Rossi: Independent Expert to Take Measurements at QuarkX Presentation

I keep trying to figure out what we might expect at planned presentation of the QuarkX reactor which Andrea Rossi has been talking about on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. A new piece of information has come up today which would seem to be an important feature of the demonstration — having an independent expert on hand to take measurements of the QuarkX.

Earlier today on the JONP, Rossi was asked whether they had decided who would an independent person to take measurements during the QuarkX presentation, and Rossi replied ‘not yet’. I followed up with a question about this, because I wanted to be sure that he meant there would be an independent expert at the presentation:

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

Having a truly independent and qualified ‘referee’ at the presentation would certainly be important if the presentation is to be taken seriously, and not to be considered only a sales pitch with Rossi or his team running the show. The question then arises, who might be a good person to fill this role? What would their qualifications need to be in order for the test to have the maximum impact?

  • radvar

    Someone from a credible organization, or someone with an existing credible personal reputation. Not just a freelancer.

    • Hhiram

      I suspect Rossi will use someone who is just barely credible enough to allow him to attract investors, but not credible enough to cause LENR to explode as an international news story.

      The reason why is that Rossi has nothing to gain by the entire world learning in sensational fashion that LENR is real and that Star Trek style clean energy is about to arrive and completely transform the world. If that happened, BILLIONS of dollars would immediately flow into competing research teams all over the world, and they would quickly crush Rossi and the other tinkering teams like BLP that are claiming to have commercial products nearing readiness.

      Rossi is very savvy. He knows that the only time to actually announce to the *world* that LENR is real is when he has a factory *already* producing working products. Any time before then, and the announcement would be business suicide.

      • MasterBlaster7

        I’ve been thinking something similar for a long time.

        I KNOW that if/when f9 this all blows up on the world stage…we will long for the days when it was just smugly known by our little visionary cult.

      • builditnow

        Hhiram, I’m also expecting similar. The only way to speed it up is through independent researchers like MFMP finding the secrets on how to make a reliable, predictable and useful reactor. Otherwise, we are on Rossi’s timetable for when the factory is producing product that is certified, in a pretty box, ready for the stores.

        Rossi’s schedule seems to be something like:
        1. Find a market for earlier versions of the E-Cat that is as hidden from public view as possible and gear up enough production to fund continued research.
        2. Only seek extra funding if it is low risk to giving the secrets away and necessary.
        3. Continue research on new avenues of useful LENR in search for the killer product that can be produced in volume and certified for sale.
        4. Be ready to get to market as quickly as possible with an older version of E-Cat, just in case LENR breaks into public awareness.

        Step 1 and 2 is what the court case is all about.
        Step 3 is the QuarkX, and a continued series of developments to QuarkZ that can go on for years. If the magic product is found, expect 5 years to get it really refined, certified and factories ready.

        If all goes to plan in Rossi’s ideal world, it will be step 3, so, the fastest we will see something from Rossi is 5 years and probably longer for a QuarkX.

        The thing that will speed this up is an independent breakthrough by an open source researcher who shares this knowledge.

        So, get researching or support your local researcher.

      • Alain Samoun

        “BILLIONS” You mean TRILLIONS ;-). At this point it would be a changing society more than a financial collapse…

    • Warthog

      A team from NIST would be my preference.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The measurement should be taken by someone hired by and paid for by the observers.

  • Frank Acland

    Do you mean Richard Garwin? He was on that show. Incidentally he was recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom:

    • Warthog

      I think that was Duncan Hunter on 60 Minutes (now head of the Sidney Kimmel grant organization doing research on cold fusion at U of Missouri).

      Working from memory on above….not checked, so things might have changed at U of M.

  • Send Elon Musk with some Calorimetry Engineers

  • Gerard McEk

    Maybe it is difficult to find a reputable guy wanting to test it… Think of Prof. Prices’s ‘Reputation Trap’.

  • blanco69

    Well. As ever. One has to look behind the reason for yet another independently verified results presentation. Who his Rossi attempting to convince? Us? Investors? Himself? If the thing works then it works. Way too much water has passed under the bridge since the original 2011demonstation which for me was the most intriguing. If the demonstration is done correctly then Rossi could do it himself and still convince the people he needs. Look at Mills. The fact that he is now scouring the Earth looking for an independent tester suggest that he’s more interested in being shown to be independent than actually showing the world a working device.

