QuarkX Demo Thread — Update #1: Rossi Leaning Towards Water Flow Calorimetry

We’ve done this kind of thread in the past for events connected with the E-Cat, so I thought it would not be a bad idea to start a thread connected with the apparently upcoming demonstration of Andrea Rossi’s QuarkX reactor, which he still seems to expect could take place in February, which is now only a month away. So any interesting developments on this topic will be added to this thread

Update #1, Jan 5, 2016:

Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

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,

Rossi has apparently not made a final decision here, but is leaning towards water flow calorimetry, which I know that some people interested in LENR think is the best way to demonstrate production excess heat. Any system used in an E-Cat demonstration will obviously be scrutinized very carefully. I recall that Defkalion Green Technologies used a water flow calorimetry system in the July 2013 demonstration they streamed live from Milan. Following that experiment, members of Defkalion Europe had numerous questions about the manner in which energy was measured, and eventually published a report that concluded that the experimental protocol used was “not trustworthy.”

So whatever system Rossi chooses to use needs to be carefully considered. Rossi has said that an independent expert will be on hand to take measurements and report them — which will be an important role to fill.

  • bfast

    I am one of the “some people” who thinks that water flow is the best calorimetry. I still see the test with Dr. Levi back in 2011 to be the best test so far. He adapted Rossi’s technology for water flow calorimetry. Its simple, its certain, there’s no argument about wet vs dry steam etc.

    • roseland67

      I agree,
      must verify the fluid is in fact water, (specific heat and gravity must be measured and confirmed).

      • Rossi needs to speed up others may catch up with him.

      • Rene

        Water flow calorimetry is great, so long as he keeps his hands out of the experiment. There is no point to any of this if the measurement is not conducted by an independent party. Rossi needs to let that happen. If not, then we’re back to having to wait more years for commercial offering.
        My hope is that the energy output is so great, that the signal is so strong as to make it obvious it works strongly and reliably.

        • Vinney

          I agree, and after following ECW for years, I have a novel method for flow calorimetry.
          As LENR is so fickle and can be easily ‘quenched’, a well calibrated variable (digital) flow rate pump, that can also be adapted as a ‘throttle’ for the entire system.
          This to a closed 1 Megalitre water system, starting at room temperature (none of this dry and wet steam calorimetry). All rhe thermals are easily accounted for, ANY known chemical (thermal) reactions would be ruled out in minutes. I think the world Media will be stunned to silence upon such a display.

        • Omega Z

          This is not a test. It is a public demonstration with possibly a couple people confirming any claims. Nothing more.

          If this is a pre-production demo and If you’re a business and interested, contact Leonardo. If an agreement of sale is reached, you place funds into escrow and Leonardo will install the device. If it performs as claimed, then the funds in escrow are released to Leonardo. If it doesn’t perform as claimed, Leonardo will remove the device and the escrow funds are returned to you.

          Everything will be known in a short time. Either it doesn’t work or Leonardo will have orders they can not possibly meet for years.

          • Rene

            Right, so it then it is a con unless definite independent confirmation is made. Rossi has been telling us the “market will tell the truth”, and that’s totally fine – make a product place it out there, people buy then try. Truth quickly gets established. Now he’s changed into demo mode and every demo to date has not gone well, has been tainted. What you described is what he did a number of times to raise cash for himself, and also let people holding the empty bag. I call BS on his game. He needs to show clearly and without question he has something that works and works reliably.

          • Omega Z

            This appears to be the 1st test/demo that Rossi is doing of his own volition. All tests and demo’s prior to this has been at someone elses request. The very 1st was a request by Focardi.

            Focardi even stated this in an interview and that Rossi thought such a public test/demo was far to premature. However, Focardi’s health was failing and Rossi conceded to Focardi’s request. I find it very likely that had Rossi waited until he was ready, it would have been much later and today there may not even be an ECW.

            So, If this Demo is truely at Rossi’s determination, it means he is finally confident it is ready. That is a good sign.

