Rossi: US Military Engineer Performing Third Party Testing on the QuarkX

Andrea Rossi has been posting on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about some new testing that has been taking place at Leonardo laboratory. Here are some of the comments and Q&As from the JONP about the testing.

Q: Can you tell us more abut the test on course today with the QuarkX? AR: It is a measurement made by a third party: it is confirming our data so far.

1. Is this third party a potential customer or partner? AR: no, he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA.

2. What was tested, and how long did the test take? AR: is on course a three days test of the COP and the stability, which means reliability

3. What has been their response to what they have witnessed? AR: 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. What do you think will be impact on commercialization of your technology? AR: substantial

Q: 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? AR: 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.

Q: I hope that the military will not seek to have exclusive access to your products. Do you think that is a possibility? AR: no

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

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

3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison? AR: useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable

4 – Will he be informed as to the fuel composition of the Quark? AR: no

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

6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video? AR: no

7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative? AR: no: internal

Q: Is the military engineer the same person who came to see you previously, and who helped you solve the problem with the QuarkX reactors overheating? I recall he was from California. AR: No, this one is another and I work with both of them.

As usual, we have only the report from Rossi here, and we should make of this what we will. This third party testing is apparently only for internal purposes, so we are unlikely to ever see a report come out of this. An internal third-party test from a military engineer could be useful for Leonardo to have on hand for marketing purposes, even if it was made available on an NDA basis.

  • artefact

    I guess it is Domenico Fioravanti.
    Probably they test the COP after many month of operation.

    • Gerard McEk

      I wouldn’t want to check the COP if I weren’t able to ensure the rightness of the electrical power readings as well.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I think he meant they will not be measuring electrical output.

        You can’t measure COP without knowing the input value, that would be a NULL test.
        The other engineers would laugh at him vigorously.

    • Let me guess: In the end it’s a retired military engineer in the mid 70’s who currently has nothing to do anything with the military. But it sounds good.

  • artefact

    I guess it is Domenico Fioravanti.
    Probably they test the COP after many month of operation.

    • Gerard McEk

      I wouldn’t want to check the COP if I weren’t able to ensure the rightness of the electrical power readings as well.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I think he meant they will not be measuring electrical output.

        You can’t measure COP without knowing the input value, that would be a NULL test.
        The other engineers would laugh at him vigorously.

  • Bruce__H

    It would be nice to have an interview with any of the people who Mr Rossi reports he has been working with. There must be many of them. I’m thinking of any one of the consultants or technicians who help him in his work. Or the manufacturers who have been helping him with automation. Or anyone who has even dealt with Rossi face-to-face on technical matters in the last while.

    Has anyone here heard from or read an account by one of these Rossi helpers? Can anyone even name one?

    • Rossi Fan

      That would be Fabio. He’s a middle class technician working on a machine worth trillions for a middle class wage. No stock options promised or offered. No chance he will give away any secrets to the competition. He has too much to lose.

      • If everybody that comes in contact with the man and his E-Cats and speaks positively about them is then immediately branded as part of a growing conspiracy that acts utterly irrationally…

        Then maybe the irrationality is not on their part.

  • Bruce__H

    It would be nice to have an interview with any of the people who Mr Rossi reports he has been working with. There must be many of them. I’m thinking of any one of the consultants or technicians who help him in his work. Or the manufacturers who have been helping him with automation. Or anyone who has even dealt with Rossi face-to-face on technical matters in the last while.

    Has anyone here heard from or read an account by one of these Rossi helpers? Can anyone even name one?

    • Rossi Fan

      That would be Fabio. He’s a middle class technician working on a machine worth trillions for a middle class wage. No stock options promised or offered. No chance he will give away any secrets to the competition. He has too much to lose.

      • If everybody that comes in contact with the man and his E-Cats and speaks positively about them is then immediately branded as part of a growing conspiracy that acts utterly irrationally…

        Then maybe the irrationality is not on their part.

      • Bruce__H

        I had in mind specifically the people working on the QuarkX or working after February 2016 when, according to the reports of Rossi as I remember them, there has been a lot of activity involving many people.

        Sorry. I should have specified that in the first place.

        • Well, until they decide to go public about the QX they are all under NDA.

          We do know (or at least think we know) that ABB is involved with the robotics end of things.