    • enantiomer2000

      Right, but Mills is speeding towards imminent commercialization. He also has shown how his suncell works. Some big players are lining up to commercialize this in late 2017/early 2018. I don’t see this kind of openness or momentum with Rossi.

      And here comes the Rossi defenders telling me I shouldn’t be commenting here because I am a skeptic..

      • sam

        I agree with your first paragraph.
        There are a skeptics that
        comment on this blog.

  • Gerrit

    on the bright side, just little more than 4 years waiting until we’ll have been following Rossi’s quest for independent validation for a full decade.

    I am thrilled just by the thought of it.

  • Fibber McGourlic

    Dr. Rossi might not have much to gain right now by using a well-known, highly
    credible witness, but the world does. A believable demonstration from him might
    slow down the huge ongoing lurch toward the construction of fission nuclear reactors
    and coal fired generators. But what I’d really like to see is a carefully measured demonstration of his old 1 Megawatt reactor heating up a skeptic’s swimming pool in Florida with just a small current input.

    • psi2u2

      It could save the Missouri River from desecration.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    December 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Interesting to learn you plan to have an independent expert to take measurements at the QuarkX presentation. You have said you have not yet chosen this person — but what is your ideal profile for someone to fill this role (e.g. profession, qualifications, industry, etc.)

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM
    Frank Acland:
    I’d prefer a Physics Professor, but we’l see.
    Warm Regards,

    • sam

      Peter Sagan
      December 19, 2016 at 3:14 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      Have you reached 4.5 sigma yet?


      Andrea Rossi
      December 19, 2016 at 4:02 PM
      Peter Sagan:
      Warm Regards

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi answered “no” to both of these questions. Have you obtained any ash from a QuarkX? Any surprises within the ash? What do you guys think is this believable?

    • Rene

      Deja vu. There was an ‘indipendent’ expert at the last 1+ year run. Look how far that got (hint no report to the public). Then there was the hot cat, and previous softball demos.
      An independent expert needs to be independent. He/she needs to set up instrumentation, examine the set up without intervention by Rossi or others with special interests. This expert needs to be able to freely publish results of observations before, during, and at the conclusion of the device run period, and without censorship. They do need to have expertise in calorimetry or other forms of delta energy measurement. They do need to have expertise in power circuits and how to measure noisy power. They need to be able to set up instrumentation to measure radiation.
      I’m sure the MFMP team could help with all that. But most of all it should be a person or preferably a team picked by others than Rossi. If this cannot be done or is not permitted to happen, then any presentation/demo is just a dog and pony show, merely a means to raise investor capital.
      So either put up with this reasonable requirement or shut up and produce and attempt to sell that something.

      • Absolutely true!

        And I guess it will be a well known “independent” person.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    For the tenth time. The only proof that will count is a company or person using an E-Cat and showing the economic benefit. Rossi sold three E-Cats a year ago to the customer of the year long test. To date no economic proof has been given.

    • MorganMck

      What makes you think we didn’t hear you the first nine times.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Because you keep talking about “dummy tests” that will not prove the E-Cat really works, or any other test that is subject to critics of LENR.

        • MorganMck

          There is another reason you might consider (Gee, what makes me think you just may miss it).

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Please share it with us.

    • enantiomer2000

      I don’t think we even ever found out who the customers were…

    • Yes, and the only “customer” we know of seems to be a dummy company set up specially for this test.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t think a demo will yield much.
    I mean, ok, you have these 3 small devices that look like 3 pencils. Then you have a few power meters and you turn it on. That is rather dull, and is really no different than seeing a live demo by MMFP. And not to throw cold water here, I MUCH appreciate the public demos and work by MMFP.

    So I much fail to see how this demo would be ANY different than say the demo a few years ago of the unit running in Bologna (I think).

    Now if the demo is an accompanied by the final design rendering or mock-up model that going to production (or is already in production), then you have a VERY different press conference and demo that would be interesting.