        • sam

          Steven N. Karels
          January 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM
          Dear Andrea Rossi,

          Good luck on the planning, implementation of the Demonstration. It takes a lot of work to make a smooth, predictable public demonstration. Some thoughts and things to consider for such a demonstration:

          a. Repeatability: During my 48 years as an engineer, when I presented a radical new idea or product to Management or to a customer, I would practice run the complete demonstration around 10 times, to refine it, detect any unusual results, and to make sure the demonstration “behaved” properly.
          b. Numerosity: I understand you have up to three QuarkX units. If so, a decision needs to be made how many do you simultaneously run for the demonstration? More than one adds validity to the demonstration, but then the results will likely be different so you will need to address the differences. If the results are exactly the same, that may decrease the audience’s perception of validity.
          c. Accuracy: All input, output and measurements must be calibrated. The calibration data must be made available and preformed in a manner that is simple, yet highly accurate. Since you are proposing a water-based demonstration (heating water without a phase transition), you will need to calibrate the electrical input measurement system, the temperature measurement devices (each one), the water flow instrumentation, and any other measurement devices I may have failed to mention.
          d. Enclosure: The experiment should be a closed system that is visible so the viewers can see that no hidden (cheats) are in use. Plus no external energy transfer devices are affecting the experiment.
          e. Dummy or Unfueled system: You need to decide if a simultaneous “dummy” or unfueled unit is run under the same conditions to demonstrate the difference. The positives are that it presents a clearer image of the excess energy that actual unit is producing. The downsides are more likelihood of errors and unforeseen differences that need to be explained.
          f. Environment: The demonstration area needs to be large, clean, with chairs for the attendees, a single source of input power (an extension cord running from the wall, etc. Attendees should be able to walk around the demonstration unit. It should not have the “feel” of a laboratory experiment or a garage project.
          g. Documentation: professional quality handouts should be available in sufficient quantities for more than the number of attendees. USB drives should be provided for the calibration and other pre-demonstration tests that will be released.
          h. Legal: Your lawyers need to review all documents and statements for public release.
          i. Oral presentation: Prepared and practiced many, many times so the presentation is viewed as professional and may be clearly understood. This takes a lot of time and practice. Practice in front of an actual audience, preferably trusted outsiders who can critically advise as to what is not working in the presentation.
          j. Personnel Depth: Have an alternative presenter prepared in case the primary presenter becomes sick or not available.
          k. Attendees: Invite them early with a fixed date for the demonstration. Try not to “slip” the date. Invite persons of importance to gain credibility for the demonstration. Trained and well-recognized industry leaders (e.g., SRI, professors involved with LENR). Request RSVP. Have some small, but adequate meal or food and drink (non-alcoholic), especially if the length of the demonstration is over 30 minutes.
          l. Duration: Consider how long a demonstration is appropriate. 8 hours is way too long for the attendees to observe. A few minutes is not credible. Be long enough to capture the effect without being boring.
          m. Automation: If possible, automate the demonstration to smoothly run the demonstration. Consider multiple startups, operation and shutdowns if possible, although it adds more risk that something unusual will occur. The operation time length should be of sufficient duration to demonstrate the effect.
          n. COP Selection: Don’t run the demonstration at an unusually high COP (i.e. 200) or too low a COP (e.g. 2). Choose some target value that clearly demonstrates excess energy even assuming worst case calibration errors but ‘feels” adequate. I would suggest a COP range of 5 to 20.
          o. Water: Consider using a clear water container using store-bought distilled water that you periodically pour into the container to keep the supply of water both visible and observable. Using tap water, critics might suggest you used something another fluid and dispute the results. Allow a random participant to taste the water and to pour it into the source tank. On the input and output side, weigh and record the water weights as a secondary check on the flow rate measurements, as you did in the 2010 demonstration.

