Rossi Interview in Italian Elements Magazine (Update: English Translation — Rossi Claims COP of 200 or More)

Vessela Nikolova has published a post on her ‘E-Cat, The New Fire’ website that reports about some news from Italy regarding LENR. One item is that ENEA is sponsoring a seminar about LENR, and another is about a new interview with Andrea Rossi publishes in the Italian magazine Elements.

http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/traveling-towards-5-sigma/

Regarding the interview, Vessela explains:

I also find really interesting that the Manager of Energy Services (GSE) – a major company of the Italian Stock Exchange, controlled by the Italian Ministry of Finance as it provides the incentives for renewable energy – has published in the issue 38 (August-November 2016) of its magazine “Elements” an article entitled “The Cold fusion. From fiction to reality?“, in which Andrea Rossi provides interesting answers during an interview about the E-Cat: the ingredients used, the products of the reactions, and so on. Get it here (pp. 68-70).

Elements is in Italian only, and the formatting makes it unsuitable for copy and paste. I have an Italian friend who says he will provide a translation tomorrow.

UPDATE (Dec 6, 2016)

Thanks to my Italian friend, here is an English translation of the interview with Rossi section of the Elements article:

AR: In a few words, a fluid, usually consisting of water, air, and diathermic oil, is run through a heat exchanger, [and] is heated by contact with a fuel consisting of nickel, lithium hydride and metallic lithium. In the heat exchanging process, the temperature of the fluid rises.

E: What are the characteristics of the E-Cat’s operation? [a better translation would be simply: “how does the E-Cat work?”]

AR: It’s relatively simple. The reactions take place inside a chamber or cell, into which very minute quantities of nickel powder and hydrogen are injected at a given pressure. In order to trigger the fusion reaction between the atoms of the two elements one must heat up the reaction chamber, and supply energy from the outside. The machine transforms an infinitesimal quantity of nickel into copper – the latter being the product of the reaction, together with low-energy gamma rays that heat up the water.

E: Is what underlies the process “cold fusion”?

AR: Calling the process underlying the E-Cat “fusion” is a misnomer. What we’re really talking about is low-energy nuclear reactions. E: What are the advantages compared to a hot fusion reactor?AR: Certainly, the low temperature required (about 1400°C), especially if one compares it with the 1 million degrees necessary to start the process in hot fusion reactors such as the European ITER or the Californian NIF. A fusion at those temperatures, which reproduces the process that takes place in the sun and in all stars, requires extremely complex and expensive technologies (magnetic or inertial confinement).

E: And what are the advantages compared to a “fission” reactor?

AR: When one speaks of nuclear fission plants, the most obvious features that are characteristic of, and cause fear in, the public opinion concern the risk of reactor explosion and radioactive leakage. The E-Cat does not use such materials, therefore the production of radioactivity and the relevant waste do not exist. And if you consider the size of the reactor, the risk of explosion is almost nil.

E: May we define it a “domestic nuclear reactor”?
AR: Absolutely not.

E: May we envision a development of the project and its future commercialization?

AR: What makes the E-Cat revolutionary with respects to the other hitherto existing experimental devices that use palladium and deuterium (like the Fleischmann and Pons model), is the ratio between thermal energy produced and supplied. This ratio is actually 200 to 1, that is, for 1 kWh of supplied electrical power, 200 thermal kilowatt-hours, or more – which may be used for heating, industrial applications, or the production of electrical power – are produced. This envisions a commercial use for this invention.

  • sam

    I wonder if Vessy the psychologist could
    sort the mess out between A.R. and T.D.

  • sam

    I wonder if Vessy the psychologist could
    sort the mess out between A.R. and T.D.

  • sam
  • sam
  • Piero

    Nothing special in the article. At the end however Rossi mentions a COP of 200 (!)

  • Piero

    Nothing special in the article. At the end however Rossi mentions a COP of 200 (!)

  • wpj

    Copper? I thought that was a long forgotten artefact.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, it is strange that AR doesn’t mention lithium. However, we do not know what the fuel ingredients are for the QuarkX….

      • Gerard McEk

        This is the answer:
        December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
        Gerard McEk:
        That interview has been made years ago, but things changed.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Gerard McEk

          The answer is edited later in just: “Things changed”.
          So it must have been a more recent interview!