    As it stands now, such demos are near like watching paint dry. So a few little tubes on a desk with some power meters running. How is this any different than past demos?

    I don’t think Rossi should or needs to do a demo unless some other significant announcement occurs with that public demo. So showing some high heat, a high COP and even a unit emitting some light would CERTAINLY be interesting.
    But a unit sitting on a desk with a power meter is not earth shattering.

    So given past demos, and even if a decent COP, I fail to see how this demo will show something “exciting” compared to any of the internet streams of past demos by MMFP, or even say Parkhomov videos and demos (which again we all appreciate).

    I mean past demos by people in LENR and those videos of any of these devices (including Ross’s) are welcome, but they tend to not really set the LENR community on fire.

    I would actually wait until the next CCF conference and do a demo + presentation there – that would have the most impact.

    So a 15 or 30 minute video is all is required here – we really don’t need some public demo.
    However, a presentation and demo at the next CCF conference makes a heck of a lot more sense.

    About the only “interesting” part would be to see the packaging size – and a few more details as to how the fuel rods are replaced, and to be manufactured. Again some pictures or a 5 minute video would suffice here.

    However, without being close to manufacturing and having the final rendition that’s going to be produced?

    I don’t think such a demo will do much for LENR.
    I would wait until the next CCF – with a polished presentation and working demo, then such a presentation would have significantly greater impact.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • US_Citizen71

      I think it all depends on what the demonstration is. As the QuarkX appears to be focused on creating heat the demonstration could be quite simple. Such as two glass graduated columns with water. One with a fueled reactor one with an inactive load. Input the same amount of power to both and compare the boil off Parkhomov style. Design the demo so that the volume of the column and heat output of the fueled reactor to cause a relatively fast boil while the inactive column remains below boiling. With something this simple the expert only needs to measure the power in to both reactors and the water temperature. You could have multiple independent experts probe the setup with their meters before, during and after it running.

  • help_lenr

    I don’t think that the demonstration is intended to _prove_ anything: it is only a show for the fans. The demonstration only shows what rossi claims (sometimes visual demonstration is understood better than explanation by words). The only proof will be by the commercial products.

    • Gian Luca

      “The only proof will be by the commercial products”.
      I agree!
      This is that Rossi always said.
      The scientists discussions is another question.
      If the product works and respects the expectations and exceeds the safety test, the scientific discussion might take second place (it will be a matter between experts who will be able to investigate).
      A discovery so important it can not find obstacle because you are still unable to give an understandable and straightforward explanation.

      • cashmemorz

        There exists the other side for why the scientific, particularly the working theory is even more important. For engineers to do critical work on the E-cat, they have to know what makes it tick. In scientific language, it is the known parameters of the theory. Without those parameters, the engineers are working in the dark, hit and miss. For any on-site repairs or progress to be made in any kind of reasonable time frame those parameters are critical. It is fine for Rossi himself and a few close assistants to putter away and somehow by feel and intuition to put together what appears to be a working prototype. However, if anything goes wrong in the field, where the unit is working at a customers installation, the engineers have to know the whys and whats in details of its workings to allow them to home in on the particular reason it is not working and also the particular parameters that make it work and which parameters to change, replace or tweak. Without knowing in exact detail ahead of the time when it is required to fix it the engineers might not be able to make repairs or they will make repairs based more on guesses, assumptions and the like. Without the working theory customers do not have high reliability on the unit working as expected.

        Rossi has his own theory of how it works. For his own personal satisfaction that may be ok. For anyone else that will be depending on the unit to work 24/7/365, they will need assurance if the unit goes down and a technician from Industrial Heat comes to fix it, repairs will be made based on solid procedures that are also based on solid theory that anyone can use to figure out what to do to make the unit workable in a reasonable time frame.

        • US_Citizen71

          What you describe are the exact reasons engineers are not sent into the field to do repairs. Why waste dozens of hours trying to figure out what went wrong to the ninth decimal point when a simple repairman can replace the part and get everything running again in just a few minutes.

