and put into operation and will be another drawn out year before mass production could even begin. That, Barring the discovery of other major issues of this redesigned generation of E-cat plants.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        I dont want to wait that long.

      • akupaku

        Fixing problems in prototypes is an iterative process. If there were say 100 problems in the first prototype, then the second one which corrects those might still have 10 problems left and the third prototype might still have one serious problem left. And once customers start using the plants some new unforeseen problems will appear, that is for sure.

        It takes several iterations to make a really reliable problem free product of this complexity. This phenomenon is seen in the development of complex mechanical systems like engines and even more so in computer software which is probably the most complex technical achievement of mankind. I have made my career in software engineering and no matter how many software bugs (errors) you fix there is always one more bug left.

        Take for example a modern car which is just a moderately complex system. I see news almost monthly of a car producer calling thousands of cars back to fix some serious problem. The same will happen to Rossi & Co and to whatever products he puts out to market.

        • Omega Z

          You left out one important aspect. When all the problems are eliminated to a reasonable degree,

          BAM-> A totally new model arrives and it starts all over.

          • akupaku

            Yes, of course, it’s just a question of terminology. A “new model” is the same as a “prototype” in the above algorithm. So a new revolutionary model starts as first prototype, just an evolutional new model might start at the level of second or even third prototype depending on how many changes and improvements were made compared to the older model. ;o)

        • cashmemorz

          I see two problems that have to fixed right off the bat. The actual theory of how it works. When this is in place many potential problems are immediately eliminated. There will be far fewer problems to fix because of ad hoc approach to LENR which is the present situation. The second very crucial problem to cover is control and reliability where certification is concerned. Other problems will be secondary.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      But you can’t have this both ways. People complain when Rossi talks about starting manufacturing, and then complain when Rossi does not?

      Rossi did a public demo of the 1MW plant. And he took orders for such plants. However, IH came
      along and made a better offer. So with a yearlong test and 90 million (which
      would seed more development and manufacturing), then Rossi course of action changed. After all, Rossi can’t go it alone, can he?

      And the new plant looks and runs a GAZILLION times better than the older original plant.

      So Rossi has several times stated he is preparing for manufacturing and selling of LENR
      systems. So you sounding like Rossi in saying “prep it gang” and yet such claims are a source of many complaints about Rossi. In other words, running ahead too fast and putting the cart before the horse seems to be a major source of Rossi troubles.

      So Rossi is stated that manufacturing plants are being setup in Sweden and also the USA. What more do you want?

      The
      Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and
      reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”.

      NEVER going to happen.

      The government will kick and scram against LENR all the way. (they have in the past). Only with the rise of the internet and people pointing fingers at the government is forcing
      them to pay lip service to LENR. Why you think the USA military puts out an endless stream of global warming articles? Such articles only fuel the environmentalists to oppose pipelines and domestic energy and oil production. As a result you need a huge military that justifies its existence to police the middle east and other hot spots to keep the oil flowing.

      While the military would love what LENR can do for battle field deployment, with LENR you hardly need that military to keep the world’s oil and energy supplies flowing – do you?

      And today most governments use energy as a form of taxation. (just look at the push for taxing harmless CO2. This explains the billions pledged at the last Paris climate summit. You
      think if global warming was the greatest challenge of our time, then a few billions would be tossed into LENR which CLEARY shows the most promise to solve CO2 emissions. Yet nothing at the Paris climate summit in terms of funding LENR.

      So the announcement of the house armed committee to look into LENR is ONLY due to the rise of the internet and the public realizing how far we been sold out by governments.

      With LENR, then the whole global warming movement (with the 20+ billion funding per year) will dry up. It is HARD to phantom, but 50,000 people attended the Paris climate summit.

      50,000 people! (please stop and think about this MASSIVE number!).
      All these people wined and dined on French food and stayed in nice hotels on YOUR tax
      dime. The idea that governments want to give up the CO2 tax scam is laughable!

      No more laughable then then attempting to find a government employee running up and down the halls of government saying we need less government, less government jobs and less taxes. It not going to happen with the current crowd running governments. In Alberta they just passed a CO2 tax – cost about $1000 per household per year – and that’s just the beginning.

      With LENR such tax grabs and control of industry will be eliminated. This removes the ability of governments to fleece more money from your wallets.

      When the BC government proposed a big tax hike on gas, people were on the legislative grounds with pitch forks. So they said we do a green tax to save the environment and reduce
      CO2.

      The people said ok SURE! They then bent over and opened up their wallets between their legs with little protest! So a green tax, or CO2 tax is simply a means for governments to
      guilt you into opening your wallet further. You remove the global warming guilt trip, you remove the government’s ability to guilt you into opening your wallet FURTHER then what the public currently is willing to give to their governments.

      People are already overtaxed and governments have FEW means to increase taxes –
      but the CO2 tax guilt and you telling you that you are destroying the world with CO2 is a perfect means for governments to tax YOU MORE!

      Any initiative by the government to look into LENR is simply lip service – governments have
      nearly EVERYTHING to lose to increase their tax based by supporting LENR. Supporting LENR means they lose the big hammer of guilt trip in regards to the global warming scam. With LENR, there no CO2 emissions and thus no guilt trip to expand the tax base beyond the current public resistance of current tax levels.

      Governments will fight LENR tooth and nail – they have nearly everything to lose with LENR.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Engineer48

        Hi Albert,

        The fossil thermal plant owners will be on Rossi’s side as his reactors can lower their generation cost, eliminate CO2 and other nasty emissions costs and maintenance cost (coal is a very dirty fuel!).

        So maybe not good for the gov to bite the hand that generates their electricity?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, there always parts of industry that stand to gain much with this new technology.

          Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

          So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant. In fact this is Brilioum’s business model for their LENR devices. I mean what faster way to make money then purchasing coal plants that no one wants and swopping them over to LENR?

          The problem however is often existing companies can’t see the forest for the trees. The French government (heavy nuclear – over 70% of energy in France is nuclear) had a LENR program around the year 2000. And in fact they were producing positive results. However, all these people looked at each other and said why are we working on a technology that will slaughter most of our jobs? As a result, they canned their LENR program. I think the better road would have been for the French government to regulate LENR and control the technology. And thus they could have moved forward with a LENR vision. However this is often hard to do.