          • Bruce__H

            I think you could have a good interview with someone (anyone!) involved with Rossi’s work without contravening the terms of a non-disclosure agreement … just as was done with Fulvio Fabianni.

            Has someone from ABB given an interview saying how they are working closely with Rossi? It strikes me that many people are said to be working closely with Rossi over the past 9 months but no one knows who they are or have talked with any of them.

          • Why do you think I keep pestering Mats Lewan to interview people?

            The perpetual state of ambiguity has got to stop.

  • This would be a pretty big deal, if confirmed.

    • kenko1

      Is this sience or roSsi seZ?

      • We won’t know until we know, But in the past when he’s spoken like this we got the Levi and Lugano tests reports and then the legal partnership with the Cherokee folks.

        It’s a good bet that something interesting is happening.

  • Gerard McEk

    Why is AR so regulary reporting about ‘military’ checking or selling stuff? Would he be pressed to do so or does it give the test some ‘status of rightness’? I know what he says, but having checked something by an independent specialized company would give much more confidence in my view.

    • Perhaps because organizations are loath to be associated with allegedly pathological science.

  • Gerard McEk

    Why is AR so regulary reporting about ‘military’ checking or selling stuff? Would he be pressed to do so or does it give the test some ‘status of rightness’? I know what he says, but having checked something by an independent specialized company would give much more confidence in my view.

    • Perhaps because organizations are loath to be associated with allegedly pathological science.

  • sam

    Always a good idea to have the US military working with you and not against you.

    https://youtu.be/SWiilSSkpaI

  • sam

    Allways a good idea to have the US military working with you and not against you.

    https://youtu.be/SWiilSSkpaI

  • Jerry Soloman

    Pretty sure the Judge will be more inclined to accept measurements from a military entity.

  • radvar

    Military….or ex-military? That’s an important distinction. Someone might ask?

    It’s hard to see how an active duty US military member could be doing this with Rossi. As an ordered assignment? That would mean the US government is officially involved. As a “night job”? Not impossible, but very likely something the person would have to report to their superiors.

    Which is not to denigrate the person’s qualifications, or Rossi’s appreciation for them.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “…he is an engineer from a military concern [i.e., company] of the USA.”

      • Concern may or may not mean company.

        In fact the use of the word concern implies it may not be a company.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Agree. Also, Rossi likes to use the word “concern”.

      • radvar

        Well, this is nit-picking, however, while “concern” likely means company (would we think some kind of institute or NGO?), “military concern” doesn’t really parse. There are lots of “defense contractors” in the US, like Lockheed or Raytheon, however, only little ones have only Defense Department contracts. And again, I have to assume the person is freelancing, otherwise they would be under corporate contract, which doesn’t sound like a Rossi move. So my guess is that the person is a retired aerospace engineer (arbitrary, but lots of those, and high skills) who used to work on mil-spec (military specification) contracts, which indeed require a lot of precision and discipline.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I agree. Further, I certainly hope there are no NGOs in this field:-)

  • Well, until they decide to go public about the QX they are all under NDA.

    We do know (or at least think we know) that ABB is involved with the robotics end of things.

  • Why do you think I keep pestering Mats Lewan to interview people?

    The perpetual state of ambiguity has got to stop.

  • bfast

    ( 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 )
    Love it!

  • bfast

    ( 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 )
    Love it!

  • HS61AF91

    Can you just imagine the validity a military validation component will provide E-cat emergence on the scene? Like Tang in Spacecraft. The important fact is that such a third party is even there presupposes that the fact of LENR is indisputable, and the inquisitiveness of the military gentleman is there to see if Quark-X really is producing. Go get ’em! For yourself, for all of us, and humanity as a whole – proton on!

  • HS61AF91

    Can you just imagine the validity a military validation component will provide E-cat emergence on the scene? Like Tang in Spacecraft. The important fact is that such a third party is even there presupposes that the fact of LENR is indisputable, and the inquisitiveness of the military gentleman is there to see if Quark-X really is producing. Go get ’em! For yourself, for all of us, and humanity as a whole – proton on!

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you say if the engineer doing third party testing with you works for the US military itself, or for a company that does work with/for the military.

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 9, 2016 at 8:57 PM
    Frank Acland:
    This information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • wizkid

      How do I spell it out? D.A.R.P.A.