          • cashmemorz

            The problem with that scenario is that you are replacing a unit with the exact parameters unknown with another with the same parameters unknown that are causing the problem. Or the environment of the customer site is inputting anomalies such as unknown radiation, locally conditioned power spikes, ambient pressure transitions, whatever and mostly added unknown parameters that will vary with each customers site. Such anomalies cannot be fixed by taking the unit to the factory to be figured out at ones leisure. The theories parameters must be linked to each sites extra parameters. This requires rapid analysis of on site conditions, adding those new parameters to the fully known parameters of the on site unit and fixed on site. Without a fully understood theory each on site unit will have to be fixed at ones leisure. No customer will put up with that.

          • US_Citizen71

            If the product is truly ready for production, then no engineering fixes should be required in the field. Field engineering fixes mean that the design and sales teams didn’t do their jobs. We are only talking about heating a fluid. Power conditioning and operating parameters temperature, pressure, etc. should have enough margin to handle 99% of the environments that the product will be installed into. That last 1% is up to the sales team to identify and the engineering team to solve before installation.

          • cashmemorz

            What Rossi is trying to achieve with his 5 sigma is high probability of performance. The key term here is probability. More like taking chances. The unit will definitely work in a controlled environment, since that is what is all that can be achieved without the proven theory of how it works. When or if the theory is ever found and proven then there be a fully reliable guide for making a reliable product that can be made to work under most practical circumstances with minimal or no guess work. With the E-Cat and its offshoots of quarks etc, without a reliable theory all that can be achieved, 5 sigma or even higher, is a good lab unit. In the field, users will want something more robust with the underpinnings of a theory that removes chance from the equation as much as possible. Until then what can be attained at most is similar to a car engine that no one knows how it works. A black box that makes a certain amount of heat if it is treated right. The only way that such a car engine works is by trying the various controls and guessing what it all means on the inner workings. That is no way to drive car, much less to maintain or repair it.

  • wizkid

    If the upcoming event marks the onset of commercialization, it is only significant if he can start to deliver product within weeks to clients. A small array of demo products, say a mix of 6 100 kW, and a pair of 1MW units on display would make a nice presentation IF they were operating, with a discussion about Rossi’s Quarks for the Tech Rep to present. Rossi has told us he hopes “to provide solid information about the QuarkX on the eve of its industrialization”. A guest cameo by Michelle Obama wouldn’t hurt anything. Anything less than a show won’t work, the undertow of the legal drama would drown it out. A boiling cup of tea in a 100 gallon cup might be fun to see, and cajole the press into celebrating with him rather than to rally on the “it might be true someday” theme that is the mantra right now. If what he has said over time is true, his partner is ready for a hand off at the point of Sigma 5, to start up the factory run. THAT is the only thing that would ignite the imagination of the world right now. Telsa put on much more impressive demonstrations that anybody in LENR has done so far, it’s hard for me to believe that we’re not on the eve of a technology that is already half a century overdue.

  • artefact
  • Gerard McEk

    I do not understand the choice of a ‘professor’. Andrea probably has a lot of respect for that profession, but I do not think that is shared by everybody in relation to what he thinks to achieve: ‘Hey, see this is a professor now you have to believe it’. You need a guy of very high reputation to convince and would that professor want to do this for him?
    I expected Andrea to demonstrate it in operation.
    And what is easier than having it validated by a respectable company?Just a black box with a peephole (to see the light) and measure how much energy goes in and how much comes out? Once validated there is no need to have them around while demonstrated.
    (BTW, AR may not like MFMP to do this, because he may see them as compatitors).

    • cashmemorz

      If I read Rossi’s character correctly, he wants only people he can have some control or power over. Anyone who is very reputable and well known might not be as easily obtained or be willing to have their reputation put in jeopardy against the establishment science community. So he ends up with someone not too well known and willing to take a chance. Same with reputable testing institutions. They also might be wary about publicizing that they took part in a not so reputable or fringe science project. It might make them look desperate for work or not caring what kind of fringe projects they work with. It might appear to to be lowering their standards when they work with projects that are too much outside the accepted norm. Who wants their mainstream project to be checked by someone who’s standards are not always top notch?