      • Axil Axil

        Didn’t Rossi say that the quark was covered under his patent? That patent and its updates makes how the Quark works clear as day.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      A strange reply, yes. Sometimes AR just doesn’t concentrate on giving the right answer because he’s thinking about something else. Answering questions is so routine to him… Maybe his mind wandered temporarily to the lawsuit in the middle of the question.
      It could be, of course, that he has changed his mind about the reaction and now thinks (again) that copper is the product. But until he confirms it, I doubt it is the case.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Outputs will depend on conditions, fuel and reactor structure

      • Timar

        Don’t forget that he may intentionally disseminate misleading or wrong information on the effect in order to lead his real or perceived “competitors” astray. I’m pretty sure he has done so in the past.

      • Bob Matulis

        Infinitesimal is immeasurably small

  • wpj

    Copper? I thought that was a long forgotten artefact.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, it is strange that AR doesn’t mention lithium. However, we do not know what the fuel ingredients are for the QuarkX….

      • Gerard McEk

        This is the answer:
        December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
        Gerard McEk:
        That interview has been made years ago, but things changed.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.
        At that time COP of 6 were usual….?

        • Gerard McEk

          The answer is edited later in just: “Things changed”.
          So it must have been a more recent interview!

      • Axil Axil

        Didn’t Rossi say that the quark was covered under his patent? That patent and its updates makes how the Quark works clear as day.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      A strange reply, yes. Sometimes AR just doesn’t concentrate on giving the right answer because he’s thinking about something else. Answering questions is so routine to him… Maybe his mind wandered temporarily to the lawsuit in the middle of the question.
      It could be, of course, that he has changed his mind about the reaction and now thinks (again) that copper is the product. But until he confirms it, I doubt it is the case.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Outputs will depend on conditions, fuel and reactor structure

      • Timar

        Don’t forget that he may intentionally disseminate misleading or wrong information on the effect in order to lead his real or perceived “competitors” astray. I’m pretty sure he has done so in the past.

      • Bob Matulis

        Infinitesimal is immeasurably small

  • Rene

    Quite interesting claims from Rossi:

    1. Not fusion, but some other reaction path
    2. Li et-al, transmutes to Cu
    2. COP 200
    3. Difference between E-Cat and Pd/D devices is the high COP.
    4. low energy gamma is not radioactivity, although here I think what he really meant to say is that there is no long term radiation while the device is off.

  • Rene

    Quite interesting claims from Rossi:

    1. Not fusion, but some other reaction path
    2. Li et-al, transmutes to Cu
    2. COP 200
    3. Difference between E-Cat and Pd/D devices is the high COP.
    4. low energy gamma is not radioactivity, although here I think what he really meant to say is that there is no long term radiation while the device is off.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He says LiH no LiAlH

    • Pekka Janhunen

      A good catch. Another thing to ask confirmation about…

      LiH produces 4 times lower H/Li ratio and no liquid Al. And he says LiH plus lithium metal so that lowers the H/Li ratio further.

      That said, probably more important than the H/Li ratio is the absolute amount of H relative to the size of the chamber and the speed by which Ni absorbs it, because those together define the pressure. Of course, this is all well known.

    • Hank Mills

      I think Rossi meant LiAlH4 when he said lithium hydride. However, I think he didn’t say LiAlH4 because it was a mental slip. I think instead of elemental lithium he uses LiH. The best receipe for this type of E-Cat is LiAlH4, LiH, and nickel. Otherwise, the elemental lithium will compete for hydrogen with the nickel.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I disagree and have explained many times but it is about the melting point

    • Rene

      I recall a conversation between Chapman and SDH harrison 5 months ago where they speculated the cat and mouse reaction as:

      “…6Li+P->7Be(beta decay)->7Li+P->8Be->2Alpha – then Alpha AND Proton bombardment drive stated Ni transmutation chain which is Cat”
      [58Ni->60Ni->61Ni->62Ni<-64Ni.]
      The NiH- reaction is the mouse and Li transmutation sequence is the Cat.

      Full text here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/17/tom-conover-reports-on-replication-efforts/
      The conversation was pointing to the observation that to get a lot of gain, you need one reaction to excite the main cat reaction. Hs this thinking changed?

    • Axil Axil

      IMHO, the lithium is enriched Lithium 7 maybe (99%). The LiAlH is added to keep the reactor from melting down. It is used as a moderator bringing some lithium 6 to the reaction.

      The fuel was enriched in lithium 7 in Lugano at (94%)

  • Bob Greenyer

    He says LiH (with extra Li) not LiAlH – basically what I said to me356 about a year ago, because I felt Al would get in the way (though ed storms thinks that Al is necessary to wet the Li to the Ni)

    • Pekka Janhunen

      A good catch. Another thing to ask confirmation about…

      LiH produces 4 times lower H/Li ratio and no liquid Al. And he says LiH plus lithium metal so that lowers the H/Li ratio further.

