# Rossi on Sigma 5 for the QuarkX

In a number of recent comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi has stated that in testing with the QuarkX reactor, they are approaching ‘Sigma 5’ levels of reliability. I asked Rossi what this meant in terms of the QuarkX. He replied:

Andrea Rossi
October 10, 2016 at 9:09 AM
Frank Acland:
In a nutshell, 5 Sigma is reached when the probabilities that an event happens the same way are very high ( 99.9999% ).
To have a detailed description of the calculus of Sigma 5 I suggest to google “Sigma 5 in Physics”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Another reader, Daniel G. Zavela, followed up with this question:

I am trying to understand how you measure your test results toward the 5- Sigma level?
“When physicists announce that they have a 5-sigma result, that means that there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance that it was the result of a statistical fluctuation over the spectrum of experiments they performed.”

In the case of the QuarkX cell are you measuring how many successful On/Off results you get with a single cell? Or are you measuring how many cells that you have made show a successful result?

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
October 10, 2016 at 9:26 PM
Daniel G. Zavela:
We have taken in consideration many parameters and calculated the integrals of their operation, so that we got millions of data. Then we calculated the probabilities of error coming from these data. From these calculations we have the Sigma.
Right now ( 10.20 P.M.) I am working with the Quarks and I am sure that my sensation that we are very close to Sigma 5 has good ground.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

It’s interesting to me that Rossi is thinking of the results of QuarkX testing in terms of Sigma, which is basically a measure of the level of confidence that something is not a mistake. When Rossi is talking to people about his QuarkX or E-Cat there are obviously going to be skeptical and/or cautious responses, so I guess he is wanting find a way to quantify a level of confidence in his technology based on collected data. Maybe Sigma 5 is a specific goal they have set in the R&D phase they are currently in, or that someone has set for them.

• clovis ray

Hi Frank.
I think,if you build lets say a new type motor, so if you switch it on,and it runs for a while, and stops
you try again, same results, the sigma 5 , has only been, established, but with little progress, With some adjustment , you try again and it does not stop for a year, then you are very close to the sigma 5 or the desired effect is realized.
Now that’s just the way i see it, probably wrong but it works for me.
P.S. When this procedure is observed, no information about the actual device need be given.
only where along the line it is, toward complete success.

• Christoph

I always interpreted it from an engineering perspective as in the known 6 Sigma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma Perhaps Rossi and his team feel the five sigma level is more than adequate for a successful product launch.

• Ged

For a first gen, it should be quite adequate, if there are no catastrophic safety concerns for that rare defective part (seems the case so far).

Wonder what sigma Samsung was using for its Galaxy Note 7 batteries. Not a high enough one!

• Christoph

I always interpreted it from an engineering perspective as in the known 6 Sigma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma Perhaps Rossi and his team feel the five sigma level is more than adequate for a successful product launch.

• Ged

For a first gen, it should be quite adequate, if there are no catastrophic safety concerns for that rare defective part (seems the case so far).

Wonder what sigma Samsung was using for its Galaxy Note 7 batteries. Not a high enough one, that’s for sure!

• Steve D

May be the battery symptoms point to a severe case of undiagnosed LENR?

• Bob

Sigma is not really a level of confidence that something is not a mistake. It is a statistical measurement of how the process is under control.
.
For example, 5 sigma is widely used in the automotive industry. A manufacturer has to show that the production line is 5 sigma capable, meaning that the manufacturing process has shown the statistical ability that only 99.9999% of the products made are to the specified tolerance. The process is then monitored using tools such as Xbar and R charts showing the trend of the process. If the process falls out of a certain sigma range, then the process must be retooled or maintained, so that the odds of a bad product are again decreased.
.
In many industries, one must monitor the manufacturing process to show it is “X” sigma capable (often 4 or 5) which means the likely hood of a bad component is almost nil.
.
There is a “Six Sigma” nomenclature that relates to the entire business model. It includes design but also customer requirements etc. I certainly think this is not what Rossi is indicating.
.
I am unsure of what Rossi is measuring in reference to his “Sigma 5” claim. Most organizations that give certification of this type, certify the manufacturing process. Since there is no mass manufacturing process yet, it is not related to that. I.E, in most cases, it is the manufacturing process that is sigma rated, not the product itself.
.
When one is applying statistical methods to whether a product attribute is seen because of the product design or some random input or error, one normally uses the term Signal to Noise ratio, not so much sigma. If you Google “Sigma certification”, you will see much on “Six Sigma” which does not match what is discussed here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
.
I do not really understand what Rossi is talking about. Much like with safety certifications, to obtain one, it is the manufacturing process that gets certified as much as it is the product. I.E. can you make/build 1,000,000 units and only 1 be defective.
.
We will not see any “certification” by an agency on this. So far, similar to the proclaimed safety certification, it is much ado about nothing.