          Nearly every city used to have some nice offices for Sperry, Burroughs and Digital computers (Dec). They leased out computers with rather lucrative contracts that included leasing and expensive maintains contracts. Such companies saw the personal computer as a threat. These companies were short sighted. If they changed their business model, then one of those companies could have become the next Dell. However, such a leap and change is VERY hard.

          I should point out that Dell is valued at over 20 billion, and at one time far more! So all those nice offices and those computer vendors are long gone – gone because they could not see the industry they were sitting on, and their self-interests keep them thinking in their old way of thinking and business models. Digital or Sperry should have been the next Dell. And if they have moved on this PC revolution, they would have been.

          And same occurred with Sony. They owned the music business, had just purchased MGM and their music rights. So they saw the rise of mp3 players as a threat to their existing business model. Apple saw the rise of digital music as an opportunity and they executed brilliantly. The result was now Apple ate Sony’s bacon and Apple now owns the music business (they are by far the world’s largest distributer of music and they dwarf Sony).

          So traditional energy producers, and even the French nuclear industry “can” make the jump and become LENR powerhouses in this industry. However, they have to take off their blinders and change how they think.

          My only point about governments is since the time of Pons and Fleeshman they see and view LENR as a threat to their tax base. And with the hoopla of CO2 and global warming being used as a means to raise taxes, then even more resistance exists to LENR in government circles.

          When you have oil, the financial industry (that wants to trade CO2 credits – Obama gave government CO2 trading rights to Goldman Sachs), and governments all seeing LENR as a threat, then you have some rather powerful interests that really don’t want LENR. I mean opposing from just one sector of the economy is not a big deal, but combine the military, the government, the financial industry all seeing LENR as a threat to their “current” way of doing business, then their position is not any different than Digital computers seeing the rise of the PC as threat to their current way of doing business.

          Because LENR is small, then the LENR revolution can occur much like the computer industry – it can occur DESPITE major existing players not wanting LENR. It is the small, low cost and relative ease of manufacturing computers or in this case LENR devices that will win the day.

          So while the governments will be against LENR and kicking and screaming all the way, or how governments now kick and scream against the internet and the free flow of information, LENR will also win the day and is un-stoppable.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Albert wrote:

            Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

            So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant

            Yup and they are just waiting to be able to test someone’s LENR technology in a moderate way (10 x 1MW ECat plants is VERY small to these guys).

            A 750MWe subcritical plant would need around 2.25GWt or 2,250 x 1MW 600C steam QuarkX reactors to power the plant.

            For just ONE plant that is over $2.5 BILLION in sales to the 600C steam LENR reactor provider. Well maybe just a little less with a volume discount.

            So lets say $2 billion in reactors per average thermal plant times say 10,000 plants or $20 TRILLION dollars in sales!!!!!

            I suggest every major thermal power plant builder / boiler supplier on the planet will be fighting for market share in a $20 TRILLION dollar, end of CO2 and other nasty emissions, forever market.

            And some think govs will be able to stop or control this business?

            Who can stop a $20 TRILLION dollar market?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No more so then those opposing the personal computer industry. Like the rise of the computer industry, there will be MANY winners. From local computer stores, or now local LENR stores selling re-fill cartages for your beast Master 2000 LENR barbeque gill, a WHOLE industry will spring up around LENR. So be it re-fill LENR cartridges for your gill, your fridge, we also see large scale electrical producers jumping on this bandwagon.

            While I believe that the government is paying lip service to LENR, let’s wait and see what the report from the house armed committee comes up – the report is due in September

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I don’t think the personal computer industry was opposed by those in the “big iron” game. They thought it would never amount to anything compared to their machines and markets. I have heard that many computer managers said “Who would want to lose control of the computing by giving everyone their own desk computer?”

            It is interesting to note that the trend is now back to central servers, though we now call them “cloud computing”. I have friends who are abandoning their laptops and desk computers for their phones and tablets.

          • Engineer48

            Some data to back that up:
            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2236rank.html

            Installed worldwide capacity, in 2012, of approx 6,800,000 MWe which would need say 20,400,000 MWt of 600C steam and at $1m / MWt that equals $20 trillion in sales.

            Imagine the recharge business from 20,400,000 1MW Quark reactors! Nice business if you can get it!
            .

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Albert,

            Much of what you say rings true, but I think you underestimate the competitive forces in the face of new technology for the energy generation industry. As an analogous industry, the HVAC industry was all against non-ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized how much money they could make changing out all of the old equipment. They became big fans of legislation practically overnight.

            I think that the energy generation industry will ignore LENR until one company realizes that they can get a competitive advantage and all of the rest will clammer to jump on board.

          • Omega Z

            Actually, HVAC’s biggest issues were that the new refrigerants weren’t any better and sometimes worse then what they were replacing. They actually saw what it was really about. Patents were expiring. Dow Chemical, Du Pont and a couple other Western chemical companies made a killing. Russia, China and I believe it was Brazil’s chemical companies took a beating. Dow among others got their replacement refrigerants approved according to TPTB plan.

            Patents are once again expiring and change has been mandated again. Precisely because the refrigerants in use today hurt the Ozone. The new chemical refrigerants are slightly to highly flammable. That’s what you get when you use butane, methane etc etc mixtures and combinations. Some of these had been tried in the previous change over, but the flammability issue came up putting a stop to it. There OK now??? Anyway, some type of GW tax will likely come into play. Methane is worse then CO2 for GW….

            In 20/25 years, yes, it will be time again…

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Okay! You win! That is a much more believable reason refrigerants were phased out than I can come up with..

            As for flammability and hazards, I spent many hours as a young boy pondering how that flame under my family’s Serval refrigerator could cool thing inside. Turns out, ammonia gas was used as the refrigerant. It is still in use today for commercial refrigeration. Hazardous? You bet! But so is that 20 gallon tank of gasoline parked in your garage, or the contents of that gas pipe running your furnace.

      • Omega Z wrote: “Actually, HVAC’s biggest issues … They actually saw what it was really about. Patents were expiring.”

        Please name (cite) the patents (patent numbers), or this is just more ‘internet lore’.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      ARPAe wont fund my group’s LENR project despite the credentials of the principal investigator and the laboratory ready to work on it.

  • bachcole

    Engineer48, I cannot find your latest comment about Rossi’s attitude with regard to your commercial discussions with him. This happens sometimes when discussion sections get really big. But I felt that my response was important enough to put it here.

