Andrea Rossi Holds ‘Dialogue’ With Galileo

Here’s a new New Year’s Dream from Andrea Rossi this year, published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
January 1, 2017 at 12:53 PM
Vance Neitzke:
This New Year Eve night I didn’t sleep, too many issues to think about, but, during that limbo status between to be awake and to be sleeping, I attended this dialogue by two characters: Galileo (G) and Andrea (A).
G- what the heck are you doing ?
A- testing the QuarkX
G- what is it ?
A- not your business
G- don’t worry, I am not a spy, just curious: what is it for ?
A- make heat
G- not much of an invention
A- make a lot of heat
G- still not much of an invention
A- make a lot of heat with a bit of energy respect the heat produced
G- now, that’s interesting
A- yep
G- for example, how much units of heat with , say, ten of the same units of supply ?
A- more than one hundred
G- that’s crazy: you kidding ?
A- nope
G- how did you invent it ?
A- mainly try and error, lot of work
G- I know the feeling
A- what do you do in the life ?
G- my life in this Earth is long past. At those times I discovered that the Earth was orbiting around the Sun, not viceversa, but most of all I estabilished a new scientific method to make science, based on experiments instead of speculations
A- that’s nice
G- official science tried to roast me for all that
A- I know the feeling
G- what do you dream to do with that gadget ?
A- make billions of them to make energy without pollution and with strong economic advantages: also, to reduce the global warming
G- what the heck is the global warming ?
A- forget it
G- when do you think you will start to produce that gadget, to start the route that will bring to make billions of them?
A- in this very beginning year, this is my very strong dream right now
G- how are going the experiments ?
A- well
G- do you know the theoretical bases the gadget works upon ?
A- working on that, I got good ideas, but I privilege the experimental activity
G- I know the feeling. Fire has been used for thousands of years before its chemical and physical theoretical bases have been discovered
A- yeah, but you know what Dante wrote: ” fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscienza”
G- all right, good luck and beware not to be roasted
A- you bet

Andrea Rossi

  • Tadej

    A- is it possible to get some help from heaven?
    G- spark some light so we can find you

  • Andy Kumar

    This is what I call delusions of grandeur. Will check back next year.

  • Rene

    G- how did you invent it ?
    A- mainly try and error, lot of work
    (He needs a replacement for Forcardi-RIP, who helped him immensely)

  • Obvious

    … and the audience is Simplicio, as always.

  • bfast

    G- do you know the theoretical bases the gadget works upon ?
    A- working on that, I got good ideas, but I privilege the experimental activity

    “But I privilege the experimental activity” That is Rossi’s advantage over mainstream science.

  • Domenico Canino

    Cop? More than one hundred!!! This, if true, is the steak!

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Let’s just hope that institutions (throughout history temporal power – hence human law – has been subject to spiritual domination or concession) don’t take another 350 years to admit that, ultimately, experiments were correct.
    “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”).

    • John Williamson

      I’m not aware that the church has taken a position on cold fusion that will take 350 years for them to apologize for. Science itself came to accept the Copernican system in much the way it accepts most phenomena — it followed the evidence.

      Promoters of every fringe science invoke Galileo to defend their ideas, but sometimes they are wrong. The lesson of Galileo should not be that any idea, if it is rejected by convention, must be right.

      Galileo himself was way off in his explanation for the tides.

      And, experiments are neither right nor wrong; they simply are. Disagreements arise in their interpretation.

      • Observer

        As long as the reputation of the messenger is more important than the message, the truth of the message will not be judged by its own merits.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Disagreement is one thing, and is constructive.
        In a perfect world, it is indeed what scientific method is all about.
        It should be all about confrontation and dialogue (dia-logos) among peers, where established institutions have less weight, or, at the most, facilitate discussion in our post-enlightenment era.
        Derision, legal persecution, media and reputation attacks, interested ostracism are something different, IMHO. Especially when financial interests become visible and evident.
        To this day, only pronouncing the term ‘cold fusion’ might associate one with belief in witchcraft…
        To the stake!