• Gerard McEk

I would not be surprised that AR is also testing a QuarkX production robot. In that case (another) sigma 5 is relevant.

I interpret it in this way: AR changes multiple design parameters one by one and he tests the stability (safety) of the resulting LENR process. When he finds an area (‘integrated over all relevant parameters’) where he is sure no instability takes place once in a million times, 5 sigma is found and his goal is reached: He defines the setting of each parameter for the top of the standard deviation curve. He defines the maximum fault that is allowed for it and then he is sure the QuarkX will always operate safely when this can be accomplished in a production process.

• Bob

Sigma is not really a level of confidence that something is not a mistake. It is a statistical measurement of how the process is under control.
.
For example, 5 sigma is widely used in the automotive industry. A manufacturer has to show that the production line is 5 sigma capable, meaning that the manufacturing process has shown the statistical ability that only 99.9999% of the products made are to the specified tolerance. The process is then monitored using tools such as Xbar and R charts showing the trend of the process. If the process falls out of a certain sigma range, then the process must be retooled or maintained, so that the odds of a bad product are again decreased.
.
In many industries, one must monitor the manufacturing process to show it is “X” sigma capable (often 4 or 5) which means the likely hood of a bad component is almost nil.
.
There is a “Six Sigma” nomenclature that relates to the entire business model. It includes design but also customer requirements etc. I certainly think this is not what Rossi is indicating.
.
I am unsure of what Rossi is measuring in reference to his “Sigma 5” claim. Most organizations that give certification of this type, certify the manufacturing process. Since there is no mass manufacturing process yet, it is not related to that. I.E, in most cases, it is the manufacturing process that is sigma rated, not the product itself.
.
When one is applying statistical methods to whether a product attribute is seen because of the product design or some random input or error, one normally uses the term Signal to Noise ratio, not so much sigma. If you Google “Sigma certification”, you will see much on “Six Sigma” which does not match what is discussed here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
.
I do not really understand what Rossi is talking about. Much like with safety certifications, to obtain one, it is the manufacturing process that gets certified as much as it is the product. I.E. can you make/build 1,000,000 units and only 1 be defective.
.
We will not see any “certification” by an agency on this. So far, similar to the proclaimed safety certification, it is much ado about nothing.

• Gerard McEk

I would not be surprised that AR is also testing a QuarkX production robot. In that case (another) sigma 5 is relevant.

I interpret it in this way: AR changes multiple design parameters one by one and he tests the stability (safety) of the resulting LENR process. When he finds an area (‘integrated over all relevant parameters’) where he is sure no instability takes place once in a million times, 5 sigma is found and his goal is reached: He defines the setting of each parameter for the top of the standard deviation curve. He defines the maximum fault that is allowed for it and then he is sure the QuarkX will always operate safely when this can be accomplished in a production process.

• Bob

Your suggestion certainly is a logical design approach, but I believe it is normally called signal to noise. Obtaining a sigma capability means making many measurements against a set standard and calculating standard deviations from the normal bell curve. To calculate the sigma, one plots on an XBar and R chart to see what the deviation is and thus projects the sigma capability. I am sure Rossi has not built millions of Quarks nor made millions of changes. That would seem unlikely.
It sounds much like signal to noise, but he is using the Sigma terminology. If he is calculating Sigma as is normally done, he would not be making design changes, but using an established design and a single unit on a batch of same design units, do testing such as starting and stopping them. Measuring the start up times for example. Or possibly the COP for each startup and run time. Then plot this out to see how the standard deviations fall and thus calculate Sigma capability.
Again, one will never get a “certification” on this type of testing. But it may be possible to calculate some type of “sigma capability”. However it would not be in the normal sense it is used in.
Again, it is a bit of a red herring. No certification will come from any agency nor standard as there is none applicable and this really is meaningless based upon the information we currently have.
I find it a distraction that means nothing. Kind of a “forum fodder”. I would much rather hear from the customer Rossi says has tested the Quark with such satisfaction. OR from the customer that purchased (3) additional 1mw plants.
A simple acknowledgment from them would be 1,000 times more meaningful than applying a quasi nonsense term such as “sigma 5”. 🙁