      That said, probably more important than the H/Li ratio is the absolute amount of H relative to the size of the chamber and the speed by which Ni absorbs it, because those together define the pressure. Of course, this is all well known.

    • Hank Mills

      I think Rossi meant LiAlH4 when he said lithium hydride. However, I think he didn’t say LiAlH4 because it was a mental slip. I think instead of elemental lithium he uses LiH. The best receipe for this type of E-Cat is LiAlH4, LiH, and nickel. Otherwise, the elemental lithium will compete for hydrogen with the nickel.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I disagree and have explained many times but it is about the melting point

    • Rene

      I recall a conversation between Chapman and SDH harrison 5 months ago where they speculated the cat and mouse reaction as:

      “…6Li+P->7Be(beta decay)->7Li+P->8Be->2Alpha – then Alpha AND Proton bombardment drive stated Ni transmutation chain which is Cat”
      [58Ni->60Ni->61Ni->62Ni<-64Ni.]
      The NiH- reaction is the mouse and Li transmutation sequence is the Cat.

      Full text here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/17/tom-conover-reports-on-replication-efforts/
      The conversation was pointing to the observation that to get a lot of gain, you need one reaction to excite the main cat reaction. Hs this thinking changed?

    • Axil Axil

      IMHO, the lithium is enriched Lithium 7 maybe (99%). The LiAlH is added to keep the reactor from melting down. It is used as a moderator bringing some lithium 6 to the reaction.

      The fuel was enriched in lithium 7 in Lugano at (94%)

  • William D. Fleming

    “In 2019, the reactor will begin to use deuterium instead of hydrogen to produce actual fusion reactions inside the machine, but it won’t be capable of generating more energy than it current requires to run.”

  • Frederic Maillard
  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    December 6, 2016 at 6:58 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I am sure you have read the Italian version of an article in Elements Magazine. This is the link of the English version, published in E-catWorld.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/12/05/rossi-interview-in-italian-elements-magazine/
    Just one question: You mention that copper is the main ash leftover produced by the QuarkX (which I assume you were referring to). Does this mean that lithium is not the main fuel (and heat producing) component in the QuarkX?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    That interview has been made years ago, but things changed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Curioser and curioser… each new answer prompting another question. Is he implying that the interview was not a real interview but the magazine made it up from pieces they found on the net. Because the COP200 thing is not from the copper era.

      • Gerard McEk

        Maybe the magazine should be asked when AR was interviewed?

      • Gerard McEk

        In the answer to question E, also 1400 C is mentioned (but may be added by the translator?). The Hot cat came in 2013 I believe, but COP was not as high as 200 then.

        • Rene

          Rossi talked of very high COPs in the warm cats, but it was unstable, as in uncontrolled thermal excursion event. Back then he settle on COP 6 as the most he could do before exponential reactions occurred. He also mentioned radiation issues, although he later claimed the radiation was a side reaction he managed to remove (no indication what he did to fix that).
          Higher somewhat stable COPs happened post hot-cat.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        “Because the COP200 thing is not from the copper era.”

        Rossi/Focardi reported an average COP > 200 already in 2010. See table 1 (p. 4) in their paper:

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf

        • Axil Axil

          that must be just before meltdown

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Certainly, this was one of the reasons why Rossi reduced the COP to 6 in his commercial prototypes. The other reason might have been radiation issues. So actually it would make sense to distinguish between two types of COP, a ‘safe’ and an ‘experimental’ one.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Good cops and bad cops…

    • bfast

      Thanks, Sam, for clarifying this. It is obvious that the only real value of this article is the fact that a fairly significant independent source published something.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I know that there are a few organisations sitting on interviews, perhaps their feet are now warming up.

    • Frank Acland

      It seems he edited his response now.

      Andrea Rossi
      December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
      Gerard McEk:
      Things changed.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Brokeeper

        Did Rossi remove the “That interview has been made years ago, but…” phrase?