    Engineer48, I hope that you will present to Frank an entire article about your commercial efforts with Rossi. It is very valuable. Your observation that Rossi was very open to demonstrating his products to you since you are a real potential customer is a very important data point, at least for me.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I also saw that comment and wrote a reply – but the comment did not appear here.

      Essentially he was saying in the comment I read, that Rossi was prepared to demonstrate to serious customers and that he would show his partners. I replied the following.

      It would be beyond disingenuous to not show it working to a real customer.

      Has he shown it to you or your stakeholders? Or is the state play currently that he would?

      If the latter, what de we learn by acknowledging that he would do what he would have to do when he had to do it? I have already noted that he must do it eventually.

      It is obvious that the device as claimed would allow the loop to be closed, even if this has not been done – but if it has not been done, then the claims are easy to dismiss and that allows him to ‘fly under the radar’. One could argue that this is a valid approach for a technology that is simple to replicate but is either not protected, ready for or in mass production.

      The nature of the promise of this technology is that you cannot trust anyone – look at those that are rushing to patent aspects before having something to show – and the bigger they are the more capable they are of finding a way round patent claims. I have seen even suppliers and distribution partners of inventors try to directly copy or produce analogues of a technology as they are working with the inventor.

      Unless an inventor becomes immortal, there is no reality that would allow them to reap all the value from an invention, the main prize is to be credited with the invention, Rossi knows this and is why he attacks Piantelli’s patents alone. The second is to be properly rewarded for the invention, but after the first several billions what difference does it make? You can’t eat more, you can sleep in 1000 beds… the technology itself will do more good for all time than any philanthropic act and control of philanthropy dies with the philanthropist to a large degree.

      In addition, inventions don’t happen in isolation, LENR is an intensely complex discipline and no one, not even P&F started at the beginning. Even an inventor may have been provided with education by their state or fed by poor farmers. Perhaps there are people that helped finance a thing through various stages, would the particular invention iteration have occurred without this investment, maybe… maybe not. Even the properties of the elements and materials have required fantastic amounts of human effort over the centuries. Credit where credit due. This is why the patent laws have an end to their protection, the inventor gets a window in which to profit from the inventive step then the invention reverts to global ownership – this is exactly as it should be, its not like any human invented Hydrogen, Nickel, Palladium, Chromium, Platinum, Silver etc.

      On the 2 key rewards of invention.
      1. Rossi says that the current claimed device is protected by his patent, if this is the case, every minute it is not categorically proven and defined presents a risk that he will not be credited with the invention, since if someone else goes public, the public might say Rossi copied the proven claim.
      2. The clock is now ticking for Rossi to make money from the invention, that includes any investing party whose shareholders would want to look at the amortized reward over the lifetime of the patent. Having it proven beyond doubt so early in the life of the patent would allow him to open the bidding – there is no doubt of the value of the claimed device.

      For the above two reasons, it would benefit Rossi to demonstrate as widely as possible the validity of the tech and closing the loop would do this more than anything else.

      In contrast, every “customer” that he shows the product to without full disclosure, however they present themselves, is another party that will be driven by greed or virtue to fill in the gaps and deliver it themselves if it is not shown in full. This has seemingly happened in the case of two partners (DGT & IH), in both cases, the pursuit of developing the tech was done against the background that Rossi had no Patent protection. The situation now is very different, he has and this should afford him a different strategy.

      One strategy is to update his patent to make it ridiculously easy to copy the device, then he’d never have to stress about the manufacturing – it would happen and massively. So what if non-controlled persons make it. He will not even have to fight the legal claims, I’ll explain.

      There is this guy in the UK, for near 30 years he invented stuff and patented them, his wife got so tired of poverty and constantly telling him to go and get a “proper job” that they divorced. A few years later, he sold a patent to a patent litigation agency for tens of millions of dollars. The infringer was Apple.

      With an updated and clear patent, full disclosure and closing the loop, Rossi would be credited with the invention and rewarded beyond all imagining without having to worry about manufacturing. Of course, he could, if he wanted to.

      • Rene

        As important is the basic LENR+ means and methods patent, he needs to file his “Means and methods to control and maximize a LENR effect” patent. That control patent, with its teaching of the mechanism to tame otherwise exponential reactions both protects his work and provides definitive proof the e-cat is not a science project.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bob,

        What I said was during my discussions with Rossi, never did he ask for anything that was not what one would expect when dealing with costly high tech power generating equipment.

        My potential client needed to pass Leonardo due diligence, which it seemed they did.

        Next Rossi said we needed to work on a mutually acceptable MOU, which laid down due diligence questions from our side, that once resolved in the affirmative, would quickly lead to a sales contract being signed and money placed into escrow. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

        As part of our sides due diligence, our team of seriously experienced high energy steam engineers could visit a working 1MW reactor and do their inspections and testing. Again nothing out of the ordinary here.

        From this experience, nothing occurred that suggested to my engineer’s gut that Rossi could not deliver. He also knew and realised he was potentially dealing with a owner and operator of a large number of thermal power plants and part of a larger owner group. So a bad due diligence report would not be what Rossi would want to go forward to a large part of the worldwide thermal power plant business.

        I must add that Rossi said straight out that he could not deliver 600C steam for some time, which for my potential clients was ok as this purchase was to get their toe wet, so to speak, in the reality of using a LENR reactor to heat steam. No way was this test plant going online and driving a steam turbine as it was both too low a steam temp and the reliability was totally unknown.

        I did get an understand that the fossil fuel plant owners and operators have been watching the LENR space for some time now and realise, assuming the reactors are reliable, replacing their existing coal / gas burners can easily be paid for by fuel savings over the life of the plant, plus no more carbon and other not nice emissions, nor any cost to pay for them. So doing this is a no brainer, easy for them to finance, again assuming they are happy with the plant retrofit cost, fuel cost and reliability.

        So there is a low hanging fruit that is just waiting for LENR 600C boilers that can cost effectively replace their fossil boilers.

