Energy 2.0 Society to Hold Webcast with Andrea Rossi as Guest, December 9, 2017

The following announcement comes from the Energy 2.0 Society’s website.

The Energy 2.0 Society will be holding a webcast on Saturday, December 9th with Andrea Rossi as guest.

 

This will be an opportunity for us to discuss with Dr. Rossi the recent presentation of the E-Cat QX in Stockholm and other aspects of his work.

 

The webcast will be broadcast live on YouTube starting at 11:00 a.m. US Central time. The link to access the webcast will be posted shortly before the meeting begins on this page: http://energy2point0.org/

 

People who would like to suggest topics and questions for the Energy 2.0 Society to cover in the webcast may do so via email to:  [email protected]

http://youtu.be/4YSwrHNJEvo

  • Ged

    Excellent. Hopefully they will get to ask the questions that have been raised in the community here.

  • psi2u2

    Very good.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Who they are
    http://energy2point0.org/board-of-directors/

    Seems like a nice group of professionals

    • Frank Acland

      I have to agree with you there — very nice folks to work with.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Great idea! It will be a good way to ask some specific questions about the demonstration last week. I am interested in how three QX’s were connected together for the demo. Series? Parallel? Something else? I am also interested in why the controller is such a power hog.

    • Ged

      And definitely a question or two about the waveform and how the instruments measuring voltage handle that.

      • Stephen

        It looks like a resonance to me. Think tuning your guitar.

        I’m curious if they are beats between the three Ecat QX’s or beats between the quarks natural frequency and a driving signal.

        I suspect the signal without the ECat attached is a searching pattern to try and find the resonance.

        Perhaps they are able to monitor the beat frequency to get some feed back on the reactor performance and even adapt the driving frequency as the ECat frequency evolves.

        It also occurs to me that if they are performing fast Fourier transform analysis on the signal in real time and using this feed back along with Kalman filters etc for processing the modeled environment and real time control of the driving signal then this could be quite processor intensive and perhaps explain the high power requirement of the controller. FFT could also provide more subtle feed back and information regarding of the reactor in addition to its natural frequency too so
        It might play an important role.

        It’s pure speculation and I’m guessing but it’s an example of what could be involved in such systems. the more I look at it the more realistic it looks to me.

        To me it looks really consistent with some kind of control of resonance whatever ever form it takes.

        I wonder if the drive signal is “chirping” a range of frequencies in a periodic manner on top of a DC current and the oscillating apparent AC signal is in the effect only seem when the ECat is in some kind of resonance with that signal.

        I don’t claim to be expert in this so I hope maybe an expert in signal processing will correct me if I’m wrong.

        • Ged

          Your insight is very valuable :). And you are totally right, I would love to see a FFT done on that waveform. Didn’t even think about resonance between the reactors, so that is a great observation.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Ged, I think such signatures in real time control are not unheard of.. Usually these kinds of resonances are avoided or indicate a potential problem where they occur. But for the ecat QX it could make sense for them to be seen and required even given the way it appears to operate.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I know very little about resonance at the molecular level, but it brings to mind the kind of resonance that occurs in a cavity magnetron microwave tube where a stream of electrons interacts with a magnetic field and tuned cavities enhance specific frequencies. Somehow, the structure of the QX device enhances the electromagnetic radiation in the optical or infrared frequencies, causing emission of light and infrared radiation. Perhaps the controller somehow triggers the oscillation and produces a proper phase and frequency to keep it “ringing”. You will also need some means in the QX to amplify the oscillations. Perhaps it is the “negative resistance” that plasmas exhibit.

          Another device that can cause an oscillation by itself is a tunnel-diode, where a “negative resistance” portion of the forward conduction curve provides a method of amplification. Even simple neon-tube relaxation oscillators use a negative resistance effect to oscillate.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Thomas that’s interesting I was speculating a bit but maybe there is something in the idea after all.

            Thanks for sharing your experience I really appreciate it.

  • sam

    Anyone speak Italian.

    Giorgio
    November 29, 2017 at 4:43 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Here is the link to the Italian conference made in Italy just after the Stockolm event at the IVA:

    http://www.ecat-ilnuovofuoco.it/blog/laudio-della-conference-call-rossi/

  • Scott Castillo

    Great idea! It will be a good way to ask some specific questions about the demonstration last week. I am interested in how three QX’s were connected together for the demo. Series? Parallel? Something else? I am also interested in why the controller is such a power hog.