        • sam

          Brokeeper
          December 6, 2016 at 12:53 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          From the recent revealed Vessela interview you answered that the QuarkX has a COP 200. Before the resizing of the QuarkX last September it had an input of .5W with an output of 20W for a COP 40. Is this contributed to by the increase heat transfer coefficient of the QuarkX surface area and/or is it due to other factors? Could you give us some insight for this amazing improvement? Thank you.
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/12/05/rossi-interview-in-italian-elements-magazine/

          Warm Regards,
          Brokeeper

          Translate
          Andrea Rossi
          December 6, 2016 at 4:37 PM
          Brokeeper:
          It is premature talk of the COP of the QuarkX: the R&D is still on course. It is enough, though.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • Brokeeper

            Well it must be true that “That interview has been made years ago”. Stay tuned….

      • Gerard McEk

        Very odd that he now realizes that it was a recent interview (probably based on the 200 COP). I would expect that he could remember what he said to Vessela recently. It is not unthinkable that he incidentally revealed that nickel is now the main fuel (together with hydrogen) that is being consumed. Interesting development!

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    December 6, 2016 at 6:58 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I am sure you have read the Italian version of an article in Elements Magazine. This is the link of the English version, published in E-catWorld.com: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/12/05/rossi-interview-in-italian-elements-magazine/
    Just one question: You mention that copper is the main ash leftover produced by the QuarkX (which I assume you were referring to). Does this mean that lithium is not the main fuel (and heat producing) component in the QuarkX?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    That interview has been made years ago, but things changed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Curioser and curioser… each new answer prompting another question. Is he implying that the interview was not a real interview but the magazine made it up from pieces they found on the net. Because the COP200 thing is not from the copper era.

      • Gerard McEk

        Maybe the magazine should be asked when AR was interviewed?

      • Gerard McEk

        In the answer to question E, also 1400 C is mentioned (but may be added by the translator?). The Hot cat came in 2013 I believe, but COP was not as high as 200 then.

        • Steve D

          AR may have meant a COP up to 200, but in practical terms and for reasons of stability it much less.

        • Rene

          Rossi talked of very high COPs in the warm cats, but it was unstable, as in uncontrolled thermal excursion event. Back then he settle on COP 6 as the most he could do before exponential reactions occurred. He also mentioned radiation issues, although he later claimed the radiation was a side reaction he managed to remove (no indication what he did to fix that).
          Higher somewhat stable COPs happened post hot-cat.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        “Because the COP200 thing is not from the copper era.”

        Rossi/Focardi reported an average COP > 200 already in 2010. See table 1 (p. 4) in their paper:

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf

        • Axil Axil

          that must be just before meltdown

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Certainly, this was one of the reasons why Rossi reduced the COP to 6 in his commercial prototypes. The other reason might have been radiation issues. So actually it would make sense to distinguish between two types of COP, a ‘safe’ and an ‘experimental’ one.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Good cops and bad cops…

    • bfast

      Thanks, Sam, for clarifying this. It is obvious that the only real value of this article is the fact that a fairly significant independent source published something.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I know that there are a few organisations sitting on interviews, perhaps their feet are now warming up.

    • Frank Acland

      It seems he edited his response now.

      Andrea Rossi
      December 6, 2016 at 9:09 AM
      Gerard McEk:
      Things changed.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Brokeeper

        Did Rossi remove the “That interview has been made years ago, but…” phrase? I just asked him a question without this phrase in mind..

        • sam

          Brokeeper
          December 6, 2016 at 12:53 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          From the recent revealed Vessela interview you answered that the QuarkX has a COP 200. Before the resizing of the QuarkX last September it had an input of .5W with an output of 20W for a COP 40. Is this contributed to by the increase heat transfer coefficient of the QuarkX surface area and/or is it due to other factors? Could you give us some insight for this amazing improvement? Thank you.
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/12/05/rossi-interview-in-italian-elements-magazine/

          Warm Regards,
          Brokeeper

          Translate
          Andrea Rossi
          December 6, 2016 at 4:37 PM
          Brokeeper:
          It is premature talk of the COP of the QuarkX: the R&D is still on course. It is enough, though.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • Brokeeper

            Well it must be true that “That interview has been made years ago”. Stay tuned….

      • Gerard McEk

        Very odd that he now realizes that it was a recent interview (probably based on the 200 COP). I would expect that he could remember what he said to Vessela recently. It is not unthinkable that he incidentally revealed that nickel is now the main fuel (together with hydrogen) that is being consumed. Interesting development!

  • bfast

    If you get changes in the isotopes of your reactants, I fail to see why the term “nuclear reaction” doesn’t apply. In my view, if you are getting increase, it is fusion, decrease is fission. It seems, however, that both fusion and fission are happening at the same time. Lithium is being robbed of protons to overpopulate nickel — I think.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Even a a 2000% return on input to output is a minuscule fraction of a percent of the reservoir.
    The fact is that no one knows what rate of discharge is potentially possible.