• interstellar hobo

five 9’s means it’s essentially ready for market

• interstellar hobo

five 9’s means it’s essentially ready for market

• bfast

All I know is that I do not have sigma 5 confidence that a device I purchase in the store will turn on when plugged in. If Rossi has truly achieved sigma 5, I’ll happily open my pocketbook to purchase “works every time” quarkXs.

• Bob

This is correct. I meant to add in my post below the following thought…
.
If Rossi has only a “3 Sigma” capable QuarkX, that means it works (to what ever standard he is stating he is measuring against) 99.7% of the time. I.E. If he builds 100 units, less than 1 would not work correctly! That would be a slam dunk in proving the QuarkX works.
.
5 Sigma is 99.9999% on that only 1 in 1,744,299 units might not work.
.
Meeting 5 Sigma is exponentially more difficult than 3 Sigma, yet a 3 sigma rating would be a thousands times more than any demonstrated LENR device. As bfast states, most devices are not 5 sigma rated. You can buy any number of electrical heaters at Walmart that are not as such.
.
Almost all do have a UL certification however…..that is what Rossi should be working on!
But that requires UL conducting tests on a unit at their facility and without Rossi present. UL conducts safety certificaton tests at their testing laboratories, not at the manufacturer’s site. Unfortunately, I do not think this will not happen. 🙁

• nkonyaman

Your last sentence has a double negative. I think you mean:
Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen.
Or
Unfortunately, I think this will not happen.

• cashmemorz

Or is using Polish notation of sets wher a double negative just confirms the first. As in: “Nope, it ain’t working yet.” -or- “Yep, it is working now.”

• bfast

All I know is that I do not have sigma 5 confidence that a device I purchase in the store will turn on when plugged in. If Rossi has truly achieved sigma 5, I’ll happily open my pocketbook to purchase “works every time” quarkXs.

• Bob

This is correct. I meant to add in my post below the following thought…
.
If Rossi has only a “3 Sigma” capable QuarkX, that means it works (to what ever standard he is stating he is measuring against) 99.7% of the time. I.E. If he builds 100 units, less than 1 would not work correctly! That would be a slam dunk in proving the QuarkX works.
.
5 Sigma is 99.9999% on that only 1 in 1,744,299 units might not work.
.
Meeting 5 Sigma is exponentially more difficult than 3 Sigma, yet a 3 sigma rating would be a thousands times more than any demonstrated LENR device. As bfast states, most devices are not 5 sigma rated. You can buy any number of electrical heaters at Walmart that are not as such.
.
Almost all do have a UL certification however…..that is what Rossi should be working on!
But that requires UL conducting tests on a unit at their facility and without Rossi present. UL conducts safety certificaton tests at their testing laboratories, not at the manufacturer’s site. Unfortunately, I do not think this will not happen. 🙁

• nkonyaman

Your last sentence has a double negative. I think you mean:
Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen.
Or
Unfortunately, I think this will not happen.

• Bob

Ooops! You are correct. Thanks. Sometimes my typing fingers are ahead (or behind) my thinking!.
In any case, this subject is a bit of “forum fodder”. I think it is detracting from the really important questions, like who is the customer and what are their measurements!

• cashmemorz

Or is using Polish notation of sets wher a double negative just confirms the first. As in: “Nope, it ain’t working yet.” -or- “Yep, it is working now.”

• Ophelia Rump

The sigma is generally used in manufacturing, referring to the proportion of defective product coming off the line. Is there a production line for the QuarkX?

• Ciaranjay

Some web sites say 5 sigma amounts to one in 3.5 million.
So at face value he should have made 3,500,000 units and one is a fail.
So that would sound like a production line.
But judging by previous experience I suspect this is not what he means.

• Ged

For any new product, it is always just a statistical estimate (fancy ways to do that based on simulated hours and parts etc) till real world production reaches that point. Ford doesn’t make 3.5 million truck prototypes just to find out if they are at a 5 sigma production quality or not before selling a truck.