        • Rene

          I am curious what would be the ratio of energy required to generate steam at 101C from water versus superheating that steam to 600C. In other words, how much would introducing an e-cat preheater/low temp steam generator save in the overall 600C generation of steam?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            I’m not a steam engineer but as I understand it going sub or supercritical at the steam temp and pressures required for efficient turbine operation is a big step above generating superheated steam at 105C.

            http://www.desein.com/sub_super_critical.php

            http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/32896-how-are-supercritical-boilers-different-from-subcritical-boilers/

            Large Subcritical thermal power plants with 170 barG and 540 / 540 ° C (SH / RH) operate at an efficiency of 38 %.

            Supercritical units operating at 250 barG and 600 / 615 ° C can have efficiencies in the range of 42 %.

            Ultra supercritical units at 300 barG and 615 / 630 °C will still increase the efficiency up to 44 %

          • Oystein Lande

            To heat steam from 100 degC to 600 degC will take 1000 KJ/kg steam. While it will take 2259 KJ/kg to boil water to steam, ie twice the energy of steam heating.

            A few data that is easy to use for calculating power requirements for water and steam heating:

            Heat of vaporization = 2259 KJ/kg
            specific heat capacity for liquid water = 4.184 KJ/kgKelvin
            specific heat capacity for gaseous water (steam) = 2.02 KJ/kgKelvin

            So evidently it takes 13.5 times more energy to boil water to steam than to heat same amount of liquid water 40 degC (60 to 100 degC)

            And it takes Twice the amount of energy to heat 1kg of liquid water compared to heat 1kg steam for equal delta temperatures.

          • GiveADogABone

            @Rene

            Please read :-
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
            and start with the T-s diagram.

            Your question contains an error. You do not get steam at 101C when heading towards 600C because the boiler pressures are far higher than 1bar; you just get hot(ish) water. The high thermal efficiency quoted for high temperatures relies on pre-heating the feed water in multi-stage cascades, using bled steam from the turbines and also on reheat, when the steam is sent back to the boiler and returned to the IP and LP turbines.

            The main turbine condenser produces condensate at about 40C. You could heat this condensate to 101C with LENR and replace some bled steam, but as I said, this condensate is still water and the resulting savings would be modest.

            Also please note from the diagram that at higher boiler pressures the latent heat of vaporization decreases until at the critical pressure it drops to zero. Supercritical boilers do NOT boil.

        • Bob Greenyer

          So, you are at the “waiting for a 1MW reactor to visit” stage?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bob,

            Bit before that stage.

            My potential client & Leonadro need to agree on a MOU & then execute it. It is basically a precursor Sales Contract that defines the due diligence issues that Leonardo needs to show compliance with, which cover a lot more than just doing a few tests, such as meeting QA standards, manuals, training, backup, spares, installation & commissioning, warranty, MTBF, etc. Understand my potential client is basically an engineering firm that ownes & operates many large and varied fuel sourced thermal power plants. To them this is like buying a new boiler, or turbine or generator or control system from a major established industry player. Massive compliance paper work issues without ever going close to the elephant in the room that this is a NUCLEAR REACTOR with an unknown fuel cycle, with no accepted theory as to what radiation is produced & how it is prevented from escaping the reactor under ALL nirmal & fault conditions.

            It is still not clear if http://www.arpansa.gov.au and http://www.ansto.gov.au will allow the reactors to be imported into Australia and if so, if they can be installed & commissioned.

            I believe the existing 1MW ECat safety certification is for a boiler and not a nuclear boiler.

            My engineer’s gut believes the reactor works. My doubt is reliability, how stable is the output as load varies, control ststem functions & integeration with other plant systems, MTBF, maintainability, backup, support, traceability, etc. A long list.

          • Bob Greenyer

            given the few long term installations – understanding of the MTBF would be limited.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer
        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Bernie, so even more reason to put it all out there.

    • Gerard McEk

      See always open tread. E48 just answered some of that.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Amos June 17, 2016 at 7:35 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    Did I read correctly that the Quark X produced 0.1 KWh/h vs 0.0005 KWh/h electrical energy consumed?
    Amos.

    Andrea Rossi June 17, 2016 at 8:37 AM
    Bob K:
    I am in the USA, but the negotiations are proceeding because we are
    going to do it. The decision has been taken. We will have two poles of
    manufacturing: one in the USA and one in Sweden.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Actually, that’s what I was hoping to hear. Yeah, it’s too fragile. I still think it’s Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) even though the alphas haven’t been seen.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Bob K June 17, 2016 at 5:59 AM
    Andrea, are you still in Sweden? If so, How are negotiations for the factory building going?
    Cheers, BK

    Andrea Rossi June 17, 2016 at 8:37 AM
    Bob K:
    I am in the USA, but the negotiations are proceeding because we are
    going to do it. The decision has been taken. We will have two poles of
    manufacturing: one in the USA and one in Sweden.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Gerard McEk

    See always open tread. E48 just answered some of that.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It’s all crystal clear to me now. Rossion polaritons. http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2548274_orig10.jpg The lithium would be a conductor whether or not it’s a solid. Holes (+) in the valence band of the molten lithium metal pair with hydride, H(-) to form an atomic (or would it be a molecular?) exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion. If this is a boson, perhaps it could form a Bose gas where fusion could take place.

    H(-), hydride + (+), electron-hole > H(-)(+), a rossion

    4 H(-)(+) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+ (a positron )

    Perhaps a rossion polaritons could form in microresonators in the nickel lattice.

    Instead of the electron in this video, replace it in your mind with a hydride H(-) and have it pair with a hole, (+) (from the valence band of the molten lithium metal) using the energy of some sort of photon to form a rossion polariton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It’s all crystal clear to me now. Rossion polaritons. http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2548274_orig10.jpg The lithium would be a conductor whether or not it’s a solid. Holes (+) in the valence band of the molten lithium metal pair with hydride, H(-) to form an atomic (or would it be a molecular?) exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion. If this is a boson, perhaps it could form a Bose gas where fusion could take place.

    H(-), hydride + (+), electron-hole > H(-)(+), a rossion

    4 H(-)(+) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+ (a positron )

    Perhaps a rossion polaritons could form in microresonators in the nickel lattice.

    Instead of the electron in this video, replace it in your mind with a hydride H(-) and have it pair with a hole, (+) (from the valence band of the molten lithium metal) using the energy of some sort of photon to form a rossion polariton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Solubility of hydrogen in liquid lithium.
      http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_31753

    • Mats002

      Very nice video, SPP:s for dummies!

