Rossi: QuarkX Presentation Not Tied to Achieving Sigma 5

A some questions regarding Andrea Rossi’s plans for presenting the QuarkX have brought up some interesting responses:

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? AR: – not necessarily
2. Modules required to continue operate 1 year (February) without refueling? AR: – not necessarily
3. Minimum COP achieved? AR: – yes
4. Theory finalized? AR: – no
5. Other? -reliability: this module will be produced in million pieces

Frank Acland
December 24, 2016 at 11:43 PM
Dear Andrea,

Can we conclude from your answer to Brokeeper below, that it is possible that you will hold the event for the presentation of the QuarkX before you reach your 5 Sigma goal? AR: – yes

This seems to me to be a sign that the likelihood of Rossi holding an event to present the QuarkX in the relatively near future is higher than I had previously thought. If the timing of a presentation was tied to the achieving of Sigma 5, then we might expect it to be delayed well beyond February, since Rossi has said that we he has so far reached only Sigma 3.5 (after 10 months of operation).

So maybe the decision has been made to hold a presentation sooner rather than later. Still, we have no date, nor any official announcement of invitations sent out, so best to keep expectations under check for now.

  • sam

    Is it any big advantage for A.R. to have
    the Quark X presentation before the
    Court Case?

    • Gerard McEk

      That’s also the first thing that crossed my mind. There is a fair chance that the QuarkX/E-cadX was the main reason for the IH vs AR court case, although AR has said several times that also the E-catX technology belonged to the contract. Maybe it is the fine-tuning that Andrea did in the 1MW plant every night, that was not in the contract?
      It would be better for the court case if AR would show a working E-cat, which COP can be verified by everybody.

  • Buck

    Is it any big advantage for A.R. to have the Quark X presentation before Rex Tillerson establishes a strong hold on his Secretary of State position?

    • LilyLover

      In the grand scheme of things, T-Rex doesn’t matter to AR or E-Cat or LENR. Forces of commerce and smartness of poor people will render any importance of such “positions” meaningless.
      So, far certain government agencies, not soshrewed partners and shrewed partners have attempted to steal the E-Cat patents, technology and know-how to no avail. At this point it’s Ross’s way or No-way. Even the unpresidented actions are no more any-threat.
      So, all in all, it’s all good.

      • Buck

        Respectfully I disagree. Yes, in the grand scheme of things it will work out. However, this endpoint is arrived at one day at a time. Rex T. can be just like IH/Darden, a point of frustration and delay.

        So, with this in mind, I must say that my question was rhetorical. It is to Rossi’s benefit to move forward before too much longer, IMHO. It is best to get the cat out of the bag and into the market so that the entrepreneurs can shift the introduction of LENR out of neutral and into forward.

        Of course, time will tell.

  • Buck

    I would be absolutely amazed If RexT. was not aware of LENR and Rossi’s e-cat.

  • TomR

    If Obama’s legacy is all but demolished in 2017, he might wish he would have pushed for fast track, of the E-Cat Domestic Heater, safety certification.

  • Gerard McEk

    The COP is a main factor for demontstrating the QuarkX. I assume the reliability/controllability of it are the main points for the 5 Sigma tests. What other factors could prevent the demonstration in February?

    • Rene

      1. Lack of consistent reactions per starting stimuli
      2. Too many ‘pop’ events (where the reaction doesn’t quench, so it leads to quark meltdown)
      3. Too many weak reactions in response to stimuli (COP not achieved)

      I recommend asking Rossi point blank about these possibilities, taking a ‘cannot disclose’ as a yes answer.

  • Frank Acland

    He has been asked numerous times, and won’t be specific, but he does say that he is measuring ‘events’ that are taking place within a QuarkX reactor.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe he just means on-off cycles. Switching the units periodically on and off would be an easy way to regulate power.

    • US_Citizen71

      Maybe it is simply power up cycles without generating detectable neutrons. The limited low level gamma that is suppose to be generated is easy to block, but neutrons are not so easy to deal with and have been detected with nickel hydrogen systems. All of the testing and changes that the ECat has gone through might be to come up with a fuel recipe and heating/activation procedure that does not create neutrons ever. Being a neutron generator would be a sure way to never receive consumer use certification.