      • Rossi Fan

        You have to work inside one of these small companies that comes up with an invention to understand how they work and operate. You and me, we’re not the customer. The goal is to be purchased aka “bought out” by a larger company. That’s why Frank is never going to get his toy for Xmas. The role of the professor is to offset the lack of pedigree and credibility of the main player. Only player if you do not count the sidekick Fabio. Minus the claim of being able to produce LENR he is just an uneducated snake oil salesman at your local carnival. As I understand it, the brains behind this operation was Focardi.
        What we have here is a failure of capitalism to cope with groundbreaking new inventions. Rent-a-professor is just another symptom of the problem.

  • Today Rossi says they are at about 3.5 sigma, which is better than 99.9% confidence. Excellent.

    But we still don’t know exactly what they are measuring/what the sigma value means.

    That and 3.5 sigma is a looooong way from 5 sigma (~3.5M events versus ~10k).

    At their current pace it would take many more years to actually reach 5 sigma if they really are at 3.5 sigma now.

    So I don’t know if this is good news or bad news. We have 99.9% confidence (claimed) in something related to the QuarkX but we also now have evidence that he doesn’t really know how close he is to 5 sigma (hint: not very).

    Maybe they plan to crank out hundreds of QuarkX’s and run parallel tests?

    • SD

      I am a bit disappointed as I thought Rossi had reached 4 sigma already.

      I agree we have no idea what Rossi is measuring.

      Without knowing anything, we know that Rossi can improve the sigma value in two ways: increasing the denominator, and decreasing the numerator.

      I am guessing the denominator is linked to time, i.e. a number of events, as you said.

      But we also have the numerator to work with, i.e. the number of failed events. Possibly Rossi currently has 350 failed events out of 3.5M. If he improves the device, he can just restart the experiment and run another 3.5M events.

      FWIW, 3.5M seconds is about 40 days.

      • It’s an interesting question whether he needs more time or better engineering or both in order to hit the 5 sigma.

        (Maybe someone with his ear can ask?)

        If it’s only more time it’s going to take a lot more time or at least many more devices/test than he’s been running to date. If it’s an engineering question then that can be open ended… he may never get there.

        • SD

          Well, for example Rossi says he had to fix an overheating problem around end of October. Possibly he would have to restart all over after that.

          Rossi described the Sigma5 test as “a very long and uninterrupted operation to collect Sigma5: on course in one of our labs”

          If he has to make a modification then I assume this would interrupt the operation and he has to start over again.

          So maybe the key is multiple weeks of running the Quarks without any issue coming up.

        • Frank Acland

          I see Gerard has just asked about this on the JONP

          • Seems Rossi missed the gist of the question in his answer however.

          • SD

            Adam Yates
            December 20, 2016 at 2:58 PM
            Dear Andrea,

            Let me clarify my previous question: I am talking about an infallible QuarkX that has not been tested; therefore, no one knows that it is infallible. But as you test it, the Quarkx will never fail.

            How long would it then take for you to prove that you have reached 5 sigma for that version of the Quarkx?


            Andrea Rossi
            December 20, 2016 at 4:16 PM
            Adam Yates:
            5Sigma is an R&D issue. The time of an R&D is difficult to foresee.
            Quality control of an industrial production is a different issue.
            Warm Regards

          • sam

            Hugh DeVries
            December 23, 2016 at 9:17 PM
            Dear Andrea

            I have a few questions on the E_cat Quark X.

            1. When individual Quark X’s are joined together to make a larger module, will the individual Quark X’s share a common heat sink?
            2. Are the individual Quark X very uniform in their characteristics from one to another.
            3. Will each individual Quark X have its own heating element?

            Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year


            Andrea Rossi
            December 23, 2016 at 9:28 PM
            Hugh DeVries:
            1- Yes
            2- yes
            3- depends
            Warm Regards

      • georgehants

        Posted on LENR Forum by Guest
        Bombshell dropped in Doc 93
        13 minutes ago
        Per document 93:
        “Third-Party Defendant, J.M. Products, Inc., hereby certifies that there is no parent corporation of J.M. Products, Inc.”
        Confirmed that Johnson’s letter to IH asserting there was a british
        parent company was a lie, straight from the mouth of JM. What a clear
        admission of all of this being an attempt at manipulation and fraud.
        How can Rossi & Johnson possibly get out of this now?