      I look forward to next part – what can you do with SPP:s.

    • Da Phys

      Interesting theory. The key question is how a strong coupling could exist between the pairs (H-)(+) and photons.
      First, this would require a periodicity in the excitons. In that context the fact that the QuarkX runs at a temperature higher than the melting point of Ni is troubling.
      Second, this would require a source of photons at a given frequency (which one?) to resonate with the exciton.
      Maybe more problematic is that all SPPs theories of LENR have until now failed to explain why increasing the temperature to more than 1200°C is beneficial to the reaction.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Actually, that’s what I was hoping to hear. Yeah, it’s too fragile. I still think it’s Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) even though the alphas haven’t been seen.

      • Axil Axil

        “Maybe more problematic is that all SPPs theories of LENR have until now failed to explain why increasing the temperature to more than 1200°C is beneficial to the reaction.”

        It could be the black hole in a box principle

        http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-05/seminarios/AJP_Custodio-blackhole_03.pdf

        A bose condinsate can act as a black hole with regards to hawking radiation, A polariton is a superconductor, laser, and Bose condinsate all at the same time

        http://phys.org/news/2016-06-superconductors-lasers-bose-einstein-condensates.html

        A EMF Bose condinsate/black hole analog would achieve zero dispersion where all its energy would be radiated as hawking radiation.
        —————-
        “The key question is how a strong coupling could exist between the pairs (H-)(+) and photons.”

        The strong coupling between the dipole and the photon is achieved through entanglement and is maintained by Bose condensation of the polariton.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      I know of a ceramic that will let hydride ions pass through but not hydrogen ions or molecules or atoms. It can be used to test the theory above. Contact me at [email protected] if you are interested in discussing it further further.

  • sam

    Being 1st against 1700 competitors
    and winning $75000 is impressive.

  • bachcole

    Engineer48 needs his own article or articles in e-catworld.com. I thank you VERY much for your input. It seems that Rossi is moving forward and to heck with I.H.

  • Gerard McEk

    Good question of Frank and interesting answer of Andrea:
    Frank Acland
    June 17, 2016 at 9:45 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You have stated that during the recent QuarkX testing that the reactors did not run in self-sustain mode. Is it possible for them to run in SSM like the e-cats used in the 1MW plant?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    June 18, 2016 at 2:16 AM
    Frank Acland:
    When you consume half Wh/h making 100 Wh/h you are basically in permanent SSM. Better than this is impossible.
    You need anyway a drive.
    Disclaimer: the results need to be verified.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    My conclusion: If you work on the brink of self destruction (meltdown due to an uncontrollable reaction) you need a constant control. SSM is not possible than anymore. Also interesting: With the control the reaction can also be slowed-down/stopped. This is the “safety measure” AR is talking about.

    • Rene

      I was just going to post his statement, that the 100W heat output was a result of being constant in SSM. Hence COP50 is right at the hairy edge (well, he did say he was testing limits). So, that bright blue light was probably coherent too with laser halo. Does it becomes a solid state laser by way of electron-hole-photon exciton-polariton mode (see mats002’s comment below)?

  • Gerard McEk

    Good question of Frank and interesting answer of Andrea:
    Frank Acland
    June 17, 2016 at 9:45 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You have stated that during the recent QuarkX testing that the reactors did not run in self-sustain mode. Is it possible for them to run in SSM like the e-cats used in the 1MW plant?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    June 18, 2016 at 2:16 AM
    Frank Acland:
    When you consume half Wh/h making 100 Wh/h you are basically in permanent SSM. Better than this is impossible.
    You need anyway a drive.
    Disclaimer: the results need to be verified.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    My conclusion: If you work on the brink of self destruction (meltdown due to an uncontrollable reaction) you need a constant control. SSM is not possible than anymore. Also interesting: With the control the reaction can also be slowed-down/stopped. This is the “safety measure” AR is talking about.

    • Rene

      I was just going to post his statement, that the 100W heat output was a result of being constant in SSM. Hence COP50^H^H 200 for the quark is right at the hairy edge (well, he did say he was testing limits). So, that bright blue light was probably coherent too with laser halo. Does it becomes a solid state laser by way of electron-hole-photon exciton-polariton mode (see mats002’s comment below)?

      [edit] Another question. What if permanent SSM without runaway is possible below some critical mass of the matrix. Then only the excitation drive is needed to keep the reaction going and the worrisome quench action is no longer necessary.

      [edit2] I meant to write COP200, not COP50 for the quark.

    • Roger Roger

      There’s a very good, economy-related reason, why you don’t ever want autonomous LENR devices if you wish them to reach market

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    What will be the selling price of Quark X reactors?

    • Samec

      In contracts with IH was mentioned limit “under 100 USD/ per [installed] kW”
      A.R. once mentioned “under 50 USD/ per [installed] kW”

    • DrD

      Does this answer:

      Richard Wade
      January 2nd, 2016 at 6:53 PM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      Can you give us some ballpark figures about payback timeframes, costs, business gross value related to your “dream” published here at 00.00.01 of Jan 1st 2016 ?
      Thank you,
      Richard
      Andrea Rossi
      January 3rd, 2016 at 8:27 AM
      Richard Wade:
      Here are “ballpark” figures, to be worked upon:
      Cost of the E-Cat X/kW: 50 $, payback time 90 days
      Cost of the fuel per year: 10 $, payback time 10 days
      Cost of the water piping to distribute the heat in an urban neighborhood: average 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
      Cost of the light 10 $/kW, payback time 10 days
      Cost of the cabling to distribute the electric energy 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
      Total cost of the “network system” : 2 years and 4 months, let’s say 2 years, 6 months with maintainance costs
      Expected lifespan of the system: 15 years
      Potential market, considering to serve 1 billion people: 3 billion kWh/h
      Potential E-Cat market, limited to this sector of employment: 1.5 trillions of $
      Now, let’s wake uo, shake off the dreams and put down to work.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Flo

    Back to square one…

  • DrD

    Does this answer:

    Richard Wade
    January 2nd, 2016 at 6:53 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you give us some ballpark figures about payback timeframes, costs, business gross value related to your “dream” published here at 00.00.01 of Jan 1st 2016 ?
    Thank you,
    Richard
    Andrea Rossi
    January 3rd, 2016 at 8:27 AM
    Richard Wade:
    Here are “ballpark” figures, to be worked upon:
    Cost of the E-Cat X/kW: 50 $, payback time 90 days
    Cost of the fuel per year: 10 $, payback time 10 days
    Cost of the water piping to distribute the heat in an urban neighborhood: average 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Cost of the light 10 $/kW, payback time 10 days
    Cost of the cabling to distribute the electric energy 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Total cost of the “network system” : 2 years and 4 months, let’s say 2 years, 6 months with maintainance costs
    Expected lifespan of the system: 15 years
    Potential market, considering to serve 1 billion people: 3 billion kWh/h
    Potential E-Cat market, limited to this sector of employment: 1.5 trillions of $
    Now, let’s wake uo, shake off the dreams and put down to work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Engineer48

    Some good answers from Andrea:

    Engineer48
    June 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    In reference to my earlier questions:

    1) Each QuarkX reactor needs 240vac single phase to operate it and the control system?