        • John Williamson

          Selfish interests — financial, political, strategic, environmental — are strongly in favor of the reality of cold fusion. That’s why it was initially received with such unprecedented enthusiasm. Storms was lured into the field believing cold fusion would “solve the world’s energy problems and make us all rich”.

          The most effective skepticism came from (among others) (a) 2 professors at Caltech who were not recipients of hot fusion funding, and who would have benefited by increased research funding available for other fields if hot fusion had been shut down; (b) two panels enlisted by the DOE, which clearly stood to benefit from cold fusion by saving billions in unnecessary expenditures, and gaining huge political benefits; (c) Douglas Morrison, a CERN physicist (but not a hot fusion researcher), who was initially enthusiastically positive about cold fusion, but then became an effective critic, following the field closely for more than a decade until his death.

          And for all the claimed persecution of cold fusion researchers, Pons and Fleischmann were given a well-equipped lab in France, and more funding than either of them had seen in their careers. Even now, contrary to what is often claimed, it is easier to secure funding for cold fusion research than for many other completely accepted fields. Researchers like Dardik, Rossi, Godes, or Mills, would have difficulty getting a grant of any kind in accepted fields, and yet seem to have no difficulty getting millions for cold fusion research. This is because the reality of cold fusion would have such unprecedented benefits for humanity, and those who succeed in it will be regarded as heroes, besides being rich beyond their dreams. Again, self-interest is in cold fusion’s favor, and is the only reason the field survives.

          It’s true that a scientist’s reputation will suffer if he works on cold fusion, unless he succeeds at delivering unequivocal proof for it, in which case he would be guaranteed a Nobel prize. Scientists’ reputations also suffer if they work on perpetual motion or propellantless thrust, but only as long as they fail to prove the respective phenomena are real.

  • Gerard McEk

    At least we know that the COP of the QuarkX>100
    Let us hope that Andrea’s dream comes through soon.

    Just to spare you some time (from Inferno Dante):
    “Considerate la vostra semenza: fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
    ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza”.
    Translation: Consider well the seed that gave you birth: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge. (Wiki quote)

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Ten, not 100.

      • Gerard McEk


      • Alain Samoun

        Actually about 3 as the energy input is electrical.

        • Gerard McEk

          That’s right too

        • Omega Z

          With the newer ultra-supercritical power plants, they hope to quickly surpass the 50% efficiency mark. With the prototype supercritical CO2 power plant, visions of 60/70 percent may be in the near future.

          • Rene

            Those efficiencies are possible *if* one can generate the required heat reliably. We just need a demo of that kind of heat generation.

          • Omega Z

            There are multiple ultra-supercritical power plants already in operation producing between 45% and 50% efficiency already. China and India have 100’s of such coal power plants planned or under construction already. There is also a prototype supercritical CO2 power plant that has already obtained 50% efficiency in operation.

            Producing heat reliably isn’t the issue. It is the materials science. Coal and natural gas can both easily exceed 2000`C

            Jet engines can generate 1500`C heat, but need to draw in cooler air to reduce temp. Anything over 900`C tends to destroy turbine blades and the inner materials of the engine in short order.

            In ultra-supercritical power plants, the boilers have to withstand pressure of 300 to 400 bar.(4350 to 5800 psi) Note 300 bar is where they’re at. 400 bar plus is where they want to go.

            I suspect when the current ultra-supercritical technology is blended into co-generation plants, we will see 70% plus efficiencies considering they already have records exceeding 60%.

            Note they also have a new coal powered supercritical CO2 power plant that is intended to produce cheaper energy then current power plants with Zero emmsions of any kind and no water cooling required.

            Don’t get this wrong. I think coal will be necessary for other things in the future and it’s a waste to burn it. It is the other technology that’s being developed because of it. We could easily see 75% efficiency e-cat power plants in the future and in the large cities they could see 90% energy utilization.

          • Rene

            Yes, I agree with you on the power plants. When I wrote ‘reliable heat’ I specifically was referring to LENR based heat generation, notably the e-cat and all its variants, none of which generate heat reliably to date nor to the temperatures required for super critical power plants. The e-cat is still a magic box. One could easily substitute “matter antimatter reactor” as that too is ‘merely’ an engineering issue.