      • sam
        • wizkid

          Men in Black. Molding the world for the 1%.

          • artefact

            On JONP:

            “Frank Acland December 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM
            Dear Andrea,
            1. Do you have plans to present the COP of the QuarkX at your public presentation?
            2. Will the general public have the ability to see this presentation, and if so, how?
            3. Will special guests be invited to this presentation?
            Best wishes, Frank Acland.

            Andrea Rossi December 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM
            Frank Acland:
            1- yes
            2- yes, to be defined
            3- yes
            Warm Regards, A.R.”

        • Jas

          I read that the robot pack mule was rejected by the military because it was too noisy.

          • sam
          • Jas
          • Rene

            They knew it was a prototype, so they expected the noise issue to be dealt with eventually. What ended the mule was that it did not meet a number of objectives, a big one that it could tolerate being shot at. Apparently one shot cripples it.

            From the article:
            “The contract also provided for the construction of an enhanced version of LS3 that featured a quieter power supply and better survivability against small arms fire.”

            But, that didn’t happen. They developed spot the smaller one but it lacked the advanced path finding logic – it was controller driven, and that pretty much killed the program.

      • radvar

        That’s an interesting possible fit for the term “military concern”. Still trying to imagine what the contract would look like in that case. They would want something in return, and it’s not clear what Rossi would be willing to offer them.

        • wizkid

          The cost of the nuclear engines for the submarines is in the billions if not trillions of $$$. LENR could cut help to reduce the military budget needs by 80% or more.

          • radvar

            That’s a valid quid pro quo, and I would hope that it might be true. Still doesn’t seems like a Rossi type arrangement though. He just keeps everything so closely and personally controlled.

          • Rene

            I’m fairly certain you meant nuclear power plant. The drive screw propellers are either electrical motors or steam turbines. But yes, replacing the rector would be a good thing. There is the matter of size vs power, which needs to be determined for LENR based systems. Size matters in a limited space sub.

          • Omega Z

            S1B reactor
            $100M for U.S. Submarines. require 1 each. 40 years to refuel.

            A1B reactor
            $200M for U.S. Carriers, require 2 each. $400M 24 years to refuel.

      • Rene

        A.A.R.P.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I think he was referring to the 3–day test which is at the moment already landed.
          The reason why he’s using such metaphor might be the particular 1-year test which suddenly made so messy landing that a good fraction of his time still goes to cleaning it up in court.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you say if the engineer doing third party testing with you works for the US military itself, or for a company that does work with/for the military.

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 9, 2016 at 8:57 PM
    Frank Acland:
    This information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • wizkid

      How do I spell it out? D.A.R.P.A.

      • sam
        • wizkid

          Men in Black. Molding the world for the 1%.

        • Jas

          I read that the robot pack mule was rejected by the military because it was too noisy.

          • sam
          • Jas
          • Rene

            They knew it was a prototype, so they expected the noise issue to be dealt with eventually. What ended the mule was that it did not meet a number of objectives, a big one that it could tolerate being shot at. Apparently one shot cripples it.

            From the article:
            “The contract also provided for the construction of an enhanced version of LS3 that featured a quieter power supply and better survivability against small arms fire.”

            But, that didn’t happen. They developed spot the smaller one but it lacked the advanced path finding logic – it was controller driven, and that pretty much killed the program.

      • Rene

        A.A.R.P.

  • Rene

    6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video? AR: no
    7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative? AR: no: internal
    *sigh*

  • Rene

    6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video? AR: no
    7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative? AR: no: internal
    *sigh*

  • Let me guess: In the end it’s a retired military engineer, about 70 years old, who currently has nothing to do anymore with the military.
    But it sounds good for PR reasons.

  • Gerrit

    you know what, I didn’t even read it.

  • Gerrit

    you know what, I didn’t even read it.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi December 10, 2016 at 1:40 PM
    JPR:
    Today we complete the test made by the independent engineer.
    We arr going very well, all my data have been confirmed, with minor corrections.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Hey!

      He spelled independent correctly!

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi December 10, 2016 at 1:40 PM
    JPR:
    Today we complete the test made by the independent engineer.
    We arr going very well, all my data have been confirmed, with minor corrections.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Hey!