    2) Is DC or AC output available directly from the reactor, without needing any type conversion? Ie rectification for AC to obtain DC or inversion for Dc to obtain AC?

    3) If AC is available directly from the reactor, is the output frequency dependent on the input frequency or is it some other frequency?

    4) For either DC or AC output, is the output voltage stable under different loads or will voltage regulation be needed to provide stable direct DC or AC output?

    I have a number of potential remote area QuarkX projects currently under design, including direct water extraction from the atmosphere and water purification, and your news that QuarkX reactors will be commercially available in 2016 is REALLY good and exciting news!

    Is it too soon to publish the spectrum of the light output? I ask as if the spectrum fits, it may be able to assist water purification.

    Andrea Rossi
    June 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM
    Engineer48:
    1- not necessarily
    2- AC
    3- can’t answer, but we can obtain 50 or 60 Hz
    4- we give stable output
    5- to soon to publish the spectrum
    Disclaimer: even if the preliminar R&D has been completed, more R&D is necessary to verify and confirm the data.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    The direct QuarkX reactor electrical output is AC, at either 50 or 60 Hz and the voltage output is stable.

    • Rene

      But be careful as he did not state how it is made stable (external conditioning, etc.). AC yes, but did not say whether this is zero crossing AC or, for that matter, whether the AC is sinusoidal. A DC bias makes matters a little more complicated.
      I am not surprised about being able to control the frequency as the electron surge is probably tied to each excitation event. Do that 60 times a second and between the excitation pulses you get a surge of electrons.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        Yes could easily have a DC offset. But then again if the AC output is synchronised to the mains it may be OK.

        Don’t expect it will be sinusoidal. That would be way too much to expect.

    • DrD

      I’m confused.
      First he was saying *(more than once) the direct output was DC, then he said AC or DC. Now he’s just said it is AC.
      Edit, when he said AC or DC I assumed it ws AC via an inveter but apparently not.

      • Engineer48

        Hi DrD,

        I was also confused, which is why I asked the questions I did. Anyway now we know a lot more.

        Direct electrical output is AC at either 50Hz or 60Hz and is stable.

        We also now know the QuarkX reactor can be fed from 120vac single phase to 416vac 2 phase, 50 or 60Hz.

        So I’m happy to start designing a remote area / emergency QuarkX reactor that is run from a battery & some of the direct electrical energy is used to recharge the battery.

        • DrD

          I wish you success.
          I wonder how long before we can buy one, a bunch of Quarks that is. Which poses the question, what will be the name for a grouping of Quarks?
          I would like to do the same or perhaps I could be one of your first customers and maybe we could set up an ECW fund so that we can fulfill George’s dream?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Look I’m a realists and expect the 1st delivered units to need maybe some external processing.

            What yet to be determined is how stable is the thermal output and electrical output as load changes (thermal and electrical) occur.

            My approach would be to rectify the prime AC into WELL filtered DC and then to use that to feed an inverter, well maybe several inverters and Dc to Dc converters to generate a range of stable DC and AC outputs at various voltages. Such that variations to the prime output Ac voltage or waveshape will not propagate to the various output voltages.

            The thermal output can then be fed into enclosures, such as warming command posts, communications, medical facilities and water conditioning. If the intense light is of the proper wavelength, it could do the job of sterilization of dirty water, or just use the 1,500C temp to boil any water and turn it into very pure water.

            The various output configuration are exciting to design with and yes this could be crowd funded to get it off the ground. But 1st I need to build a battery powered self looper to eliminate any doubt this is real, which I can do with personal funds.

            That said, the doorway is always open to any suggestions, forum or private.

            engineer48 dot 99 at gmail dot com

          • Hi E48,

            Some day this* sounds like it might be a job for EEStor.

            * E48 wrote: “My approach would be to rectify the prime AC into WELL filtered DC and then to use that to feed an inverter, well maybe several inverters and Dc to Dc converters to generate a range of stable DC and AC outputs at various voltages. Such that variations to the prime output Ac voltage or waveshape will not propagate to the various output voltages.”

            Please check out this presentation and keep an eye on EEStor (ESU).

            Dennis Zogbi – EEStor Marketing Presentation PPT – 10 Jul 2015
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6wTSZwAnQJ3TXRxektXMUE5dWs/view?usp=sharing

            Cap makers will very likely be doing some JV deals with EEStor later this year.

            A couple of the apps they will be targeting are in the filtering/powerfactor correction area as well as inverters!

            More resources here: http://tinyurl.com/k5ay6oc

            including 3, 3rd party testing reports by Intertek.

          • Engineer48

            Hi EEStor,

            Low ESR is good. The only kind of filter caps to design in if you want long cap life and low cap temps / losses.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Yeah, fine. No photo, no video, no design, no replication, nothing. Just a virtual black box with fancy name. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure what 1mwt e-cat reactor is working thing, well, probably with multiple glitches, but. And hot cat has been replicated at least 3 times already. But I just do not see the point to discuss totally hidden gem.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mike,

      I will certainly try to be one of the 1st OEMs to integrate a QuarkX reactor into a real world product.

      Andrea knows that, so we engage on his forum as he releases info when I ask the right questions.

      BTW Andrea has always released photos of every product he has ever claimed he has built. He has stated the QuarkX reactors will be available in 2016, so I expect to see photos and a specification data sheet soon.