          A successful public demonstration takes a lot of work and time (months to properly prepare) but will be invaluable. Do all that you can do to quash the inevitable critics.

          My thoughts. Good luck on a successful demonstration. You get one chance to make a good first impression.

          Andrea Rossi
          January 22, 2017 at 8:18 AM
          Steven N. Karels:
          Thank you for the suggestions,
          Warm Regards,

          • Stephen

            I think this is a really great post and good advice by Steven. Really clear and on the point. Other replicators and other LENR experimenters could also learn a thing or two from his ideas. It certainly made me think about how I approach other things in my own life too.

      • Warthog

        When it comes directly out of the lab water faucet, you can pretty much be assured that it is water. This was the case with the Levi experiment…none of Rossi’s flow equipment was used.

  • Oh, yeah…Defkalion. The last time I heard about them, they were following Rossi’s prediction of continuing to kick the can down the road, so to speak, probably in hopes that Rossi’s secret will come out. That was a few years back. I wonder what has been happening with those dudes, since then…

  • “An independent expert.” How often did we hear that from Rossi? And how often it was a old friend of him?

    • Omega Z

      Actually Barty, Anyone who believes for a second that Rossi has something at all is labeled a friend.

      Giuseppe Levi may or may not be Rossi’s friend today, but originally he did not even know Rossi and was brought in by Focardi to help prove Rossi’s device did not work. The two Swedish scientists, Sven Kullander and Hanno Essen also never new Rossi. They like Levi were brought in to test the E-cat.

      You know, most of Rossi’s so called friends appear after the fact. Not prior to the E-cat. So this is how it works. If you were to go to Rossi’s Demo and came away with a positive view, you will quickly be labeled a close Rossi confidant and friend from the inner circle.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, any pictures and demo of the quark-x and how it packaged could make a VERY big splash in regards to LENR. I think the REAL story here is how small these devices are.

    Given from what we know? Rossi’s device is very small, compact and likely VERY easy to build with few moving parts. If COP’s are anything close to Ross’s claim, then such a demo would most certainly be welcome. In fact, it could light a new fire in regards to LENR.

    It is rather simple:
    If this device performs as claimed, then I don’t see why 2017 can’t be the “big” year of LENR.
    Certainly a big “if” here!
    Rossi has a chance to deliver the beef here – I wish him all the best in this coming New Year.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • sam

    January 7, 2017 at 5:24 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    January 7, 2017 at 6:25 AM
    At the dawn of Saturday January 07 the QuarkX is working well, still on its way toward 5 Sigma.
    Warm Regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    January 7, 2017 at 12:00 AM
    Dear Readers:
    Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the article
    ” Energy Deficit in Beta Decay Process “, by Dr George J. Chang, Theoretical Physics Department, N.1 Gong, 1st Road, Cyuan Sing.
    Warm Regards,

    Drew G.
    January 6, 2017 at 9:04 PM
    Dr. Rossi:

    Do you plan to invite any high level government officials, media notables or industry CEOs to your planned demonstration? Those of us who have followed your work since 2011 are already convinced of the significance of this disruptive technology. It’s time to make it known to the rest of the world. Godspeed Dr. Rossi.

    Drew G.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 6, 2017 at 9:53 PM
    Drew G.:
    We did not yet decide.
    Thank you for your support and kind words. Probably whoever wants in the world will be able to attend in streaming, though.
    Warm Regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    January 6, 2017 at 5:03 PM
    Steven N. Jareks:
    Information related to the demo will be given during the demo itself.
    Warm Regards

  • sam

    Not on topic but a neat video.