    • Rene

      My speculation in what Rossi is counting toward sigma 5 is the number of successful LEN Reactions per starting stimulus. Every time the system produces a heat pulse or EM stimulus, there is supposed to be a short bout of LENR activity in the tiny quark that is then quickly quenched (by some undisclosed process). Sometimes the stimulus fails to make LENR happen. That is a failure. Sometimes the reaction doesn’t quench fast enough and his little quark pops. That is a big failure. These stimuli are happening very quickly, likely 60 times a second, so achieving sigma 5 would take only a couple of days to achieve *iff* the reactions work almost every time.
      So, my guess is it is not going well. He still has a lack of consistent control over the reaction initiation and quenching process. This is something that has plagued his work since 2010.

  • Rossi Fan

    The unit of data points is big companies who are interested in buying him out sending out feelers. Take a step back and ask yourself if every great invention needed Sigma 5 to be introduced to the world where would we be today? These milestones are excuses to buy time while he is doing his business in the background. He got IH to pony up $10 or $100M. Now he is going for the big fish. I am not saying the technology is not real. I am saying that companies that have something to sell and want to sell it sell it. They do not beat around the bush endlessly pursuing one or another certification. I am not saying verifications are not necessary. They serve a specific paradigm. They are a form of a bribe to get through a government approval or permission. There are firms that take a big amount of money to generate a palette of documentation if it was ever printed or read. More often than not it isn’t They do not test a whole heck of a lot but the process is intense and capital consuming. The companies are start-ups led by former government employees in the system. Functioning without them is tantamount to malpractice. This is where IH fit in. They were a company that got things arranged in the system when nobody else was able to. Look that up in the dictionary under bribe. Along comes Rossi and outguns the guns. He he, the fact that he got $10M from IH is more proof to me that LENR is for real than 6 sigma if there were any such thing.

    • Brokeeper

      Rossi Fan, from Rossi’s latest response to one of the requirements before production:
      “price to defeat the competition”, appears to imply he is not open to any buyouts
      from any entity.

      • sam

        Frank Acland
        December 28, 2016 at 11:45 AM
        Dear Andrea,

        Can we conclude from what you have been saying lately that there will certainly be a presentation of the QuarkX?

        If so, can you say when and where it will take place?

        Many thanks,

        Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi
        December 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM
        Frank Acland:
        Very likely, but nothing has been defined yet.
        Warm Regards

        Steven N. Karels
        December 28, 2016 at 6:54 AM
        Dear Andrea Rossi,

        With reports that your newest technology can produce an effective COP of around 200, then why would it not be possible to demonstrate a self-contained unit that produces heat and then electricity (via Carnot or thermo-electric generation), stores the produced energy within a suitable battery and then use the battery output as a stable and constant source of power to control the ecat unit? The purpose of the battery is to decouple the ecat input form the output for safety purposes. If a demonstration like this were held, where only external power was applied to first start the reaction, and then the unit runs continuously for several months. this demonstration would be hard to discredit. With an effective COP in excess of 20 or more, the combined losses in the conversions and storage should still produce an excess amount of energy. I have never understood the claim that for safety reasons, suitably buffered, that the ecat output cannot (indirectly) feed its input. Please clarify.

        If you are going to sell this technology commercially and eventually residentially, there must be no doubt it works. First adopters may except it under very favorable contract terms but the general market will require a conversion in their belief about LENR technology.

        Andrea Rossi
        December 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM
        Steven N. Karels:
        I did not say yet which is the COP of the QuarkX. About the other characteristics, they too will e disclosed during the presentation.
        Thank you for your insight.
        Warm Regards

        December 28, 2016 at 11:04 AM

        Andrea Rossi
        December 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM
        I am working well and peacefully.
        Warm Regards

        • georgehants

          It has been a very sad story for almost six years and it looks like our Wizard of Oz is going to keep playing the same games this year.
          A topic page on all the mental disorders that can lead to such a situation would be good, or can it all be explained by the Wonderful, efficient, caring madness of uncontrolled capitalism.
          Wonderful World we can all be very proud of.

      • Rossi Fan

        Brokeeper how many tiny companies with great inventions have you worked for? I have seen these operations from the inside and I can tell you CEOs who talk about producing a market changing device more often than not have no intention of actually doing it. It’s a choreographed dance the seller and the buyer.
        Not so much outgunned the guns. He either outconned the cons or he really has something up his sleeve. This more than Sigma 12 is an indicator. It does not necessarily mean he has something solid and reliable ready for your local Home Depot. He might be on to something however.