  • Byron McDonald

    Please consider a technical ‘committee’ to formulate a set of questions arising from the demo @bobgreenyer:disqus @ecatworld:disqus @engineer48 @Dr. Mike

    • Bob Greenyer

      I appreciate your vote of confidence and would of course like to contribute, however, will Rossi give straight answers?

    • Bruce Williams

      An excellent suggestion!

  • sam

    Vessy Conference call after Nov 24 QX demonstration.

    So, good evening to all and thanks to Andrea Rossi for having made available to participate in this conference call and for giving me the exclusive opportunity for Italy to realize this event. We know that today, November 24, 2017 in Stockholm, at the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences took place the presentation of the Quark X reactor, third and last evolution of the E-Cat reactor invented by Dr. Andrea Rossi in 2008. For non-working commitments I was able to be present in Stockholm and personally attend this important event, but on site there are two Italian university testers who witnessed the demonstration live, and will be able to tell us their impressions and ask Andrea Rossi some questions. I will not elaborate further; Meanwhile, I’m going to present the components of this Web Conference. Start with those who are present there: Professor Neri Accornero of the University of Rome La Sapienza and Professor Giorgio Vassallo of the University of Palermo. In connection with Italy, Mario Menichella, physicist and science writer, is with us.

    [01:42] [Nikolova] Start right away with the questions. The first question I would like to ask is Andrea – of course – is as follows: Andrea, how do you think the demonstration went from your point of view, are you satisfied? And what do you hope or expect to happen after this event?

    [Rossi] Yes: I am satisfied because it seems to me, at least my opinion, that it went well. We have shown, my team and I, the QuarkX in operation, keeping it at a power even prudently low compared to the maximum power, so as not to take risks of any kind. It seemed to me that the quality of those present was very high, that is: there were present, there was a high scientific level present, there were important presences from an industrial point of view and my opinion is positive. I was expecting from this event to show the QuarkX for the first time in action to an extremely select audience and I achieved my goal. I’m satisfied with what happened. There were also many meetings later; I have not been back in the hotel where I’ve been staying and I’m talking to you from here, and this is it. I am very satisfied, I am very happy to have met Professor Vassallo, Professor Neri in person, because I have talked with them many times on the Internet, by email, but I did not know them personally; and I’m very happy with this.

    [03:35] [Nikolova] So, the second question – after which I will give the floor to you – is this: how much, Andrea, have your past business experiences been useful for the realization of the E-Cat project?

    [Rossi] Well, that is: any person who carries out a profession accumulates experience and puts it to use, so … certainly the experiences, the knowledge of the past … any person when he does something takes advantage of the experience he has in his memory, even if this field is very different from the fields in which I worked previously, but surely, surely the experience has its importance. Now it is difficult to go into details, then try to find out why; here it would take a psychoanalysis.

    [04:32] [Nikolova] Thanks. So, let’s move on to the conference call participants’ questions starting with the professors in Stockholm. Please, Professor Accornero.

    [Accornero] So good evening Andrea, meanwhile, thank you very much for the invitation that was really welcome. I would say that – as a neurologist, so not as a physicist – but the presentation went very well: to demonstrate a COP of 400 outside the laboratory, in front of the public in my opinion is already amazing. The applause then that you have done at the end, in my opinion should from an audience as prestigious as what you said, should in part reward all the bad things that unfortunately still circulate on the Net but that will certainly thin. Look, we’ve heard that you’re probably thinking about industrial production by 2018. Of course, we’re not in the skin. However, this means that the license you have obtained for the old E-Cat system is also valid for the Quark X system and therefore it can be expected that there will be no bureaucracy for the production of industrial systems of 200 and more kilowatts ? Or is there a problem even there to get a marketing license?

    [05:55] [Rossi] Yes. You mean security certification.

    [Accornero] Yes, yes.

    [Rossi] Yes. Look; no, no: the certification we obtained for the first industrial E-Cat also applies to this, because they change physical parameters but substantially, substantially the machine for the parts that are destined for certification is the same. As a result, the certifications we obtained from SGS and Bureau Veritas are still valid. Of course they only apply in the industrial field,

    I
    was] The last … then a last consideration: we will certainly wait for
    the home system, but that is what interests a lot of people. You know that the revolution is made from below, from the people. I think that if you were able to sell the first thousand home system no one stops you anymore. Come on, go on as fast as possible! Hello.