          • Gerard McEk

            Here is the visualized dialogue:)

          • artefact


          • sam

            A.R. Changed his laugh from
            He He He to Ha Ha Ha

            January 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM
            Hello Andrea,

            I also had a strange dream during this New Year. Somehow I was able to sneak my phone into my dream-state and film the dream. I think that you might see some similarities to your dream.


            Andrea Rossi
            January 8, 2017 at 12:34 PM
            Thomas Florek:
            Ha,ha,ha !!!
            That’s some fun, thank you.
            Warm Regards,

    • Rene

      If the units in are electricity converted to heat then 100/10 or COP 10. He has crossed this path before, although the last time it was 6. Much above COP 6 or 10 and the reaction sometimes goes runaway, it can’t be quenched quickly. In the case of the quarks, they pop. It appears Rossi has traveled in a circle and found himself back where he was in 2011 in terms of control and maximum gain.
      2017 is the year where Rossi has to master controlling the reaction to achieve high COP (100+), run consistently, without significant failures, and needing at most yearly (preferably less frequent) routine service.

      • artefact

        Imagine a system where there are like 100 Quarks close to each other. If the output (heat) works fully or in part as input to the others the COP of the whole system is very huge.

        • Rene

          Were that so, then imagine that such a behavior would lead to uncontrolled output and lots of popped Quarks. This is why I do not believe heat alone is the reaction initiator, and actually, why that is a good thing.

    • sam

      January 2, 2017 at 11:51 AM
      Dear Andrea,
      reading carefully your dialogue with Galileo, it seems to me you are announcing a COP greater than 10 !
      Am I right ?
      Best Wishes for a really hot 2017 !!!

      Andrea Rossi
      January 2, 2017 at 11:58 AM
      Rick 57:
      Warm Regards

    • Gerard McEk

      A single QuarkX has a COP of >10. I believe Andrea has suggested that individual QuarkX’s can control others (without an electrical connection), so I believe that a cluster can have a much higher COP.

      • Gerard McEk

        AR answered in a question of mine last night that the COP of a cluster is not higher than that of an individual QuarkX.
        So there goes my idea of a higher cluster COP. But a COP>10 can also be 100 😉

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Last spring Rossi reported COP 200 from a QuarkX lab prototyope. Thereafter he has indicated that the production model will have lower COP because reliability etc must be high.
          When COP is low (e.g. 3-6), improving it is very important, but when it gets larger than about 15-20, a further improvement brings diminishing benefit. COP200 is not ten times better than COP20, but only slightly better.

          • Gerard McEk

            I agree Pekka. The benefit in energy in going from COP 10 to infinite is only 10 percent. If due to that the reliability increases to very acceptable levels (from economical perspective) the you have reached the target for large scale implementation.

  • LilyLover

    Personally, I engage in these imaginary or “in-dream” dialogues.
    If great men think alike is true, then, this behaviour of Dr. Rossi offers me a new hope to greatness 🙂

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Paphos dialogue with the hero a bit spoiled by the mention of a multibillion-dollar expectations of profit

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Fedir: You misread his comment: “make billions OF THEM to make energy without pollution and with strong economic advantages: also, to reduce the global warming” Where does he say “profit”?

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        You are right, Thomas is a small grimace Google translator plus my carelessness.

  • Omega Z

    At that time, church and official science walked hand in hand.

    • John Williamson

      However true that may be, science and the church were not one and the same, and the objections that got Galileo chastised and put under house arrest were religious, based on alleged contradictions with scripture. I’m not aware of any references to nuclear reactions in the scriptures.

      The important scientists (Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus) were not for the most part important religious figures.

      There were some scientific objections to heliocentrism as well. For example, the absence of observable stellar parallax was cited by Brahe and others. But this represented normal and productive scientific exchange, and the objections were answered by much larger stellar distances than Brahe had assumed. And this resolution did not take very long in the scheme of things, and no censure or suppression is associated with it.

      • Basically, Galileo like those who were attacked exploited science, as a way to push a political/ideological agenda (that many would defend today, liberal).
        He was condemned like those who exploit a scientific opinion to attack a political agenda.

        there is a summary, from a catholic POV, but more detailed than the usual bashing
        “Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. ”

        anyway few of those scientists were neutral about spirituality

        Keppler was trying to prove harmony of the spheres by finding laws in planets… He was a deep astrologist.