        • This is the first major piece of evidence not originating from IH that makes it look like IH’s version of events is the correct one. Team Rossi on the ropes.

          • radvar

            Needs some validation, e.g. links to document 93.
            Could also be “misunderstanding” or “misinterpretation”. However, Rossi’s secretiveness has not positioned him well against “errors” of this sort. Kind of reminds me of something else that happened recently…

          • Jas

            Doesn’t surprise me it appeared on the Lenr Forum.

          • They have been following the court developments much more closely than ECW, including volumes of opinion from various posters.

            Until now it’s been mostly legal machinations but this statement from JMP directly contradicts what was represented to IH about the “customer” (that it had a parent company in Britain). It’s possible there’s an honest explanation, but it’s more likely there was intentionally misrepresentation. If so, it especially calls into question the integrity of attorney Henry Johnson, who until now enjoyed some benefit of the doubt as a professional lawyer with good grades from his peers.

          • Jas

            The case is still ongoing. I just mean that there are those who will milk this on the forum.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi isn’t trying to prove it works. This is a simple public demo. Likely in preparation of finally bringing a product to market.

            This is only interesting as it appears this is the 1st time Rossi has done a demo of his own volition. Not by coercion by a friend or to fulfill a test requirement of another entity. i.e., Rossi is confident that it is ready.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I said, “For the tenth time”, many others have stated the same conclusion including Rossi. Why are you making this so personal? You did not share with us “there is another reason”. What is it.

          • US_Citizen71

            The declaration is fairly simple and speaks for itself : “Third-Party Defendant, J.M. Products, Inc., hereby certifies that there is no parent corporation of J.M. Products, Inc. and there is no publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock.” –

          • sam

            December 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM
            Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
            Are further tests on course for the evolution of the low temperature E-Cats?

            Andrea Rossi
            December 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM
            Warm Regards,

            December 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM

            Andrea Rossi
            December 22, 2016 at 9:49 AM
            We are working well, the Team is up also during these holidays.
            Merry Christmas and a Great 2017 to all our dear Readers !
            Andrea Rossi

            December 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM
            Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi.
            1. Your desire to achieve 5 sigma is related to the theoretical basis originating in the quark-X nuclear reactions?
            2. This affects the design of the quark-X and pre-production?
            3. What today thermal effitsiency quark-X?
            Thank you for taking the time to answer.
            Merry Christmas, your wife and your team!
            Yury Isaev
            Tyumen, Russia

            Andrea Rossi
            December 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM
            1- no
            2- no
            3- the COP will be disclosed when it will be presented.
            Warm Regards,

            Giuliano Bettini
            December 22, 2016 at 2:49 AM
            Dear Andrea,
            Pekka Janhunen
            December 21, 2016 at 2:48 AM
            Dear Andrea,
            The term sigma5 in this context is unclear to me. Which one of the following does it refer to:
            1/ Out of 3.5million time units (e.g., seconds) that it runs, it fails for one time unit?
            2/ Out of 3.5million units produced, one of them is faulty?
            3/ Something else?
            regards, /pekka

            Andrea Rossi
            December 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM
            Pekka Janhunen:
            No, it is a totally different issue, related to the repetition of the data from the units under R&D.
            Warm Regards,
            I suppose that it’s possible to exactly define the term sigma5, just to avoid “the interactions between something and nothing”. 🙂
            “.. it is a totally different issue…” but, what is it?
            Kind regards, a happy new year,
            Giuliano Bettini.

            Andrea Rossi
            December 22, 2016 at 7:51 AM
            Giuliano Bettini:
            Is a calculation based on the repetitivity of a series of data.
            Happy New Year to you,

            December 22, 2016 at 6:02 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            If it took you 10 months to reach the current 3.5 Sigma, is it possible for you to reach 5 Sigma by February? In other words, is the presentation still on track to be held then?

