Would using a Dummy Make for an Effective QuarkX Presentation?

Since Andrea Rossi has been discussing his plans for a public presentation of the QuarkX reactor there have been a number of posts on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the possibility of using a ‘dummy’ reactor as a means of effectively demonstrating the ability of the QuarkX to operate with a high COP.

The idea is a simple one: compare the performance of an active QuarkX reactor to one of similar size and physical properties (this is the dummy), but without any of the QuarkX special sauce (whatever that may be) using the same energy input, and the same measurement instruments. If the QuarkX really does what Rossi has claimed, it will act very differently from a dummy.

Rossi had seemed to be resisting the idea of using a dummy, saying any system with a COP <1 (like a conventional heater)  would be an appropriate comparison. But recently he responded to a question about using a dummy with this comment:

Andrea Rossi

Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP <, using the same instrumentation and methodology. Warm Regards, A.R

Having followed the E-Cat story over the last six years, and knowing the skeptical stance of many people about it, it may be difficult to overcome that skepticism with a single demonstration. Whatever Rossi does or does not do (assuming there will be a public presentation) there will probably be people who will claim it is all theatrics, illusion, smoke and mirrors, etc.

Probably convincing the most skeptical observers will not be Rossi’s goal with a public presentation. It is probably not possible to do so in a staged event. He continues to talk about his commercial goals which to begin with are sales of industrial plants, and he will be likely thinking how he can best engage the curiosity of potential commercial customers.

Someone on the JONP asked if he was planning to do something spectacular, such as “such as run the QuarkX in SSM without any power input?” Rossi responded, “I think it will be interesting enough.”

  • Jas

    Rossi has said there is no need of a dummy. This has been discussed for a few days now. Just let it lie.

    • Mats002

      Hi Jas, did you mean the quark is a lie or wait and see?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think he meant let it lie down, i.e. let the issue be.

        • Gerald

          If the quark is good enough and Rossi will benefit of it he will do it. Most of the time stuberness is good, but sometimes you just give a little. Time is starting to be against him. He will acknoledse that.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Wpj is correct. Measurements – especially under uncustomary conditions – are not as safe as some people might think. I recommend reading the Gamberale report (cited below). One could ask whether a blank run of the QuarkX would be practicable in a public demonstration, but that’s a different question.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Actually, I think a dummy load tested along with the QuarkX makes sense from an instrumentation viewpoint. If a cooling fluid (air, water) was pumped in series, first through the dummy cell, then through the active cell, it would eliminate measurement of the mass flow rate as a debatable measurement. You would still have to measure accurately electrical power in (a pretty straightforward measurement), and fluid temperature in and out of each cell. The ratio of the power produced can be simply measured as the ratio of the temperature deltas for each cell. This assumes, of course, that the heat capacity of the fluid is not temperature dependent. If it is, the heat load can be corrected by changing the heat capacity. The COP would then be calculated by taking the ratio of the delta-T’s and correct for differences in electrical power input.

        • sam

          Dr Andrea Rossi,
          I too agree that if you put a dummy in parallel with the QuarkX powered with the same amount of energy as the QuarkX the test is more convincing, also concerning the calibration of the measurement system.

          Andrea Rossi
          December 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM
          Thank you for your suggestion,
          Warm Regards

      • Jas

        I was a bit drunk last night when I wrote that. I started following the JONP a few months ago. Rossi was asked about a dummy test and he gave his answer but as you know some people arent satisfied and just keep on going on about it. I meant that we should leave the subject alone as far as Rossi and the Quark is concerned. If people want to discuss the merits of having a unfueled device as part of their set up they are certainly free to do so. It seems that Rossi has decided its not for him.

      • sam

        Nothing to do with topic but if anyone
        is interested.

    • Obvious

      He uses dummies, but his supply is running out.

      • Anon2012_2014

        We are the dummies apparently.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Simply publish the financial benefits from the three E-Cats he sold to the customer of the year long test.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, a “test” and “presentation” are rather different.

    I MUCH fail to see how having some “dummy” device will have any kind of effect or relevance in ANY way in terms of a demonstration.

    Given the quark is new, and un-seen, then ANY type of demo of the device in operation would be most welcome. Dummy devices for a demo is really meaningless, and the comments by Rossi near show confusing as to why people would think such a “thing” sitting on a table not working has any value (it does not).