        Newton what a radical conservative christian, doing alchemy in a mystic way, refusing to use differential calculus (he invented an awkward infinitesimal geometry method) for nearly mystic reasons, …

        • John Williamson

          Sorry, but that sounds like a catholic’s seriously contrived rationalization for inexcusable behavior of the catholic church.

          None of what you said is contrary to the idea that Galileo was censured for religious and not scientific reasons. Scientific acceptance followed the evidence, even if there was some inertia, as is typical and desirable.

          There are no religious objections to cold fusion.

          • I agree that is the point
            “Galileo was censured for religious and not scientific reasons”

            I just consider religion at that time was ideology and thus politics…

            Galileo was attacked not because his science, but because he attacked a political power on it’s ideology at a momment other social and political actors were attacking them the same way.

            To make a comparison it is like attacking USA about their EPA/IPCC/Solar, or shale oil decisions exploiting some obscure climatology economic or engineering argument.

            in both case the political establishment ask the academic establishment to declare you BS science.

          • John Williamson

            Galileo was attacked because his science (interpretations reached based on observation of nature) contradicted religious dogma, much as evolution is still opposed by those who consider it in contradiction to their religious dogma.

            Galileo did not attack anyone. He simply argued his position with logic and observation. He was attacked by those who used dogma based on superstition.

            There is no credible comparison to the scientific objections to poorly supported scientific claims of perpetual motion, propellantless thrust, or cold fusion.

          • I dosagree on that point.
            The war was only about politics at that time.
            Galileo like many was fighting, and Chruch was struggling against…

            Giordano Bruno was another more violent case of that fight against the political domination of church over all, including over astronomy.

            It is important to realize that science was not the subject of that debate, as I suspect that on many today’s controversy, politics and budgets are more important than theory.

  • John Littlemist

    Good points, your message should be a post of its own here in ECW! AFAIK, regarding 1 MW plants, there should also be something going on in Sweden at the moment… Or is there? Our friend Sifferkoll has been quite quiet lately…

  • Bruce__H

    Mr. Rossi must have had a substantial number of people working to build these plants. He couldn’t have done it all himself could he? Where are all these people? Has anyone heard from one of them? Are their identities known?

  • clovis ray

    Hi u all.
    Not been commenting much but i am setting on the edge of my seat these day contemplating on what this year will bring, i have full faith in Dr Rossi to have all his ducks in a row, i wouldn’t be able to sleep either if i were him.
    As for as talking to the great Galileo, i marvel at his level of comfort that he feels when addressing such a great scientific mastermind,
    And i thinks he know you can get help from on high.
    The finish line is coming into view full steam ahead.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I don’t consider Galileo that great. I mean when he faced the Church’s inquisition, Galileo failed the scientific process and the church upheld the scientific process rather well.

      First up was Galileo math failed under scrutiny. He could not explain why the planets would speed up, and slow down. So his basic math fell apart under scrutiny of the Church’s scientists. It really was not until Kepler (and the new branch of math called “calculus” could math explain the speed up and speed down of planets in orbit).

      Next, Galileo stated planets go around in perfect circles. The observations did not supports this, and even grade school children today know the difference between a circle and ellipse. So once again under scrutiny of the Church this concept failed. A very silly claim – and not knowing the difference between a circle and ellipse is rather funny!

      Next up Galileo stated that the Sun is the center of the universe. Once again even back then simple telescope observations shows this to be wrong. And again children in grade school if not just beyond kindergarten know that the sun is not the center of the universe. A very silly and stupid claim on Galileo’s part.

      Galileo also stated that the sun is immoveable (not moving). Of course today any one picking up a grade school on astronomy know that the universe is expanding and the sun is moving along at quite a good pace though space.

      So the church upheld rather good scientific process and ripped apart Galileo’s “silly” claims. Cardinal Belameny head of the inquisition put it best when he said you provide proof that does not fail under scientific scrutiny, I will accept your claims.