• Ophelia Rump

I don’t think he has a finalized production line yet. I think he is referring to his estimates of the degree of control he has over the variables of the reaction. Not the reliability of the manufactured product. If that is true then Dottore Rossi has mastered all the variables.

Not just theoretically, but also in real world implementation.

• Ophelia Rump

The sigma is generally used in manufacturing, referring to the proportion of defective product coming off the line. Is there a production line for the QuarkX?

• Ciaranjay

Some web sites say 5 sigma amounts to one in 3.5 million.
So at face value he should have made 3,500,000 units and one is a fail.
So that would sound like a production line.
But judging by previous experience I suspect this is not what he means.

• Ged

For any new product, it is always just a statistical estimate (fancy ways to do that during empirical prototype testing based on simulated hours and parts etc) till real world production reaches that point. Ford doesn’t make 3.5 million truck prototypes just to find out if they are at a 5 sigma production quality or not before selling a truck.

• Ophelia Rump

I don’t think he has a finalized production line yet. I think he is referring to his estimates of the degree of control he has over the variables of the reaction. Not the reliability of the manufactured product. If that is true then Dottore Rossi has mastered all the variables, not just theoretically, but also in real world implementation.

Now if he will only bring this to market. Surely with 5 Sigma he must be now in process of ordering and setting up the factory.

• LuFong

I suspect a lot of money is riding on achieving Five Sigma level performance.

• Brokeeper

I’m relieved to know the airplane I flew on a couple of weeks ago was based on six sigma standards.

• Brokeeper

I’m relieved to know the airplanes we fly are based on six sigma standards.

• Zephir

99.9999% reliability implies, they did 1.000.000 experiments already, which I seriously doubt.

• Andrew

Rossi is saying that he is collecting millions of data points. All confirming the ecats operation. The problem is, what is the interval between measurements?

• Zephir

99.9999% reliability implies, they did 1.000.000 experiments already, which I seriously doubt.

• Andrew

Rossi is saying that he is collecting millions of data points. All confirming the ecats operation. The problem is, what is the interval between measurements?

• Mike

Rossi writes that they have calculated the operation and got millions of data from which they calculated the sigma. Millions of data is simple to calculate and I don’t get the idea of calculating the operation and get some kind och confidence level. Calculated data is not the same as observed data……

• wizkid

5 sigma appears to be reserved for scientists to describe their level of confidence in the data found in their results, FOR A NEW PHENOMENA THAT THEY HAVE DISCOVERED. Sigma 6, however, is a manufacturing standard, that helps manufacturers make more money by making higher quality products, no matter how bad they want to do the opposite! Ha ha to manufacturers, hooray for inventors that discover new realms in science!

• wizkid

5 sigma appears to be reserved for scientists to describe their level of confidence in the data found in their results, FOR A NEW PHENOMENA THAT THEY HAVE DISCOVERED. Sigma 6, however, is a manufacturing standard, that helps manufacturers make more money by making higher quality products, no matter how bad they want to do the opposite! Ha ha to manufacturers, hooray for inventors that discover new realms in science!

• Gittyup

He isn’t referring to manufacturing. What he is referring to his theoretical confidence in the reaction. Essentially saying he has complete control of the inputs and expected outputs.

Many theoretical physicists use Sigma to decribe the confidence level of results. For example if they smash 2 particles together and the result is 5 sigma confidence level it means the result can only be the result of randomness or other variables 1 in 3.5M. Therefore proving their hypothesis.

• Sigma computing:

1 point each second for each QuarkX * ( 1 MW / 20 W ) * 86400 S/day * 365 j/1 year > 10^12 data points. For each point : temp°C, it works or fails or diverges.
For all tested QuarkXs how many divergence at each temp°C, at each heating current, for which composition of each reactor ? Which result if 1 QuarkX diverges ?
Then Sigma 5 or 6 are calculable with enough confidence. And that is probably a main point for the certification.

• sam

A Goumy
October 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Mr Rossi,
Apart from gamma rays detector, are you using (or did you use) detectors for neutrons or other particles ?

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 6:01 AM
A. Goumy:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Charlotte
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Is it possible that the QuarkX is introduced to the public before the end of the litigation with Cherokee Fund Partners and IH?
Godspeed,

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Charlotte:
It is not impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Reggie Neice
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Andrea:
Do you think that you are close to 5 Sigma also concerning the theory?
Cheers,
RN

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Reggie Neice:
Yes, but it could be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Olaf
October 12, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Does the spectrometer measure the wavelengths inside?