    Just seeing some numbers as to input watts, output watts and seeing the device in operation is something long overdue – I much welcome any kind of demo.
    Now down the road? Of course we want some kind of 3rd party test and verification – but we have to start somewhere.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Anon2012_2014

    I’m sorry, but this is beyond absurd claiming that using a control reactor that has a COP=1 makes one iota of difference in the demo.

    Rossi has repeatedly given demonstrations under controlled conditions that have flaws, that in turn prevent a reasonable man from ruling out chemical, i.e. the IR camera test, the secret powder test, the wet steam test with an H2 tank hooked up, etc… When challenged on those flaws, rather than address them, he goes back to “en mercatus veritas” (or something with better latin, sorry). The defenders of this lack of responsiveness to experimental criticism hang bank on “Rossi owes us nothing”. Rossi then says he has constructed a robot factory in 2013. He then says he has a secret deal with various customers (military – 2014, 2016, Industrial Heat, 2014, 2015) which prevents him from disclosure. And now we are back to “demonstrations” that again don’t close off the flaws.

    It is now time for multiple public demos with multiple scientists coming and criticizing the flaws, with responsiveness to repair the flaws. It’s show us the experiment time.

  • wonderboy
  • Bob

    The only point is that the difference between levitating and producing excess heat is completely apples to oranges.

    In the plate case, a dish never levitates, so when one does, it is completely evident. One stays on the table the other does not.

    With the eCat, you are inputting energy which requires that energy to be dissipated. A eCat with no fuel is going to produce heat or to you example “levitate”. The fueled eCat also produces heat, but does it produce more?

    Since there can be measurement errors, such as the Lugano thermal settings, one cannot know if all the measurements are correct unless you run the control sample. You put 100 watts of power in both, a unit with fuel and one without. Using the same measuring devices, if the fueled on measures more output energy, then it is due to the fuel, not the measurement, Why, because you have a control run. If they both measure the same, then the fuel did nothing.

    This is science 101.

    So we need to see that a control run is needed.

    However, to your point, self sustain mode would be different! A control run is not needed, because if in self sustain mode, one can run long enough to prove that any chemical reaction is discounted.

    However…. surprisingly enough…. no test are ever an in self-sustain mode! Even though many posts are made that the eCat has ran for long periods in SSM.

    I wonder why? 🙁

    To preempt the “safety reason” excuse, it has now been removed. The QuarkX is only 20 watts. No reason to not run SSM now. Even it run away occurred, it would not have significant enough power to do harm.

    Do you think we will see a SSM now?

    • Frank Acland

      I believe Rossi has said that the QuarkX doesn’t run in self sustain mode. He said it has a continuous small pulsed input, if I recall correctly.

      • sam

        December 18, 2016 at 1:51 PM
        Dear Andrea

        Congratulations on your continuing progress towards 5 sigma.

        1. Have any of the QuarkX you have produced run out of fuel?

        2. Have you obtained any ash from a QuarkX?

        3. Any suprises within the ash?

        4. In the current QuarkX prototypes is the light they produce visible to an observer in the same room?

        5. If the light is visible can you publish another photo, without revealing proprietary information which shows the light?

        Thanks and best wishes

        Bob Belovich

        Frank Acland
        December 18, 2016 at 12:54 PM
        Dear Andrea,

        Do you plan to have an independent expert present at the presentation of the QuarkX who will be responsible for taking measurements and communicating them to the observers of the presentation?

        Many thanks,

        Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi
        December 18, 2016 at 4:55 PM
        Frank Acland:
        Warm Regards

        Andrea Rossi
        December 18, 2016 at 4:49 PM
        Bob Belovich:
        1- no
        2- no
        3- no
        4- yes
        5- will do
        Warm Regards

  • sam

    Interesting question and answer from Ego Out blog December 16,17,18.
    Peter calls it Lenr mysteries.


  • Roy O’Neil

    Following, is a demonstration that should convince any skeptic:
    – A fueled quark unit and an unfueled quark unit, side by side, on a glass table top
    – Same electrical energy applied to both units
    -Same quantity of heat transfer fluid flowing thru both units
    – If, after a period of time, the temperature of fluid from the fueled unit is materially higher, then the fueled quark is providing excess heat.
    What are the shortcomings of this idea?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.