      Of course the church did not have an official teaching on the earth (or sun) being the center of the universe. The result is the Church could not and DID NOT convict Galileo of heresy (like most crap leftist books, they all claim that the church convicted Galileo of hersey – this is 100% FALSE!). No one actually bother to read CLOSE the sentence handed down by the court.

      If you google and read the actual conviction you will laugh your “butt” off as to how lame and funny the sentence reads.

      This lack of conviction of heresy explains why Galileo received a laughable “light” sentence of house arrest. So Galileo was free to party, drink wine and whoop it up with friends and have guests come and go as they please to his fine residence. (So it not like Galileo was placed in jail or some dungeon).

      House arrest amounts to a tiny slap on the wrist.

      So without an official church teaching on the matter of Helio vs Geo centricity the Church had no teaching or law to convict Galileo of being a heretic.

      The church most certainly up-held a rather high quality support of the scientific process to show how silly and wrong Galileo was on if not multiple accounts of his claims, but nearly all of them.

      So Galileo was rather wrong on most of his claims and accounts, and school children today quite much laugh at the long list of errors and silly claims that Galileo made.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Alain Samoun

    Common Bob! That’s old stories…

    • Exactly!
      And because it’s old story there should have been a lot of development in this story.

  • Very good reminder.

    Frank should ask Rossi about this.
    According to IH there is no satisfied customer, not even a customer (except Rossi is seeing himself or his crew as a customer).

  • artefact


    Scoby do – Understanding the Vysotskii / Kornilova experiment through Kombucha

    “A fun home experiment to help you understand the Dr. Vladimir Vysotskii / Dr. Alla Kornilova 137Cs to 138Ba experiment…
    are going to seek your support and your ingenuity for the ‘Life
    Changing’ experiments, but before we embark on that long road, why don’t
    you try your hand at what is essentially a very similar biological
    fermentation experiment?”

  • Albert D. Kallal

    This is the second or more time that Rossi has “hinted” at the COP in public. Prior to last year Rossi was always “mum” or “silent” on the COP issue.

    Why the change? (this is good!)

    A COP of 10-15 is commercially viable. At 25, 50, or over 100 then you talking about the “future”. We talking about the REAL future here.

    Think of Doc Brown firing up “Mr. Fusion” in the Back to the Future car.

    I mean a small solid state like device with a 100+ COP?

    This is beyond crazy – such a device in the back of your car will allow you to drive coast to coast for a few dollars.

    I have always maintained that what is holding Rossi back is a lack of COP.

    If Rossi devices have the COP he claims, then commercialization will follow in a “reasonable” short period of time.

    I in fact STILL remain somewhat skeptical of such high COP’s. If such high outputs are being achieved, then I see NO REASON as to why LENR will not appear soon. I thus question the COP claims.

    One should keep in mind that Rossi was saying this is a “dream” so he can claim any COP number he wants – it’s a dream and not an official claim or word of Rossi on the COP.

    Perhaps someone should ask Rossi what the typical COP’s of a quark-x are. If they are really as high as he claims, then there is no reason I can think of that will hold back Rossi and his success.

    In fact I believe the COP is directly tied to how fast we will see LENR – the lower the COP, the longer it will take for products to appear in the marketplace.

    It is for the above reason I question the COP’s that Rossi is achieving – I don’t believe them since “actions” speak louder then words.

    A COP of 3 is a hard sell – investors can be spooked.

    A COP of 100+? Ok, how many truckloads of gold bars do you want?

    The other reason Rossi may be talking about a demo is to deflect from the upcoming court battles.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Omega Z


      COP=6 makes it viable for some, but not all,
      COP>10 makes this commercially viable.

      Anything beyond COP=20 is a yawn. At that point, you are already applying 5 watts for a return of 100. If you double the COP to 40, you’re applying 2.5 watts for a return of 100. You have ever dwindling returns.