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Olaf:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Tom
October 11, 2016 at 4:47 PM
Mr Rossi:
Can you give us the list of the main instrumentation used to measure the efficiency of the QuarkX?

Andrea Rossi
October 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM
Tom:
Spectrometer, gamma rays detector, PCE 830, thermometers, thermochamber, oscilloscope, plus the usual paraphernalia and a lot of elbow-lubricant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Bob

Reggie Neice
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Andrea:
Do you think that you are close to 5 Sigma also concerning the theory?
Cheers,
RN

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Reggie Neice:
Yes, but it could be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

——
What……?
This is totally an oxymoron! You cannot be “close to 5 Sigma certainty and then say “but it could be wrong”! If you are “close” to 5 Sigma, then you might be 99.999% sure instead of 99.9999% sure. To then state “it could be wrong” is silly. It shows a mis-understanding of Sigma theory or is simply CYA.
This is simply detracting from the much needed customer confirmation.
What do they think and where are their statements? One word from them would be worth more than a forum post stating 10 Sigma was obtained!

• Omega Z

Rossi was responding to his theory, but

Until 5 Sigma is a certainty, you could be wrong. If there’s no chance of being wrong, then you must have already achieved 5 Sigma.

• sam

A Goumy
October 11, 2016 at 10:55 PM
Mr Rossi,
Apart from gamma rays detector, are you using (or did you use) detectors for neutrons or other particles ?

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 6:01 AM
A. Goumy:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Charlotte
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Is it possible that the QuarkX is introduced to the public before the end of the litigation with Cherokee Fund Partners and IH?
Godspeed,

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:59 AM
Charlotte:
It is not impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Reggie Neice
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Andrea:
Do you think that you are close to 5 Sigma also concerning the theory?
Cheers,
RN

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Reggie Neice:
Yes, but it could be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Olaf
October 12, 2016 at 4:59 AM
Does the spectrometer measure the wavelengths inside?

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM
Olaf:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Tom
October 11, 2016 at 4:47 PM
Mr Rossi:
Can you give us the list of the main instrumentation used to measure the efficiency of the QuarkX?

Andrea Rossi
October 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM
Tom:
Spectrometer, gamma rays detector, PCE 830, thermometers, thermochamber, oscilloscope, plus the usual paraphernalia and a lot of elbow-lubricant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Bob

Reggie Neice
October 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM
Andrea:
Do you think that you are close to 5 Sigma also concerning the theory?
Cheers,
RN

Andrea Rossi
October 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM
Reggie Neice:
Yes, but it could be wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

——
What……?
This is totally an oxymoron! You cannot be “close to 5 Sigma certainty and then say “but it could be wrong”! If you are “close” to 5 Sigma, then you might be 99.999% sure instead of 99.9999% sure. To then state “it could be wrong” is silly. It shows a mis-understanding of Sigma theory or is simply CYA.
This is simply detracting from the much needed customer confirmation.
What do they think and where are their statements? One word from them would be worth more than a forum post stating 10 Sigma was obtained!

• Omega Z

Rossi was responding to his theory, but

Until 5 Sigma is a certainty, you could be wrong. If there’s no chance of being wrong, then you must have already achieved 5 Sigma.

• sam

Giuseppe
October 14, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Dear Andrea,
Is the Quark-X intuition and invention a consequence of the better understanding of the theory of the so called “Rossi Effect” and than also a confirmation of it?
Best Regards, Giuseppe

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM
Giuseppe:
Yes.
Warm Regards
A.R.

• sam

Giuseppe
October 14, 2016 at 3:41 AM
Dear Andrea,
Is the Quark-X intuition and invention a consequence of the better understanding of the theory of the so called “Rossi Effect” and than also a confirmation of it?
Best Regards, Giuseppe

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM
Giuseppe:
Yes.
Warm Regards
A.R.

• sam

Eve Klas
October 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Is the electronic control system of the QuarkX similar to the one of the E-Cat?

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:09 PM
Eve Klas:
No.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rhames
October 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM
Is it possible that the official presentation of the QuarkX will be made around February 2017?

Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Rhames:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Pierre
October 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When you will introduce the QuarkX will you also explain the theory of the Rossi Effect?
Thanks,
Pierre

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:04 PM
Pierre:
It is possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Vince
October 16, 2016 at 6:12 AM
Mr Rossi,
Will the introduction of the QuarkX be made with an important presentation and demonstration?
Thank you,
Vince

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Vince:
Yes. F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Translate
Frank Acland
October 16, 2016 at 7:39 AM
Dear Andrea,

Do you consider the QuarkX a version of the E-Cat, or something altogether new?

Best wishes,

Frank Acland

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Frank Acland:
It’s a different animal.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• sam

Eve Klas
October 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Is the electronic control system of the QuarkX similar to the one of the E-Cat?

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:09 PM
Eve Klas:
No.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rhames
October 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM
Is it possible that the official presentation of the QuarkX will be made around February 2017?

Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Rhames:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Pierre
October 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
When you will introduce the QuarkX will you also explain the theory of the Rossi Effect?
Thanks,
Pierre

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 4:04 PM
Pierre:
It is possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Vince
October 16, 2016 at 6:12 AM
Mr Rossi,
Will the introduction of the QuarkX be made with an important presentation and demonstration?
Thank you,
Vince

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 3:50 PM
Vince:
Yes. F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Translate
Frank Acland
October 16, 2016 at 7:39 AM
Dear Andrea,

Do you consider the QuarkX a version of the E-Cat, or something altogether new?

Best wishes,

Frank Acland

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 16, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Frank Acland:
It’s a different animal.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• sam

Giovanni
October 17, 2016 at 4:29 PM
Related to my previous question: have you thought to an interface to the interfaces? I mean to a scalable system that could allow an user to add, for instance, an additional 3 kW system to an already installed one.
Ciao
Giovanni

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM
Giovanni:
The QuarkX is very easy to be integrated in a heat exchange system, due to its dimensions and characteristics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Giovanni
October 17, 2016 at 4:16 PM
Dear Andrea

I suppose the main utilization of your Quark(x) will be as a heath generator. How do you think to connect a multiple configuration of quark(x) (100, 1000, etc) to a usable system (a steam generator and than an electricity generator)?. Have you already engineered an interface of some sort? Possibly a flexible and MODULAR interface, capable of connecting different amount of Quark(x) devices. An interface that should also act as a screen to the high temperatures developed by the Quark(x) system.

Looking forward to hearing great news from you!

Ciao
Giovanni

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 4:56 PM
Giovanni:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Peter Gluck
October 17, 2016 at 2:36 PM
Dear Andrea,,

Link to my blog issue today
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-17-2016-lenr-info-do-not-use-rossi.html

I hope we started a very good week

peter

akk the best,

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 2:54 PM
Peter Gluck:
Warm Regards
A.R.

Tom Conover
October 17, 2016 at 1:38 PM
Hi Andrea,

I am wondering today if you will share your “N” with us today as it is in QuarkX(N). I am hoping your testing has started to study integration of multiple units. How many can you connect as of today, please?

I also want to thank you for your personal encouragement to me on July 17th, 2016 to continue testing (possibly using Li7). It’s taken me three months since then, but I did get a flicker using Ni/LAH/Li7 for fuel, inconclusive at best, but inspiring never the less. Some graphs are shown below, 9 pages, the last 5 pages are the graphs:

Thank you! Especially if you can share your “N” with us today!

Tom

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 2:21 PM
Tom Conover:
I suppose that with “N” you mean the number of QuarkX that can be put in parallel. Honestly, the number is infinite. It is like to ask how many fuses I can put in parallel. There is not a limit for what concerns the QuarkX, while, obviously, there is a limit put by the confined system of the plant the Quarks are referred to. For example, to put in parallel one million QuarkX with a robotized line could take several weeks.
Thank you for your sustain and good luck for your replication attempts,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Wilson
October 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I think the Quarkx, as you described it, is easy to be put in a jet engine.
Am I correct?

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:43 PM
Wilson:
We are working also on that issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Alessandro Coppi
October 17, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Hi Andrea,
the shape of the quarkX suggests that you resolved the issue of the heater, I’m confident that the body of the quarkX is itself an heater, probably supplied with a very low voltage, congratulations for the vision, in this manner the reliability is certainly improved dramatically.

Best regards
Alessandro Coppi

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Alessandro Coppi:
Thank you for your attention to our work,
Wam Regards,
A.R.