  • sam

    clovis a ray
    January 8, 2017 at 1:31 PM
    Hello Dr Rossi.
    I know you are a very busy man. and i want take to much of your time.as you know i have been around since your first public demo and before, I have had an excellent time following your every move, and can say you have handled each move with brilliance and well thought through experiments, i have always believed in your work.
    We have all been waiting for so long to see your new QUARK X, could you give us a little on how you envision how this test will be performed, how big it will be, what part of the world it will take place, you said it will be streaming that’s nice, please take some time and give us a little more about the demo. as it will be coming up fast. who will be in charge of the details, surly that is not to secret. how time fly’s huh .
    Sorry if you have already answered these ? will it be powering something, will it be a new device or one that has already been in use. can your most loyal fans get a preview if we keep it quit for a while, private group of course. of your choice of course, but a private viewing would be great do you have anyone that can manage such a thing. thanks sir and may the Father always have his hand on your shoulder. — from Oklahoma with great admiration.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 8, 2017 at 3:19 PM
    Clovis A. Ray:
    Sorry, this information will be delivered directly during the presentation.
    I did notice your kind support and thank you very much for it.
    Warm Regards,

  • Probably the best way to do so is boiling water. A lot of it.

    “This is the QuarkX, it produce 1 MW of heat at a temperature up to 400°C.
    We will boil 5 metric ton of water
    Liquid water enter –> 400 °C hot steam exit.

    This will require around 2 h 15 m

    After this, if you are not convinced, we will put other 5 metric tons inside and do it again.

    • Steve D

      Does anyone know the quark X configuration for the demonstration eg with only one 20W unit or with a cluster 10,100 etc units? I have also wondered about the break even point for example 3W input (control /drive etc) with 20W out gives COP just over 6. Rossi has said that with more quark units there is no increase the COP which I don’t quite understand. This means also for 2 quarks input is 6W for 40W output and so on. I would have expected with common drive equipment there is some input power saving, eg for one quark this might have a COP1. Perhaps I’ve missed the point? If the demonstration with one unit can show a COP> 1, then very well done indeed Mr Rossi. This makes feasible a 20W low power device.

      • Kasom

        Please do not forget, from Mats blog: ”

        Rossi makes offer on Swedish factory building – plus more updates

        May 16, 2016UncategorizedE-Cat, energy, IH, Lawsuit, LENR

        week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with
        the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a
        trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000
        square meter factory building for sale. The day after, assisted by his
        Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on
        the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now

        I’d bet the upcoming Quark X Demo will be “certified” by the Uppsala Team!

    • Vinney

      Wet and Dry Calorimetry is a guaranteed ‘woody-killer’, the math is hard and only Steam (power generation) Engineers understand it. It may work with the optimal temperature of the QuarkX (similar to the calorimetry of the recent 1MW plant) but no-one will come come home with immediate understanding of the unit’s COP. I say a calibrated variable output pump (digital) with a quantity of water starting at room temperature.
      Start the QuarkX with motionless water, (measurements don’t start until QuarkX get to operational temperature) and then the pump starts slowly.
      Within minutes we will have first indications of Cop, the optimal COP after 30minutes. All pipe sizes depend on the number of QuarkX’s in the configuration being tested. I predict there will only be several (up to 5).
      Obviously optimal COP will come after hours of operation, but this figure will be 95% of the optimal.
      No wet and dry steam to account for.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I agree. Add static mixers before the inlet and outlet flow temperature sensors and check the flow with a scale, bucket and stopwatch and you have a method that any science-literate person can understand. Very hard to dispute….

    • sam

      January 13, 2017 at 6:49 AM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      Will the calorimetric measurements be easy to understand during the Quarkx presentation?

      Andrea Rossi
      January 13, 2017 at 8:58 AM
      Warm Regards

    • sam

      January 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      Is the latest issue with your QuarkX:
      a) related to the fuel
      b) related to the reaction
      c) related to the control
      d) related to heat exchange / dissipation

      Best regards.

      Andrea Rossi
      January 22, 2017 at 9:10 PM
      Patrick Ellul:
      The latest issue is related to the overheating, therefore to the control.
      I think we have understood and we are ready to restart. Tonight , in this very moment, I am working on it with the engineers of my great Team. We will win also this time. We have to.
      Warm Regards,

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