            Best Regards,


            Andrea Rossi
            December 22, 2016 at 7:50 AM
            I do not know.
            Warm Regards,

        • US_Citizen71

          The declaration only covers this moment in time. It makes no claim to what the status was in the past. J.M. Products, Inc. could have been spun off in February from whom ever owned it.

    • sam

      Andrea Rossi
      December 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM
      Dr Joseph Fine:
      10 months.
      Merry Christmas and a Great 2017 to you,

      Joseph Fine
      December 20, 2016 at 6:40 PM
      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      For the present test program, how much time did it take to reach the 3.5 sigma level?

      a) One week
      b) One month
      c) Six months
      d) One year
      e) Confidential

      Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year.

      Joseph Fine

  • Rene

    Here we are yet again at the crossroads that looks like a control issue. He runs the new quarks and some of them eventually pop. Were it larger it would ‘blam’ or ‘boom’. So he is at a point where a unit with 10000 of those quarks would lose a significant number of them, lots of little pops. Why? (and I speculate) because the he hasn’t quite gotten the reaction quenching working reliably enough to limit the nonlinear reaction spike every time, which leads to a meltdown pop.
    If the assembly were made from serviceable modules, an engineer could do a live replacement periodically. But, that raises operating costs.
    This may be a very long ZBB (zero bug bounce) process.

  • artefact

    Popular Science:

    EmDrive: China claims success with this ‘reactionless’ engine for space travel

  • artefact

    I think the presentation is jut.. a presentation. Hopefully the beginning of the industrialisation.
    I doubt Rossi wants to prove it once and for all. People would see if it works when it comes on the market. At that time the devices would speak for themself.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Axil Axil

      Hi Bob,

      There is a new science in development that postulates that the universe emerges from entanglement. I wrote a number of posts about this idea that I put together to provide background about this subject. This thread fits into this subject.

      Coherence is fundamental

      Throughout the vacuum, electromagnetic fluctuations are produced at a constant average rate under the purview of the uncertainty principle. The name that tags these fluctuations is virtual particle production. These fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime is called “quantum spin liquid”. The string theory science name for the pure vacuum without mass floating around in it is de Sitter space. This space produces only dark energy and is there General relativity works best.

      In this space, all the virtual particles are maximally entangled and the surface of space can describe what is going on inside since everything is connected to everything else by entanglement.

      This space forms a quantum spin liquids. This space may be considered “quantum disordered” ground states of spin systems, in which zero point fluctuations are so strong that they prevent conventional magnetic long range order.

      More interestingly, the vacuum as a quantum spin liquid is a prototypical example of ground state with massive many-body entanglement, of a degree sufficient to render these states distinct phases of matter.

      The vacuum is completely entangled at long range as identical patterns of virtual particle emerge throughout the vacuum, with each pattern strongly entangling other identical patterns.

      Just by chance, patterns of virtual particles come into existence at wide spread locations in the vacuum and become connected.

      Quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in which virtual particles as fluctuations in the electromagnetic field, shed their separate identities and assume a shared existence, their properties becoming strongly correlated with one another. The virtual particles act identically no matter how far away they are separated. Normally physicists think of these correlations as spanning space, linking far-flung locations in a phenomenon that Albert Einstein famously described as “spooky action at a distance.”

      Even harder to accept, there is a growing body of research investigating how these correlations can span time as well. What happens now can be correlated with what happens later, in ways that elude a simple mechanistic explanation. In effect, you can have spooky action at a delay.

      These correlations seriously mess with our intuitions about time and space. Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later. Each of these events is the cause of the other, as if each were the first to occur.

      But perhaps most important, researchers are working towards a new way to unify quantum theory with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the structure of spacetime. The world we experience in daily life, in which events occur in an order determined by their locations in space and time, is just a subset of the possibilities that quantum physics allows.

      Some physicists take this as evidence for a profoundly nonintuitive worldview, in which quantum correlations are more fundamental than spacetime, and space-time itself is somehow built up from correlations among events, in what might be called quantum relationalism. The argument updates Gottfried Leibniz and Ernst Mach’s idea that spacetime might not be a God-given backdrop to the world, but instead might derive from the material contents of the universe.