      • Mike Ivanov

        No problem. I just do not see a point for over hype for completely unknown device…

  • Engineer48

    Email sent to Andrea:

    From: Engineer48
    Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:37 PM
    Subject: Purchase of 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors
    To: Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea,

    I would like to express my sincere interest to purchase, ASAP, 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

    I feel I now have enough input and output information to do a basic design of a battery powered remote / disaster QuarkX reactor system.

    Is it possible to know a rough budgetary price for the 3 x 10kWt reactors with 240vac 3 phase 50Hz excitation and direct AC 50Hz output plus if possible a rough idea of potential delivery availability?

    All my best regards

    Time to put “the pedal to the metal” and get product into the market place.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Email sent to Andrea:

    From: Engineer48
    Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:37 PM
    Subject: Purchase of 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors
    To: Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea,

    I would like to express my sincere interest to purchase, ASAP, 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

    I feel I now have enough input and output information to do a basic design of a battery powered remote / disaster QuarkX reactor system.

    Is it possible to know a rough budgetary price for the 3 x 10kWt reactors with 240vac 3 phase 50Hz excitation and direct AC 50Hz output plus if possible a rough idea of potential delivery availability?

    All my best regards

    Time to put “the pedal to the metal” and get product into the market place.
    .

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Apparently Mr. Rossi uses a fairly primitive thermionic converter to generate electricity from high-grade heat. This converter can deliver a constant and alternating current. Independently, in a small laboratory good converter it does not gather. It is necessary to use a cesium vapor and used carbon nanotubes on the surface of the emitter.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Fedir,

      And you know this how? Please share your link and information.

      Rossi has stated the output is ONLY AC at 50Hz or 60Hz and thus needs to be converted to DC.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Hello Engineer48. If I remember correctly initially Rossi spoke about the generation of DC, then said that the quark can produce permanent or alternating current. At such high temperatures, the initial good thermionic converter gives an efficiency of about 30%. Apologies for the spelling, use Google translator.

    • DrD

      Following up on Eng48’s point below. I would question what kind of primitive thermionic converter have you in mind that is capable of 100% heat to electric energy conversion efficiency which is what he claims.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        I think Rossi has never talked about the efficiency of converting heat and radiation into electricity. One can imagine the high-temperature thermionic converter heat into electricity
        production both DC and AC. Rossi said that the way you can use the converter reactor quark heat to generate electricity from an external heat source.

        • DrD

          Yes he has except in the Quark he simply said the Quark outputs 100W in any combination of Heat, light, electric provided the individuals don’t exceed 10W (electric) (50W light), 100W (heat).
          Of course he could be wrong but that’s what he claimed.
          In other words the two relevant combinations in your example are:
          1) 100Wt
          2) 90Wt plus 10We = 100W Total.
          Therefore, if he’s using the method you described then he has a converter unit that’s 100% efficient which I suggest is not possible.
          If you have one, you should put them on sale, I’ll have a few if the price is right.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Let me disagree with you. Rossi said about 10% of the generation of electricity from all energy produced reactor. It might be expected that electricity is the result of beta decay of unstable isotopes of nickel in the nickel isotopic shift to 62 – but it was said that a quark can generate electricity from a third party rather than the heat from the core reactor

          • DrD

            Your wrong and the source is irrelevant.
            He stated it exactly as I illustated, 10% ELECTRIC PLUS 90% HEAT VS 100% heat. It’s very simple arithemetic.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Apparently Mr. Rossi uses a fairly primitive thermionic converter to generate electricity from high-grade heat. This converter can deliver a constant and alternating current. Independently, in a small laboratory good converter it does not gather. It is necessary to use a cesium vapor and used carbon nanotubes on the surface of the emitter.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Fedir,

      And you know this how? Please share your link and information.

      Rossi has stated the output is ONLY AC at 50Hz or 60Hz and thus needs to be converted to DC.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Hello Engineer48. If I remember correctly initially Rossi spoke about the generation of DC, then said that the quark can produce permanent or alternating current. At such high temperatures, the initial good thermionic converter gives an efficiency of about 30%. Apologies for the spelling, use Google translator.

    • DrD

      Following up on Eng48’s point below. I would question what kind of primitive thermionic converter have you in mind that is capable of 100% heat to electric energy conversion efficiency which is what he claims.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        I think Rossi has never talked about the efficiency of converting heat and radiation into electricity. One can imagine the high-temperature thermionic converter heat into electricity
        production both DC and AC. Rossi said that the way you can use the converter reactor quark heat to generate electricity from an external heat source.

        • DrD

          Yes he has except in the Quark he simply said the Quark outputs 100W in any combination of Heat, light, electric provided the individuals don’t exceed 10W (electric) (50W light), 100W (heat).
          Of course he could be wrong but that’s what he claimed.
          In other words the two relevant combinations in your example are:
          1) 100Wt
          2) 90Wt plus 10We = 100W Total.
          Therefore, if he’s using the method you described then he has a converter unit that’s 100% efficient which I suggest is not possible.
          If you have one, you should put them on sale, I’ll have a few if the price is right.
          Edit: IMO he isn’t doing any converting at all, he said het found a way of outputting electric instead of heat.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Let me disagree with you. Rossi said about 10% of the generation of electricity from all energy produced reactor. It might be expected that electricity is the result of beta decay of unstable isotopes of nickel in the nickel isotopic shift to 62 – but it was said that a quark can generate electricity from a third party rather than the heat from the core reactor

          • DrD

            Your wrong and the source is irrelevant.
            He stated it exactly as I illustated, 10% ELECTRIC PLUS 90% HEAT VS 100% heat. It’s very simple arithemetic.

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    Lest we forget there was a test BEFORE Lugano of a Leonardo built HotCat:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/12/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-pordenone-hot-cat-report/
    and
    http://pesn.com/2012/10/15/9602206_Penon_High-Temperature_E-Cat_Test-Results_Posted/

    Please note the Leonardo HotCat was coated with a specifically engineering coating:

    PAINT OF THE EXTERNAL SURFACE OF THE REACTOR:

    BLACK, PROPRIETARY FORMULATION, RESISTANT UP TO 1200 C, MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR LEONARDO CORP. BY UNIVERSOKEMA, TREVISO (ITALY)

    I believe those building HotCat / DogBone reactors may find a different COP if they enclose their bare reactors inside a metal casing with a small peep hole and have the exterior coated with an appropriate flat black coating so as to get good thermal emissivity data plus provide thermally shifted longer wave IR feedback to the bare reactor.