      He spelled independent correctly!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe the military has been shepherding the E-Cat all along while waiting for a change in the administration.

    http://disq.us/p/1dmr1bj

  • Buck

    Buck
    December 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM

    Happy Holidays Andrea.
    I am glad to hear that the just completed test with the independent engineer provided confirmation for your measurements.
    A question: Did this engineer assess the degree of statistical correlation for his measurements over three days with the measurements you gathered at the same time? This assumes that he set up measurement
    devices parallel and run concurrently to yours. Would you be able to share the measure of correlation?

    ~~~~~~~

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 3:56 PM

    Buck:
    The measurements practically confirm each other within the margin of error of the instrumentation.
    Besides, the margin of error is insignificant in respect of the COP.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Buck
    December 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM

    Happy Holidays Andrea.
    I am glad to hear that the just completed test with the independent engineer provided confirmation for your measurements.
    A question: Did this engineer assess the degree of statistical correlation for his measurements over three days with the measurements you gathered at the same time? This assumes that he set up measurement devices parallel and run concurrently to yours. Would you be able to share the measure of correlation?

    ~~~~~~~

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 3:56 PM

    Buck:
    The measurements practically confirm each other within the margin of error of the instrumentation.
    Besides, the margin of error is insignificant in respect of the COP.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 10:16 PM
    Frank Acland:
    End of the test now, at 10.10 P.M. of Saturday December 12th.
    The results are confirmed. I was afraid that my results were too good to be true, so I said to the third part engineer that I was paying him to find my measurements’ errors. He is saying my measurements were not wrong, basically, with exception of minor errors, so the results are confirmed. I am very encouraged. We go to close for the 5Sigma.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 10:16 PM
    Frank Acland:
    End of the test now, at 10.10 P.M. of Saturday December 12th.
    The results are confirmed. I was afraid that my results were too good to be true, so I said to the third part engineer that I was paying him to find my measurements’ errors. He is saying my measurements were not wrong, basically, with exception of minor errors, so the results are confirmed. I am very encouraged. We go to close for the 5Sigma.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andy Kumar

    // 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 ) //
    .
    This story is already going on for 7+ years. I think Rossi, in his oracle-speak, is telling us that it is another 3 years before we “land.” Hope the landing is not going to be messy. Am I reading it right?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I think he was referring to the 3–day test which is at the moment already landed.
      The reason why he’s using such metaphor might be the particular 1-year test which suddenly made so messy landing that a good fraction of his time still goes to cleaning it up in court.

      • sgm0369

        People falling from the 10th floor of a building is a recurring theme in italian jokes. He’s just trying to say that he hopes not to be like the guy that is always overly optimistic, just before hitting the ground…

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 3:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I recall you once paid Sergio Focardi to find the errors in your measurements for the early E-Cat. Now you hired another expert to do the same — don’t you trust what you see for yourself?

    Congratulations!

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    Frank Acland:
    You are right, I made the same as with Prof. Focardi. No, I do not trust myself when I am too enthusiast.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    A Goumy
    December 11, 2016 at 4:02 AM
    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Did the engineer use the same calorimetry technique as yours, or another one? If not confidential, can you tell us more, without going into details, about it?

    Warm regards,

    A. Goumy

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    A. Goumy:
    Another one, that now I adopt. Datails will be disclosed in the public presentation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      Irina and Vitaly Uzikov
      December 11, 2016 at 3:48 AM
      Dear Andrea!

      The most sincere congratulations on the successful conclusion of a very important stage of your great work! You’re too much work, so watch out your health! We look forward to the presentation in February

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      December 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM
      Dr Irina and Vitaly Uzikov:
      Thank you for your continue and very important attention. You will be surely invited to the presentation.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 3:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I recall you once paid Sergio Focardi to find the errors in your measurements for the early E-Cat. Now you hired another expert to do the same — don’t you trust what you see for yourself?

    Congratulations!

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    Frank Acland:
    You are right, I made the same as with Prof. Focardi. No, I do not trust myself when I am too enthusiast.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    A Goumy
    December 11, 2016 at 4:02 AM
    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Did the engineer use the same calorimetry technique as yours, or another one? If not confidential, can you tell us more, without going into details, about it?

    Warm regards,

    A. Goumy

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    A. Goumy:
    Another one, that now I adopt. Datails will be disclosed in the public presentation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      Irina and Vitaly Uzikov
      December 11, 2016 at 3:48 AM
      Dear Andrea!