        • Brokeeper

          Perhaps reading a little history will enlighten those who are quick to judge Andrea Rossi. He has danced to this tune before. He is not your ordinary inventor but owns several patents within his past company, Petroldragon, recycling polluting waste into fuel.
          After being falsely accused of producing (actually eliminating) toxic waste he since has been vindicated but not until after ruining his company and also his customer’s companies. He never sold out but his country sold him out with four years of prison for his efforts to make this world better. His expired patents are now public domain and recently being used for the same purposes by others. Rossi has learned many valuable lessons of trust since. I think he deserves respect not condemnation.

          • Rossi Fan

            I am not knocking Rossi so much about Rossi’s fraud accusations/convictions/whatever. Your rant does not make any sense. Rossi’s actions do not make any sense. It’s a free country. You CAN manufacture without Sigma 5. Free country also means any Chinese manufacturer can say “great idea glad I thought of it”. Poof! There goes your great invention. Only a big company has the resources to manufacture and coordinate patents and not get reamed. The small guy can only hope to sell out at the right price. Rossi has claimed he is a businessman. Smart businessmen are in it for the money.

          • Brokeeper

            Rant? I don’t think so. I merely quoted Andrea Rossi and you are the one going into a rant. (sigh)

          • psi2u2

            Good summary.

  • Axil Axil

    R. Mills has estimated the cost of the SunCell for a 1 megawatt level of total power production. Did anybody ask Rossi if he can beat the SunCell in terms of cost in the marketplace. It seems to be that the cost of just the shipping container will be more expensive to source than the entire SunCell.

    • Nixter

      As a rule, Rossi does not like to address comments or questions about his competitors, however, a creatively formulated question might circumvent this rule

      • sam

        December 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM
        Dear Andrea,

        Now permit me to ask similar requirements before production of the QuarkX?
        1. Sigma5 reached?
        2. Modules required to continue operate at least 1 year (February) without refueling?
        3. COP > 40 achieved?
        4. Theory finalized?
        5. Reliability?
        6. Partner’s concurrence?
        7. Others?
        Thank you.

        Wish your hopes, dreams and hard work realized in this coming New Year. We share your hopes and dreams.
        Warm Regards,

        Andrea Rossi
        December 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM
        1- yes
        2- no
        3- confidential
        4- no
        5- yes
        6- not necessarily
        7- price to defeat the competition
        Warm regards,

    • Jimr

      Axil, interested in where you found that information, I have not been able to locate it. Or what the amount was.Thanks

      • Axil Axil

        See page 62: about $25K

        To be competitive, the Quark would need to cost just 1/2 dollar each.

        • Rene

          That estimate is based on 50,000 20W quarks. Of course it has to be cheaper than that because the quarks need to be in a heat drawing assembly. I would not expect those little quarks to be individual units. More likely it would be a set of module plates each holding a bunch of quark elements machined into the plates. Something like that could be made much less expensive.
          Of course we also do not know if that BLP 1MW power number is a continuous value.

          • Axil Axil

            In addition, Rossi would need to supply a steam turbine to convert steam to electrical power and associated electrical equipment.

          • Rene

            Yes, going the heat route means conversion equipment. It may be premature to try to compare the differences between the two systems. I think there is also a lot of unstated equipment on the suncell side to deal with the waste heat.

          • TVulgaris

            No, this is still a perfect direct-heat source for hot water or air systems, heat pump, etc.

        • Rene

          Axil you missed that the $25,000 was for a 250KW suncell:

          From pg 62)
          TOTAL COST 250KW
          TOTAL COST $25,221.64
          or, parts cost = $0.10 per KW
          Now that is cost, not price. It will be priced higher. So, for the quark based system costing that would be $2 a quark, not $0.50.

          • Axil Axil

            The SunCell has a electrical production efficiency of 20 to 30 %, so the SunCell produces 1 megawatt heat.

          • Rene

            That reference claims higher conversion efficiencies.
            Also, I find it difficult to believe that small radiator is going to expel 750KW of heat.

          • US_Citizen71

            Actually using your numbers it would be $100 per kW and $.10 per watt.