    [Rossi] I thank you Neri, I thank you.

    [07:19] [Nikolova] Thank you, Professor Accornero, would you like to ask another question or …?

    [Accornero] No, let’s also go to Vassallo who wanted to do …

    [Nikolova] Very well, let’s move on to Professor Vassallo, please.

    [Rossi] By the way, I see you all still in a tie and I seem to be disrespectful. I came back pretty tired, I got on … I’m sorry, but I have a virtual tie!

    [Accornero] I took it away from you and I could give it to you, but … that is, I took it away from you. Hello!

    [07:54] [Nikolova] Professor Vassallo …?

    [Vassal]
    Yes yes, no: a question about a point that particularly struck me, that
    is the importance in this control reactor, of the concept of control,
    which is practically almost absent in literature, in short, of
    literature in this field. Is
    it possible that this electronics is also used to manage a power
    generated by the reactor, to absorb a power generated by the reactor or
    is it a literally sophisticated control logic that therefore requires
    particularly complex circuits? That
    is: the power dissipated within the control logic is due to this
    complex electronics or to the management of the power generated by the
    E-Cat itself? This is something that I have not yet particularly clear. Oh, and really if you can answer, ah attention, without going into details, of course.

    [Rossi]
    No, no: well, it is not easy to answer this question because the
    control system is however determined by the needs generated in the
    context of reactor operation. Even
    if it is not the power generated by the reactor to determine the
    dissipations in the control system, it is however true that the
    dissipations in the control system are determined by the complexity of
    the control itself. So there is no potentiometric interference, but there is a technological control logic. So how do you solve it, how will this problem be solved? Studying, studying the control systems. We are on the way to ensure that this heat dissipated by the control system is eliminated. From
    a point of view … it is clear that from a strictly scientific point
    of view the heat generated and dissipated in and from the cooling system
    of the control system – that is not: the heat generated by the control
    system and dissipated by the cooling system is
    a heat that from the point of view of heat balance theoretically is
    perfectly recoverable with COP 1, because if I have, if I dissapoint 60W
    consumed 60W, then the same 60W I go to recover with a heat exchanger
    and it is outside ,
    so it has nothing to do with what is the thermal balance and therefore
    the COP of the E-Cat, but it is clear that it is a problem to be solved,
    because if one buys an E-Cat to make electricity, to recover the heat does not care about it, so it’s not the point. Consequently it is a problem to be solved, in the sense that … and this is precisely the point in which we are focusing; that
    is at most because that big white box that you saw today, which today
    is the control system, must be reduced to a pack of cigarettes to govern
    … however, keep in mind that this control system here is able to
    quietly govern a thousand of E-Cat, so the relationship is quite relevant. But
    the big problem is to reduce the size, because it’s not … we have an
    enormous energy intensity at the reactor level because we produce, today
    we produced 20W in one, … practically a tenth of a cubic centimeter. Clearly a notable density. Then you can not puncture everything to make a diving suit to make checks. We are a bit ‘in a situation similar to that of the first huge computers that today are reduced to a microchip.

    [12:30] [Vassal] Yes. Among other things, the thing that makes an
    impression is the size of the active part, which I understand is a few
    cubic millimeters the active part that produces energy.

    [Rossi] Yes, yes.

    [Vassal] It seems …

    [Rossi] Yes, yes, it’s practically a hair segment.

    [Vassal] Yes, yes, and this is an impressive thing, thinking also of
    the gigantism towards which experiments like the ITER project go, no?

    [Rossi]
    Mah … the problem, why the ITER will never work, so … I mean …
    the reason why that thing does not work there, and it’s been 50 years
    since they’ve been saying that between 10 years will work; but it will never work.

    Rossi]
    Well … the problem, the reason why the ITER will never work, so … I
    mean … the reason why that thing is not working there, and it’s been
    50 years since they say that between 10 years will work; but it will never work.

    [Vassal] No, but that “magnet” attracts a lot of money, that magnet. A strange magnet. Because it attracts money instead of iron. Attract money from our pockets.