      The most sincere congratulations on the successful conclusion of a very important stage of your great work! You’re too much work, so watch out your health! We look forward to the presentation in February

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      December 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM
      Dr Irina and Vitaly Uzikov:
      Thank you for your continue and very important attention. You will be surely invited to the presentation.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Bob

    So what news on the (3) eCats sold to the satisfied 1 year customer?
    What about the robot plant purchased in Sweden?
    .
    Are these all forgotten now, as have been all the other 13 eCats sold to satisfied customers in the past 5 years?

    .
    I admit I do not follow this site closely, but I have seen no mention of these. I believe this to be the real litmus test. If those have simply “faded into memory” as all the previous announcements, then something is terribly amiss. 🙁
    .
    One can say what you will about the Quarkx, but Rossi stated the 1MW plant was ready and that the QuarkX was not supplanting it.
    According to posts made in May and June, delivery on these 3 plants should be either already made or close to it now. No need to wait for the QuarkX. The eCat is said to be proven! What gives?

    .
    We have seen this time and again… new tests, new designs, new military/aerospace engineers and experts, new customwrs, more tests, etc. etc. Is it not about time that something is confirmed!

    .
    How easily we seem to forget.

    .

    Rossi answers Frank’s questions, perhaps Frank will post a polite inquiry requesting updates on the (3) sold plants, the satisfied customer and the robot factory? This after all would not be adversarial, it was Rossi’s own posts announcing these events. Why would there be any problem asking for updates on thiese?

    Thanks

  • artefact

    QZ . com:
    “Bill Gates and investors worth $170 billion are launching a fund to fight climate change through energy innovation”

    “Anything that leads to cheap, clean, reliable energy we’re open-minded to,” says Gates, who is serving as chairman of BEV and anticipates being actively involved.”

    http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/

  • artefact

    QZ . com:
    “Bill Gates and investors worth $170 billion are launching a fund to fight climate change through energy innovation”

    “Anything that leads to cheap, clean, reliable energy we’re open-minded to,” says Gates, who is serving as chairman of BEV and anticipates being actively involved.”

    http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/

    • zorud

      AR could easily become very fast one of the richest men on earth, if he really has what he claims, since people like Bill Gates would for sure invest and spend their billions. Instead it’s obvious that none of his E-cat types seem to be a candidate for that what Bill Gates & friend are looking for…why???

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland December 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    1. Do you have plans to present the COP of the QuarkX at your public presentation?
    2. Will the general public have the ability to see this presentation, and if so, how?
    3. Will special guests be invited to this presentation?
    Best wishes, Frank Acland.

    Andrea Rossi December 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes, to be defined
    3- yes
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Vinney

      What a way of putting, ‘How about an invitation’.

  • pg

    Hi everyone, is there any date for the presentation?

    • artefact

      Not yet. But it should be in February.

      • pg

        Thank you.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    1. Do you have plans to present the COP of the QuarkX at your public presentation?
    2. Will the general public have the ability to see this presentation, and if so, how?
    3. Will special guests be invited to this presentation?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland.

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes, to be defined
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    December 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Do you think we will learn more about this engineer’s recent third party testing at the public presentation you are planning?

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM
    Frank Acland:
    I do not think it is necessary.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • sam

    A comment from Ego Out blog

    PweetDecember 11, 2016 at 7:01 PM
    Peter, This probably relates more to what you discussed a few days ago, regarding what is holding back LENR today.
    I added one item to your list of things which are holding back the acceptance of LENR today, which I copy and paste to here.

    “6/. Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results. ”

    And now, a few days later we have the perfect example of exactly what I refer to.

    From the Rossi-blog;-

    “Patrick Ellul
    December 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM
    Dear Andrea.
    With “control”/”dummy”, it is meant to be a quarkX without one of its crucial elements (like fuel) that is fed the same input and whose output is measured in the same way as your fueled quarkX.
    This will cross check your calculations against another reference.
    Do you still think such experiment is useless at this stage?
    Regards.”

    Rossi replied;-

    “Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Of course it is useless.
    The COP is what counts.
    Warm Regards
    A.R”

    Really? It’s the COP that counts and it’s useless to check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor?
    No wonder there is such a reluctance by almost everyone to accept the Rossi results at face value.

    It’s equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi.

    Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ?

    • Stephen

      I agree unless it’s something really obvious like a light bulb. You don’t really need bulb with out a filament in it next to it to see if it works.

      With experiments making marginal COP I think dummy’s are really essential to be really sure we are seeing something. but if the out put Energy is orders of magnitude larger than the input do we really need a dummy device to see it?

      Maybe to quantify the COP accurately it is useful to have a dummy but maybe accurately calibrated measuring equipment might be sufficient for his need.

      In a public Demo though it could be interesting to demonstrate the COP in some visible way perhaps powering a football stadiums lights compared to a single bulb?

      Or did I miss some point?

    • US_Citizen71

      If the COP is high enough say 20 then a dummy is extraneous and a complete waste of time and material. If is is less than 2 or 3 then sure I could see the need for a dummy.

  • sam

    A comment from Ego Out blog

    PweetDecember 11, 2016 at 7:01 PM
    Peter, This probably relates more to what you discussed a few days ago, regarding what is holding back LENR today.
    I added one item to your list of things which are holding back the acceptance of LENR today, which I copy and paste to here.

    “6/. Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results. ”

    And now, a few days later we have the perfect example of exactly what I refer to.

    From the Rossi-blog;-

    “Patrick Ellul
    December 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM
    Dear Andrea.
    With “control”/”dummy”, it is meant to be a quarkX without one of its crucial elements (like fuel) that is fed the same input and whose output is measured in the same way as your fueled quarkX.
    This will cross check your calculations against another reference.
    Do you still think such experiment is useless at this stage?
    Regards.”

    Rossi replied;-

    “Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Of course it is useless.
    The COP is what counts.
    Warm Regards
    A.R”

    Really? It’s the COP that counts and it’s useless to check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor?
    No wonder there is such a reluctance by almost everyone to accept the Rossi results at face value.

    It’s equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi.

    Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ?

    • Stephen

      I agree unless it’s something really obvious like a light bulb. You don’t really need bulb with out a filament in it next to it to see if it works.

      With experiments making marginal COP I think dummy’s are really essential to be really sure we are seeing something. but if the out put Energy is orders of magnitude larger than the input do we really need a dummy device to see it?

      Maybe to quantify the COP accurately it is useful to have a dummy but maybe accurately calibrated measuring equipment might be sufficient for his need.

      In a public Demo though it could be interesting to demonstrate the COP in some visible way perhaps powering a football stadiums lights compared to a single bulb?

      Or did I miss some point?

    • US_Citizen71

      If the COP is high enough say 20 then a dummy is extraneous and a complete waste of time and material. If it is less than 2 or 3 then sure I could see the need for a dummy. Let me phrase this another way do expect them to produce a dummy version of ITER and fill it full of helium to show the contrast of fueled vs dummy if not then why?

    • Bruce__H

      Rossi is trying to paint the ECAT as a piece of engineering, not a piece of basic science. I notice that this point of view is rife in the LENR community. If you are dealing with a system where the basic science questions are settled, then you don’t need to worry about controls, or about publishing your work, or a whole host of other questions. Instead you concentrate on the engineering. It is like the light bulb — as Stephen notes elsewhere on this forum — you don’t run a control for a light bulb because the basics are settled.

      Rossi’s view is popular on this forum. So much so that some, like Engineer48, have even taken up the engineering challenge and begun designing for commercial use systems using ECAT technology. But this was always naive. The basic issues aren’t settled. There is no publicly acceptable proof that a working ECAT is anything but a theory. Those like Engineer48 who struck out on their own trying to implement the ECAT have gone silent. Presumably they now realize that what they are mixed up in is not engineering but, indeed, basic science. It is my hope that they will report back their adventures no matter the outcome. My fear, however, is that if they don’t encounter what they think of as success they won’t say anything. That would be a shame.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    “3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison? AR: useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable”

    This is standard Rossi response to questions about control experiments. When I saw this from him in 2011, I knew then that he was not a scientist (but an engineer and entrepreneur), because no scientist would say that. It is obviously false. A control experiment demonstrates the effect of a single variable, so “every system” could not be a control experiment. The lack of a control experiment at Lugano led to extensive skepticism about Lugano results, and probably led to failure to recognize problems that would have been easily revealed if a dummy reactor had been run at full input power, i.e., the emissivity of alumina varies with temperature, and the Lugano team used a total emissivity value, whereas the IR camera captures band emissivity, which can be very different (and is different in the case of alumina).