    If I may make an analogy to water being drained from a swimming pool, COP 200 is a drip which is so slow that it takes almost a year to drain the pool.

    This is not yet even a trickle. It might never be more than a drip, or it could potentially become a fire hose one day.

    • NCY

      Given the stories in the F&P days of reactor vessels randomly burning through the bench and into the floor, id say that there is a pretty good chance that it could eventually become a fire hose. However, is it even worth it? how do you control something with even the COP that Rossi is describing here? The energy input at cop 200 is pretty much negligible, so really the energy density becomes the limiting factor. By all accounts the energy density here is very very high, so high that the heat exchanger becomes the limiting factor.

    • aryth

      You realize that you are talking about a bomb here?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Even a a 2000% return on input to output is a minuscule fraction of a percent of the reservoir.
    The fact is that no one knows what rate of discharge is potentially possible.

    If I may make an analogy to water being drained from a swimming pool, COP 200 is a drip which is so slow that it takes almost a year to drain the pool.

    This is not yet even a trickle. It might never be more than a drip, or it could potentially become a fire hose one day.

    • NCY

      Given the stories in the F&P days of reactor vessels randomly burning through the bench and into the floor, I’d say that there is a pretty good chance that it could eventually become a fire hose. However, is it even worth it? how do you control something with even the COP that Rossi is describing here? The energy input at cop 200 is pretty much negligible, so really the energy density becomes the limiting factor. By all accounts the energy density here is very very high, so high that the heat exchanger becomes the limiting factor.

    • aryth

      You realize that you are talking about a bomb here?

  • artefact

    Scientific American

    “It’s Not Cold Fusion,…But It’s Something”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

  • artefact

    Scientific American

    “It’s Not Cold Fusion,…But It’s Something”
    By Steven B. Krivit, Michael J. Ravnitzky on December 7, 2016

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

  • sam

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 7, 2016 at 8:41 AM
    JPR:
    On our way to Sigma5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Chris
    December 7, 2016 at 8:17 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Is the COP of the QuarkX higher than the COP of all your former products?
    Thanks if you can answer,
    Chris

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 7, 2016 at 8:40 AM
    Chris:
    I think yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      Sidney Crosby
      December 7, 2016 at 4:47 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      Are you still working long hours with your attorneys today, or are you back to working more on the QuarkX?

      Warm Regards,
      S.C.

      Andrea Rossi
      December 7, 2016 at 6:38 PM
      Sidney Crosby:
      Today my time has been dedicated mainly to tha QuarkX, in preparation of an important examen that will be made tomorrow.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Adam Lepczak

    I have an idea/comment to replicators like MFMP.
    Would be possible to place strong rare-earth based/nickel plated set of magnets in proximity of the “reaction chamber” but far away enough for them not to reach the Curie point?
    When Rossi started experiments in circa 2005 + is when the strong neodymium magnets became widely available. Its probably nothing but maybe something….

  • sam

    Christian
    December 8, 2016 at 8:57 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you tell us more abut the test on course today with the QuarkX?
    Thank you,
    Christian

    Andrea Rossi
    December 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM
    Christian:
    It is a measurement made by a third party: it is confirming our data so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Brokeeper

      ” …he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA.”

      • sam

        How do you no that?
        Thanks

        • Brokeeper

          Perhaps I should have copied all the comments. Here they are:

          Frank Acland
          December 8, 2016 at 4:02 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          It’s interesting to learn about a third party visit to test the QuarkX.

          1. Is this third party a potential customer or partner?
          2. What was tested, and how long did the test take?
          3. What has been their response to what they have witnessed?
          4. What do you think will be impact on commercialization of your technology?

          Many thanks,

          Frank Acland

          Andrea Rossi
          December 8, 2016 at 4:20 PM
          Frank Acland:
          1- no, he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA
          2- is on course a three days test of the COP and the stability, which means reliability
          3- so far so good ( hoping this is not a case in analogy with the guy arrived at the height of the 3rd floor after falling from the 10th floor )
          4- substantial
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

    • sam

      Ron Stringer
      December 8, 2016 at 5:43 PM
      Dr. Rossi, some people might have concerns about being involved with the military, clearly you do not feel this way. Obviously they can contribute enormously to the development of your reactors, though they might introduce complexities such as secrecy. What is your opinion on working with the military? Do you see them as simply customers like any other?