Mia McMullin
October 16, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Andrea Rossi:
When you will show the Quarkx should be interesting to see it in operation in parallel with a dummy.

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Mia McMullin:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Max
October 17, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Daily update?
All the best
Max

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:41 PM
Max:
The QuarkX is continuing her fantastic path, so far, F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• sam

Giovanni
October 17, 2016 at 4:29 PM
Related to my previous question: have you thought to an interface to the interfaces? I mean to a scalable system that could allow an user to add, for instance, an additional 3 kW system to an already installed one.
Ciao
Giovanni

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM
Giovanni:
The QuarkX is very easy to be integrated in a heat exchange system, due to its dimensions and characteristics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Giovanni
October 17, 2016 at 4:16 PM
Dear Andrea

I suppose the main utilization of your Quark(x) will be as a heath generator. How do you think to connect a multiple configuration of quark(x) (100, 1000, etc) to a usable system (a steam generator and than an electricity generator)?. Have you already engineered an interface of some sort? Possibly a flexible and MODULAR interface, capable of connecting different amount of Quark(x) devices. An interface that should also act as a screen to the high temperatures developed by the Quark(x) system.

Looking forward to hearing great news from you!

Ciao
Giovanni

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 4:56 PM
Giovanni:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Peter Gluck
October 17, 2016 at 2:36 PM
Dear Andrea,,

Link to my blog issue today
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-17-2016-lenr-info-do-not-use-rossi.html

I hope we started a very good week

peter

akk the best,

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 2:54 PM
Peter Gluck:
Warm Regards
A.R.

Tom Conover
October 17, 2016 at 1:38 PM
Hi Andrea,

I am wondering today if you will share your “N” with us today as it is in QuarkX(N). I am hoping your testing has started to study integration of multiple units. How many can you connect as of today, please?

I also want to thank you for your personal encouragement to me on July 17th, 2016 to continue testing (possibly using Li7). It’s taken me three months since then, but I did get a flicker using Ni/LAH/Li7 for fuel, inconclusive at best, but inspiring never the less. Some graphs are shown below, 9 pages, the last 5 pages are the graphs:

Thank you! Especially if you can share your “N” with us today!

Tom

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 2:21 PM
Tom Conover:
I suppose that with “N” you mean the number of QuarkX that can be put in parallel. Honestly, the number is infinite. It is like to ask how many fuses I can put in parallel. There is not a limit for what concerns the QuarkX, while, obviously, there is a limit put by the confined system of the plant the Quarks are referred to. For example, to put in parallel one million QuarkX with a robotized line could take several weeks.
Thank you for your sustain and good luck for your replication attempts,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Wilson
October 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I think the Quarkx, as you described it, is easy to be put in a jet engine.
Am I correct?

Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:43 PM
Wilson:
We are working also on that issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Alessandro Coppi
October 17, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Hi Andrea,
the shape of the quarkX suggests that you resolved the issue of the heater, I’m confident that the body of the quarkX is itself an heater, probably supplied with a very low voltage, congratulations for the vision, in this manner the reliability is certainly improved dramatically.

Best regards
Alessandro Coppi

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Alessandro Coppi:
Thank you for your attention to our work,
Wam Regards,
A.R.

Mia McMullin
October 16, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Andrea Rossi:
When you will show the Quarkx should be interesting to see it in operation in parallel with a dummy.

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Mia McMullin:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Max
October 17, 2016 at 5:04 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Daily update?
All the best
Max

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 17, 2016 at 12:41 PM
Max:
The QuarkX is continuing her fantastic path, so far, F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• sam

Hank Mills
October 19, 2016 at 2:57 PM
Dear Andrea,

1) If the Quark is approaching Sigma 5, would I be correct by stating that the various low/high temp ordinary E-Cats have already reached Sigma 6?

2) If you do a demonstration of the Quark, to keep the power input measurements as simple as possible, would you provide all input power (for both the active and control units) from a large battery or other DC source? Measuring DC power is extremely straight forward and the cynics wouldn’t be able to mount any sort of pretend argument. Since the input power to the Quark is so small, for such a test a commonly available battery would have the needed capacity. Of course to get the needed voltage, you might have to use several of them.

3) For measuring the electrical output power of both active and control, would you be willing to run it through a rectifier to produce straight DC power?