    Hey that also sounds like how Rossi built the QuarkX reactor, inside a metal container with a small peep hole.

    • Engineer48

      Wonder what the older HotCat peep hole would look like if you turned off all the lights, made it smaller and centered it over the hot spot of the reactor core?

      Still the big question in my mind is why in the hell would IH send a bare bones reactor to Lugano when from the pictures on the net, they tested them INSIDE metal casings?
      .

  • Engineer48

    While I don’t understand Italian, I can read the schematics and system architecture as attached.
    http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://22passi.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/pordenone-riscatta-zurigo.html

    Image 6 (image with the “CCSU” microprocessor) which shows the individual ECat reactor control system, which looks to be what I would expect. It shows the input power is modulated by a relay and not by a triac as some assumed and that there are 2 over pressure sensors at 1.5 & 1.8 barA, which to me indicates the system monitors max boiling water steam pressure and max dry/superheated steam temperature.

    Both the overall system architecture and the individual ECat control system are what I would expect and push my “This Is Real Meter” very close to 100%.

  • Engineer48

    While I don’t understand Italian, I can read the schematics and system architecture as attached.
    http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=it&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://22passi.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/pordenone-riscatta-zurigo.html

    Image 6 (image with the “CCSU” microprocessor) which shows the individual ECat reactor control system, which looks to be what I would expect. It shows the input power is modulated by a relay and not by a triac as some assumed and that there are 2 over pressure sensors at 1.5 & 1.8 barA, which to me indicates the system monitors max boiling water steam pressure and max dry/superheated steam temperature.

    Both the overall system architecture and the individual ECat control system are what I would expect and push my “This Is Real Meter” very close to 100%.

  • Engineer48

    Here we have very detailed images of how Rossi built his Black HotCat reactor, which I suggest just maybe close to how he built the QuarkX reactor.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

    Why as no one tried to replicate this design? I mean it is easier to monitor that a bare DogBone reactor and Rossi has provided more than enough details to allow replication.

    I’m amazed.

  • Engineer48

    Here we have very detailed images of how Rossi built his Black HotCat reactor, which I suggest just maybe close to how he built the QuarkX reactor.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

    Why as no one tried to replicate this design? I mean it is easier to monitor that a bare DogBone reactor and Rossi has provided more than enough details to allow replication.

    I’m amazed that HotCat replicators have followed the IH build and not the Rossi Black HotCat (BlackCat?) build. I know which pathway I would follow. The BlackCat.

  • Engineer48

    Here are my thoughts on how to construct a Remote Area / Emergency Power system based on what I currently know about the QuarkX reactor.

    I have not utilised the light output as that is a big unknown at this time. As there is high efficiency lighting available on the market, I decided to utilise those, powered either from the high quality AC output or from the high quality DC outputs.

    Your comments are most welcome.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      I suggest a few complicate heat and radiation to electricity conversion system to provide greater efficiency. The first stage – termoemissionny converter thermal and optical radiation into electric current. The second stage – thermocatalytic decomposition steam mixed with carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen, with subsequent separation of it by using membrane technology. Conversion of hydrogen into electricity in fuel cells. The third stage – the production of electricity in a steam turbine Rankine cycle.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Fedir,

        This is a Remote Area design. Think KISS!!!

        • DrD

          Yes, and with almost free fuel, the ultimate in efficiency isn’t that important.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Fuel is not free. The cost of lithium is growing in the world. Very much of its surprising number of uses in batteries. With the wide use of lithium to power its value will increase continuously. Therefore it is very important to develop reactors company Brillyuena- the possibility generation of deuterium and lack of lithium .of fuel

          • DrD

            NOTE: I said “ALMOST free” In this context it is as good as free. You saw AR’s cost?

          • Axil Axil

            “Maybe more problematic is that all SPPs theories of LENR have until now failed to explain why increasing the temperature to more than 1200°C is beneficial to the reaction.”

            It could be the black hole in a box principle

            http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-05/seminarios/AJP_Custodio-blackhole_03.pdf

            A bose condinsate can act as a black hole with regards to hawking radiation, A polariton is a superconductor, laser, and Bose condinsate all at the same time

            http://phys.org/news/2016-06-superconductors-lasers-bose-einstein-condensates.html

            A EMF Bose condinsate/black hole analog would achieve zero dispersion where all its energy would be radiated as hawking radiation.
            —————-
            “The key question is how a strong coupling could exist between the pairs (H-)(+) and photons.”

            The strong coupling between the dipole and the photon is achieved through entanglement and is maintained by Bose condensation of the polariton.

    • Engineer48

      Updated system diagram.

  • Engineer48

    Here are my thoughts on how to construct a Remote Area / Emergency Power system based on what I currently know about the QuarkX reactor.

    I have not utilised the light output as that is a big unknown at this time. As there is high efficiency lighting available on the market, I decided to utilise those, powered either from the high quality AC output or from the high quality DC outputs.

    Your comments are most welcome.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      I suggest a few complicate heat and radiation to electricity conversion system to provide greater efficiency. The first stage – termoemissionny converter thermal and optical radiation into electric current. The second stage – thermocatalytic decomposition steam mixed with carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen, with subsequent separation of it by using membrane technology. Conversion of hydrogen into electricity in fuel cells. The third stage – the production of electricity in a steam turbine Rankine cycle.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Fedir,

        This is a Remote Area design. Think KISS!!!

        • DrD

          Yes, and with almost free fuel, the ultimate in efficiency isn’t that important.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Fuel is not free. The cost of lithium is growing in the world. Very much of its surprising number of uses in batteries. With the wide use of lithium to power its value will increase continuously. Therefore it is very important to develop reactors company Brillyuena- the possibility generation of deuterium and lack of lithium .of fuel

          • DrD

            NOTE: I said “ALMOST free” In this context it is as good as free. You saw AR’s cost?

    • Engineer48

      Updated system diagram.

  • Engineer48

    In the QuarkX reactor’s direct output battle for control. it seems AC has won.

  • Engineer48

    In the QuarkX reactor’s direct output battle for control. it seems AC has won.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor,

    Low ESR is good. The only kind of filter caps to design in if you want long cap life and low cap temps / losses.