    (This is clear in following comments. Rossi’s comments drive away people who understand how science works, unless they invent explanations for him, i.e., like. “well, he is not so great on the science part, but his heat is fantastic!”)

    • Stephen

      With respect Abd, if the Lugano test had a positive COP an order of magnitude higher. I suspect we would not be discussing it so much here.

      In that case for scientific study properly calibrated equipment to measure the COP accurately is more relevant than any dummy in a null state. I do think a dummy can be a useful comparison where marginal COP is seen though where ambiant and subtle conditions and behaviors etc need to be taken in to account.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        There are possible artifacts where high COP can be calculated, but is actually missing. Not knowing the behavior of a dummy system, these can easily be missed. “Calibrated equipment” must be calibrated for the specific circumstances, generally, and that is done with control experiments of different kinds. It is not just about “marginal” results. The Lugano results did not appear marginal. (Control experiments are not just “dummy” cells, but include, for example, cells with known heating power, ideally up to the full power reported. That is not always possible, so, then, fully calibrated calorimetry is used.

        There is no equipment that measures “COP.” Rather, heat is measured, often indirectly. COP can vary widely with experimental conditions *with no change in reaction heat.* (It can depend on insulation; A weak reaction could produce very high COP if the insulation is able to retain most of the heat.

        Common problem is using phase change calorimetry (typically assuming full vaporization of water) without actually confirming that no liquid water is escaping. Assuming full vaporization from temperature and pressure is risky, because this can miss overflow water, where the temperature in the outlet pipe can vary greatly from the top to the bottom of the pipe (if water is flowing along the bottom). Knowing the behavior of the system with no LENR heat can provide much information that can make errors much less likely. This has all been obvious for years….

        • Stephen

          You are fully right in the contexts you mention of course Abd and I would not be against seeing an experiment performed that way. Where the generated energy is comparable to that that could be generated by chemical or mechanical means such as phase changes of exothermic reactions we should indeed be careful. Also it would also be viable to quantify accurately the performance even of high energy outputs over wide ranges of external conditions.

          I just think the differences maybe down to different points of view about what is being tested. I think AR is happy to see the light bulb is On and much brighter than can be explained by other means where as you are interested in measuring accurately its luminosity.

          I do wonder however if having a dummy would maybe lead to endless discussion about the viability of the dummy or control. That could be distracting maybe But maybe we would learn something from it to improve future tests too.

        • Omega Z

          If you’re a 3rd party doing a black box test, you may need a dummy. If you’re merely an onlooker of a test, you may need a dummy.

          Beyond that, No dummy is required as long as your equipment is properly calibrated and you can accurately measure the input and output. Most everything has already been measured and documented by science. We know how many joules to heat quantities of water etc…

          interestingly, due to the size and output of the Quark, one could easily use a bomb calorimeter to obtain very accurate measurements and dummy would be required black box or not.

  • Stephen

    With respect Abd, if the Lugano test had a positive COP an order of magnitude higher. I suspect we would not be discussing it so much here.

  • Stephen

    You are fully right in the contexts you mention of course Abd and I would not be against seeing an experiment performed that way. Where the generated energy is comparable to that that could be generated by chemical or mechanical means such as phase changes of exothermic reactions we should indeed be careful. Also it would also be viable to quantify accurately the performance even of high energy outputs over wide ranges of external conditions.

    I just think the differences maybe down to different points of view about what is being tested. I think AR is happy to see the light bulb is On and brighter than can be explained by other means where as you are interested in measuring accurately its luminosity.

    I do wonder however if having a dummy would maybe lead to endless discussion about the viability of the dummy or control. That could be distracting maybe But maybe we would learn something from it to improve future tests too.

  • Omega Z

    If you’re a 3rd party doing a black box test, you may need a dummy. If you’re merely an onlooker of a test, you may need a dummy.

    Beyond that, No dummy is required as long as your equipment is properly calibrated and you can accurately measure the input and output. Most everything has already been measured and documented by science. We know how many joules to heat quantities of water etc…

    interestingly, due to the size and output of the Quark, one could easily use a bomb calorimeter to obtain very accurate measurements and dummy would be required black box or not.