      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:26 PM
      Ron Stringer:
      The engineer who is working with us is not a customer, he is a very skilled man from whom I am learning and that is making a fantastic job with the measurements.
      I prefer military engineers, because their preparation is superior in average.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Frank Acland
      December 8, 2016 at 5:56 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      Thank you for your responses — very interesting.

      I hope that the military will not seek to have exclusive access to your products. Do you think that is a possibility?

      Kind regards,

      Frank Acland

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:20 PM
      Frank Acland:
      No.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Hank Mills
      December 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      1 – Do you trust this third party individual implicitly and whole heartedly?

      2 – Will this individual witness the construction of the Quark (s) that are too be tested?

      3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison?

      4 – Will he be informed as to the fuel composition of the Quark?

      5 – Will he only be testing for thermal output or also electrical?

      6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video?

      7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative?

      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:19 PM
      Hank Mills:
      1- yes
      2- yes
      3- useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable
      4- no
      5- thermal
      6- no
      7- no: it is internal
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • sam

    Christian
    December 8, 2016 at 8:57 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you tell us more abut the test on course today with the QuarkX?
    Thank you,
    Christian

    Andrea Rossi
    December 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM
    Christian:
    It is a measurement made by a third party: it is confirming our data so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Brokeeper

      ” …he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA.”

      • sam

        How do you no that?
        Thanks

        • Brokeeper

          Perhaps I should have copied all the comments. Here they are:

          Frank Acland
          December 8, 2016 at 4:02 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          It’s interesting to learn about a third party visit to test the QuarkX.

          1. Is this third party a potential customer or partner?
          2. What was tested, and how long did the test take?
          3. What has been their response to what they have witnessed?
          4. What do you think will be impact on commercialization of your technology?

          Many thanks,

          Frank Acland

          Andrea Rossi
          December 8, 2016 at 4:20 PM
          Frank Acland:
          1- no, he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA
          2- is on course a three days test of the COP and the stability, which means reliability
          3- so far so good ( hoping this is not a case in analogy with the guy arrived at the height of the 3rd floor after falling from the 10th floor )
          4- substantial
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

        • Observer

          know

    • sam

      Ron Stringer
      December 8, 2016 at 5:43 PM
      Dr. Rossi, some people might have concerns about being involved with the military, clearly you do not feel this way. Obviously they can contribute enormously to the development of your reactors, though they might introduce complexities such as secrecy. What is your opinion on working with the military? Do you see them as simply customers like any other?

      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:26 PM
      Ron Stringer:
      The engineer who is working with us is not a customer, he is a very skilled man from whom I am learning and that is making a fantastic job with the measurements.
      I prefer military engineers, because their preparation is superior in average.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Frank Acland
      December 8, 2016 at 5:56 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      Thank you for your responses — very interesting.

      I hope that the military will not seek to have exclusive access to your products. Do you think that is a possibility?

      Kind regards,

      Frank Acland

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:20 PM
      Frank Acland:
      No.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Hank Mills
      December 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      1 – Do you trust this third party individual implicitly and whole heartedly?

      2 – Will this individual witness the construction of the Quark (s) that are too be tested?

      3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison?

      4 – Will he be informed as to the fuel composition of the Quark?

      5 – Will he only be testing for thermal output or also electrical?

      6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video?

      7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative?

      Andrea Rossi
      December 8, 2016 at 8:19 PM
      Hank Mills:
      1- yes
      2- yes
      3- useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable
      4- no
      5- thermal
      6- no
      7- no: it is internal
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

    • interstellar hobo

      A third party or Rossi’s definition of third party?

  • Observer

    Again, from an undisclosed location, with unsubstantiated results, in his mysterious massive robotic factory, “Rossi Claims”. Think about that for a minute and let it sink in. You people are members of a cult. AND I am a former a cult member! Snap out of it!

    • Curtis Sherwood

      LOL

  • Observer

    Hey e-cat moderators, you’re as crazy as s**t house rats to believe this nonsense anymore. Now take this down too!

  • Observer

    You’re worshiping a con-man. Been here for the duration. So as the scales finally fall from my eyes, I have to admit that Krivit, as much as I might have once hated him, was absolutely spot on.

  • Observer

    How do you justify the censorship of dissent when you howl about the suppression of Andrea Rossi by the scientific establishment? Randell Mills will soon make this little mutual admiration society irrelevant.

  • Observer

    Oh, and by the way, fuck you.