    • cashmemorz

      The one to be successful in the market will be the one that is most convincing and quickest to market presentation. Both Brilliant Light and Leonardo claim to have something that works. Both claim to have a theory to support the workings of their units. Randall Mills Hydrino theory has been compared favorably against the standard model of current physics at a university presentation. Rossi’s theory is in line, roughly speaking, with the work of Italian workers. Neither is widely accepted in the larger scientific or scholarly community. This lends a base amount of credence to both. Both claim a catalyst in an unclear manner. This undercuts both efforts. The Suncell seems close to market if they work out all remaining details of operation, mainly with the high capacity photo-voltaic cells. The E-cat quark needs tweaking for achieving sigma 5 for internal development reasons. The Suncell seems to be similar to the physics in the Nobel prize winning topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter. Randell’s Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics seems to be similar to that which won the Nobel prize for physics in 2016. The E-cat and Quark theory is based only earlier known physics. So overall Randell Mills has a leg up on being more acceptable in the scientific community and has the sexier physics that is similar to that which won the Nobel. On the other hand, by not claiming too much Rossi leaves the road open to more thorough research in the future.

      The small differences I see between the two technologies presents an even chance of who will win out. What I would dread to see is a presentation by either that jumps the gun before the details are worked out sufficiently to make for a clean presentation. A repeat of what can happen when neither side wants to lose, as happened in 1989, would be devastating to the field of new energy. The media and the general science community would drive the field out of the ball park and say “never again” . It would be a case of ” fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice and shame on me”. Nobody wants to be made a fool of, especially twice.

    • Carl Wilson

      “SunCell in terms of cost”
      Using some pretty exotic elements in the PV portion?

  • Samec

    In contract between Leonardo Corp and IH there was clear point: Price of device must be below 100 USD/kW. I think that Rossi’s own target is about 50 USD/kW. So 20 W QuarkX may be calculated somewhere between 1 to 2 USD per piece.

  • pg

    See you all in february. Happy new year!!!

  • artefact

    On JONP

    “Simon Yates December 29, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    Dear Andrea
    Are we going to get a New Year special announcement this year, just like your dream from last year?

    Andrea Rossi December 29, 2016 at 12:06 PM
    Simon Yates:
    Who knows?
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Kenko1

    There were no QuarkX’s used in the IH testing. Only Hot-Cats. Rossi gave IH enough info on how to build a Hot-Cat. And they did build some Hot-Cats without Rossi’s help(AND get them running), IIRC.

    • kenko1

      Also, again IIRC, the QuarkX wasn’t even ‘discovered’ until the IH yearlong tests were well under way. There was some discussions in these forums as to whether IH was entitled to the new QuarkX technology, or just Hot-Cat technology and distribution rights………has the lawsuit shed any light on that aspect?

  • sam

    Donato Roda
    December 29, 2016 at 1:41 PM
    Good Morning, Dr Rossi:
    How long does it take , apart from the thermal inertia, to turn off and on the QuarkX?
    Thank you if you can answer and sincere wishes,
    Donato Roda

    Andrea Rossi
    December 29, 2016 at 2:47 PM
    Donato Roda:
    Few seconds.
    Best wishes to you,

    • Rene

      What is the overall percentage of events when an QuarkX turns off within a few seconds?
      When turn-off takes longer, how much longer?
      How many times has a QuarkX been damaged or destroyed because the turn off failed to happen within a few seconds?

      • Brokeeper

        Unless these are rhetorical these are good questions to ask Rossi directly.

        • Rene

          I recommend anyone he is friendly with ask these questions.

  • artefact


    ‘Impossible’ EmDrive thruster attracts rising attention, even from skeptics

    “I have to question my earlier bias that the prior data was entirely
    due to experimental artifacts and proponent biases,” said Millis, the
    former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project.
    He and his colleagues still see problems with the experimental setup
    described in the latest paper, as well as the NASA team’s interpretation
    of the results.
    To break the cycle of endlessly not doing the right things to get a
    definitive answer, we must begin a more in-depth experimental program
    using qualified and impartial labs, plus qualified and impartial
    analysts,” Millis and the other advisers write. “The Tau Zero Foundation
    stands ready to make arrangements with suitable labs and analysts to
    produce reliable findings, pro or con.”

    • Ciaranjay

      Good article. Real progress as the NASA paper has done its job in attracting some serious, if cautious, attention. Hopefully cautious means careful and thorough but not slow. I expect a definitive answer to the validity of this technology in 2017 (possibly in the next few months).

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