      Basically, anything COP>=20 is the magic number.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Much agree. Values over 10, cool, but 20 or beyond? Really, a done deal.
        As I stated, if Rossi has these high COP’s, then LENR going to arrive rather soon. The lower the COP – especially <= 3, then LENR going to take time.
        I just have my doubts about the quark-x high COP. Rossi been "careful" as to claims of COP – the above "dream" is not a public claim of COP and does not hold Rossi to that COP.
        With past replications, past articles, it rather clear that LENR can produce heat – I think that been established for quite some time.
        The question is how much heat, and what COP?
        I am looking forward to seeing the quark-x in action, but remain skeptical of the very high power outputs. If such high power outputs exist, then we going to see LENR very soon.

        • US_Citizen71

          I don’t fully understand all of the skepticism surrounding Rossi’s technology. At it’s heart it is nothing but aneutronic fusion. Plenty of heat energy is created in the process.

          Proton–Lithium-6 1p + 6Li → 4He + 3He + 4.0 MeV
          Proton–Lithium-7 1p + 7Li → 2 4He + 17.2 MeV

          Nickel is known to be a catalyst for producing ionized Hydrogen (protons) under correct conditions. The only unknown is how he is getting the Lithium and Protons energized enough to fuse.

          The patent ( Axil mentions in his recent post on the open thread shows Rossi using electrodes to create an electrostatic field inside the reactor core. With a strong enough electrostatic field the protons could be accelerated to the correct energy level. No new physics are needed so far as I can tell. The problem seems to be nothing more than finding the correct engineering to accomplish the task. I know I am over simplifying the whole thing but I do not see it as impossible.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Hum, perhaps better word then skepticism is caution?

            I really do think Rossi’s devices produce heat – so zero scepticism in this regards.

            It is the high outputs that give rise to “my” humble caution here.

            I mean, when oil was $100+ dollars per barrel, then oil sands projects in Alberta were JUST a formality of signing a deal as to where to build the next project! It was a mad scramble. At $52, then far more caution exists. Investors and projects thus undergo HUGE caution and scrutiny.

            So I think of LENR in much the same as above. A COP of 100+ is a slam dunk – where can I sign up – count me in!!! here is a truckload of gold!

            However, lower COP’s say 3 or 6 are far more questionable. I mean you can get COP of 6-8 with heat pumps if temperatures stay above say 32F for heating buildings.

            While some may well speculate that LENR is taking too long, Rossi first public devices were crude, and photographs and press announcements really only started appearing in 2011. And with some digging, a few earlier models from 2009 that looked like a cheap coffee pot also have surfaced. So I think progress has been great.

            I don’t doubt the math, the formulas and that LENR is producing heat. However, the higher the COP, the faster LENR going to catch on – it really that simple.

            Rossi was slated to start some kind of production, but went with IH for a year long test. And that also would have given Rossi some significant funds (90 million). So from that point of view, Rossi’s actions made sense. And that 1MW plant looks spectacular.

            However that whole process turned into a mess for Rossi and IH.

            However the “warning” flag is if that 1MW plant was producing the high COP’s as claimed (and not claimed by Rossi), then I think 2-3 plants of that design would be working now – since they are not, then questions arise as to the performance.

            So I not skeptical of LENR, but I am withholding giving Rossi a 100% endorsement until such time we see something in operation doing valuable work. There is LITTLE reason that several plants of the 1MW design are not in operation right now. About the only reason I can see is patient issues – if IH has retained rights to that 1MW design, then Rossi can’t sell such plants until legal issues are resolved.

            If the quarks produce the high COP Rossi claims, then LENR is coming very soon. If the quarks don’t produce that high COP, then we going to see the quark drag on for years to come.

            So the above is quite much how I read Rossi’s case – until such time information changes we really don’t have enough information to conclude anything much more than the above.

            The quark is not that old – so we still in early stages here. If that quark performs as claimed then things will occur rather fast this year for Rossi. If the quark does not perform as claimed, then as noted this will drag on.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • sam

    Can anyone tell me what this means.

    January 5, 2017 at 7:16 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    When you will make the demo with the QuarkX, will you adopt calorimetric measurements, or Boltzmann equation, or what?
    Thank you if you can answer,

    Andrea Rossi
    January 5, 2017 at 8:01 AM
    We did not decide yet, I think we’ll use calorimetry on a water flow.
    Warm Regards,


  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Apparently Alan Со Rights – the best companion might be Sir Isaac Newton a wide range expert physicist in transmutation.

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