4) If we can expect twenty watts of output for .5 watts of drive (probably after an initial heat up period), the temperature between the two reactors should be easily discernible. I’m thinking the active reactor might be visibly glowing while the dummy is not. Is this possible?

5) Will you use a thermocouple on each Quark?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Hank

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:28 PM
Hank Mills:
The presentation will be defined in due time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Svein Henrik
October 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM
Dear Andrea.
Taking F8 and the not finished R&D in consideration, what is now your best estimated minimum and maximum live time (in month is ok) for the QuarkX under the following conditions?
2. Full load for 12 hours/day?
3. Full load for 2 hours/day?
4. Resting turned off?

Best regards: Svein Henrik

Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:26 PM
Svein Henrik:
charge: one year 24/7, more in proportion if hours are less.
Body: 20 years
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
October 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Dear Andrea,

Based on your comments here recently I am trying to get a clearer picture of what is going on at Leonardo Corp. currently, and what might be going on in the future.

1. You mention that your goal is to reach 5 sigma. Is this the focus of your work at the moment?
2. Is 5 sigma a goal your partner has a requirement for, before a new level of support is provided?
3. The demonstration/presentation you talk about: Will this only happen if 5 sigma is reached?
4. Do you think reaching 5 sigma will trigger mass production of the QuarkX reactors?
5. Is 5 sigma connected also with the low temperature E-Cat plants?

Thank you very much,

Frank Acland

3. l

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Tom Conover
October 19, 2016 at 4:02 PM
Dear Andrea,

You treat many of us like family. Your generosity is beyond measure, and difficult for me to understand after the difficult experiences you have faced during your life.

You warm my heart!

Tom

Galatians 5:22-23 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

You get a score of 9 out of 9, Andrea!

Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Tom Conover:
You all ARE family to my Team and me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• sam

Hank Mills
October 19, 2016 at 2:57 PM
Dear Andrea,

1) If the Quark is approaching Sigma 5, would I be correct by stating that the various low/high temp ordinary E-Cats have already reached Sigma 6?

2) If you do a demonstration of the Quark, to keep the power input measurements as simple as possible, would you provide all input power (for both the active and control units) from a large battery or other DC source? Measuring DC power is extremely straight forward and the cynics wouldn’t be able to mount any sort of pretend argument. Since the input power to the Quark is so small, for such a test a commonly available battery would have the needed capacity. Of course to get the needed voltage, you might have to use several of them.

3) For measuring the electrical output power of both active and control, would you be willing to run it through a rectifier to produce straight DC power?

4) If we can expect twenty watts of output for .5 watts of drive (probably after an initial heat up period), the temperature between the two reactors should be easily discernible. I’m thinking the active reactor might be visibly glowing while the dummy is not. Is this possible?

5) Will you use a thermocouple on each Quark?

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Hank

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:28 PM
Hank Mills:
The presentation will be defined in due time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Svein Henrik
October 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM
Dear Andrea.
Taking F8 and the not finished R&D in consideration, what is now your best estimated minimum and maximum live time (in month is ok) for the QuarkX under the following conditions?
2. Full load for 12 hours/day?
3. Full load for 2 hours/day?
4. Resting turned off?

Best regards: Svein Henrik

Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:26 PM
Svein Henrik:
charge: one year 24/7, more in proportion if hours are less.
Body: 20 years
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
October 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Dear Andrea,

Based on your comments here recently I am trying to get a clearer picture of what is going on at Leonardo Corp. currently, and what might be going on in the future.

1. You mention that your goal is to reach 5 sigma. Is this the focus of your work at the moment?
2. Is 5 sigma a goal your partner has a requirement for, before a new level of support is provided?
3. The demonstration/presentation you talk about: Will this only happen if 5 sigma is reached?
4. Do you think reaching 5 sigma will trigger mass production of the QuarkX reactors?
5. Is 5 sigma connected also with the low temperature E-Cat plants?

Thank you very much,

Frank Acland

3. l

Translate
Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Tom Conover
October 19, 2016 at 4:02 PM
Dear Andrea,

You treat many of us like family. Your generosity is beyond measure, and difficult for me to understand after the difficult experiences you have faced during your life.

You warm my heart!

Tom

Galatians 5:22-23 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

You get a score of 9 out of 9, Andrea!

Andrea Rossi
October 19, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Tom Conover:
You all ARE family to my Team and me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.