      In this view quantum entanglement is more fundamental than spacetime because quantum entanglement generates spacetime. Quantum entanglement is not sensitive to the constraints of spacetime, that is, quantum entanglement connects events without regard to walls of matter, distance or the past and future.
      The key to control spacetime and the forces that operate in spacetime is the control of entanglement and coherence. This is what LENR engineering is all about.

      How coherence manipulation produces force.

      In the EmDrive, microwaves setup standing electromagnetic waves inside the metal cone that disturbs the coherence in the vacuum so that virtual particle coherence is reduced. This application of energy to the vacuum is similar to inflating a balloon by increasing the air pressure inside the balloon. There is a unbalancing of the vacuum between the inside of the cone and the outside that remains neutral. This is like a balloon that has a higher air pressure on the inside of the balloon than the outside. An adiabatic inertial reaction force is produced to rebalance the imbalance setup in the vacuum generated by the microwaves. This inertial force attempts to rebalance the uneven vacuum energy distribution that exists between the inside and outside of the cone. The cone is configured to focus this adiabatic inertial reaction force in a desired direction.

      In a balloon, the air pressure is equal throughout the volume of the balloon, but in a metal cone, the standing wave pattern of the standing waves produced by the magnetron are unequal throughout the volume of the cone so there will be less force generated in one given section of the voluum than in another. The unequal distribution of vacuum energy will resolve into a force vector in a preferred direction. The key to optimizing the force produced by the cone is to maximize the imbalance in the emf standing wave distribution inside the cone.

      One way to test this theory, is to test the reduction of the half life of an radioactive isotope in the regions of positive vacuum energy against the result produce in the regions of negative vacuum energy. The positive vacuum energy should produce a reduction in the half life in the radioactive isotope.

      This experiment can be done in a home microwave with a turntable. Find the zone of maximum microwave resonance and place the isotope there. You should see a reduction of the half life as a result in the amplified strength of the weak force at the point of maximum microwave strength.

      By the way, this is how George Egely produces LENR in his microwave reactor.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks – a good read.

        That video I have, I also recorded George and I walking through and explaining aspects that are not obvious in it, which I will release as part of .:StarDust:.

        There is a lot of material out there that has been ignored relating to this, from George and others, some of which you have highlighted in the past.

        I very much hope that the community will try to get ahead of the releases and start to appreciate the level of thinking that George and his associates have brought to dusty plasma research.

        • Axil Axil

          I beleive that the link in the video “Discussion can be found here:” is misdirected. It should point to the “Star Dust” thread not the “Life changing” thread.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks I will check.

  • f sedei

    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to Andrea Rossi, Frank Acland and all the faithful contributors to this site.

    • Nelson Vogel

      Thanks, for you too, and wish Quark X be finally in the market next year to save this planet !!!

  • sam

    December 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    This may seem elementary but could you clarify as to what is required before the presentation of the QuarkX?
    1. Sigma5 reached?
    2. Modules required to continue operate 1 year (February) without refueling?
    3. Minimum COP achieved?
    4. Theory finalized?
    5. Other?
    Will production be ready soon afterwards?

    Wish you and your amazing team a Very Merry Christmas.
    Warm Regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    December 24, 2016 at 5:47 PM
    1- not necessarily
    2- not necessarily
    3- yes
    4- no
    5- reliability: this module will be produced in million pieces
    Warm Regards,

  • Alan Smith

    Merry Christmas from Same and me to Frank and everyone on ECW. And an especial big thank you to our customers at Lookingforheat. 2017 needs to get better, and I know that like us, eveyone here will play their part in making it so. Go LENR!

  • Roy O’Neil

    Andrea Rossi’s effort to develop and sell energy catalyzers is being aided by skeptics, fence sitters, the silent of uninformed press, etc. He is being allowed to work in relative obscurity. Competition from big companies and governments is minimized. When the efficacy of E-cats and quarks becomes well known, competitive efforts will explode upwards.
    Also, Rossi is giving himself more development time by holding back on a public demonstration of his intended product. In my opinion, it would be easy to show that a fueled quark would produce more energy than an unfueled quark (a dummy). Such a demonstration would have to rule out the possibilities of hidden energy sources such as hidden wires and batteries.

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