    [Rossi] Yes, and will continue. Why why? The problem is the fields. Well, Professor Vassallo, these things teach you to me. Why the fields, because magnetic fields are used there to confine the trajectories of elementary particles – no? – Of protons in particular, which must go to merge. These
    are energized to such levels that they reach temperatures in the order
    of one million degrees, and as everyone knows, at one million degrees
    there is no material that holds. Just
    a contact of a few fractions of a second, from thousandths of a second
    between something that is a million degrees and any – perhaps even
    tungsten – and the tungsten is boiled, is vaporized, is not melted. It instantly turns into tungsten vapor. And
    it is clear that then a plant … and the magnetic fields are extremely
    unstable, because with those dimensions there the magnetic fields are
    leopard skins. The
    moment there was a hole – and in these moments it is impossible to
    imagine that it would not happen several times a day – it melts
    everything there. So … so it’s a wrong concept, a concept that will not go anywhere. Let’s say that makes places of value, this is a beautiful thing. But jobs are very … very expensive jobs.

    [Vassal] Very clear.

    [Rossi]
    And then produces a little business, companies provide materials that
    cost the wrath of god – crazy added values ​​- and above all, what is
    their great luck? That when we do something we have to show that it works, they can
    instead afford the luxury of going on for centuries without having to
    prove anything, just by flashing the skylock of the infinite future
    energy.

    [15:21]
    [Vassal] Consideration could be given to how important it is in
    research to think outside the most common conceptual schemes, right? That
    is, the starting point is to try to reason with your own mind,
    eliminating those mental barriers that prevent you from seeing beyond
    what is often considered absolute and consolidated. And
    so the first step would therefore be to consider it important not to
    rely on too rigid schemes, that is, to schemes considered untouchable; then take the first step of trying to start over again, sometimes, to
    call into question concepts and models considered to be always
    untouchable.

    [Rossi] There’s a perfect example for what you’re saying. Galileo Galilei had to abjure and say that there is no problem that the sun goes around the Earth not to be burned alive.

    [Vassal] Now it is the so-called “stabilized science” that makes objections. This is sorry, because the dogmas should …

    [Rossi] Eh, but that’s another form of religion.

    [16:42]
    [Nikolova] Well, I – the conversation is certainly very interesting –
    but at this point I would give the floor to Dr. Menichella; You are welcome.

    [Menichella] Thanks. Hi Andrea.

    [Rossi] Hi, Mario!

    [Menichella] First of all, congratulations on the new goal. I
    have obviously followed your research, your results, for many years,
    and since I have not seen the images yet, I’ll give you orders like
    this, a little general. One
    thing that just occurred to me a little while ago was to understand if
    the technology – the previous version of the reactor then the Hot-Cat –
    you consider it a technology we say that has no future, or could have
    some applications maybe niche .. I do not know, I thought maybe where there should be no
    electromagnetic fields, I do not know: for a large power plant, or do
    you consider it we say swept away by the new QuarkX?

    [Rossi] It’s obsolete.

    [Menichella] It is obsolete. But
    instead, as differences, with the Hot-Cat, I remember at the time we
    talked a lot on the blogs of the technology of the cat and the mouse. That one there, say, you brought her back or is that part of the past too?

    [Rossi] That there was today in the oscilloscope. Because
    we have an electric field of an electricity with particles that move
    only in one direction, that is, polarized in one direction with a
    pulsating rhythm. And in those pulsations there is the game of cat and mouse.

    [Menichella]
    And as for the theoretical aspect, instead – because I imagine that you
    have made progress there too, without obviously wanting to know the
    details, but just out of curiosity – you’ve managed a little to
    understand what happens, or do not you still have details on the subject?

    ossi]
    No, today the Swedish physicist Carl Oscar Gullstöm, with whom we are
    working on the theoretical level, has begun to give indications on what
    is the address we are taking. And among other things, your report is published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics this week. The complete edition, because it is a publication of 44 pages. Today he summarized it in 20 minutes, but we publish the full edition in the Journal of Nuclear Physics. We have not yet found a theory, but we have at least taken an address.

    [19:41]
    [Menichella] So basically the optimization you did a bit ‘as if it were
    a black box, that is actually without understanding the details in
    fact. On an engineering level, a bit like we do …

    [Rossi]
    No, no no: a distinction must be made between engineering and
    theoretical, because they are two completely different things. From
    an engineering point of view … the engineering of the use of fire
    began thousands of years before we knew what fire was, and that we had a
    valid theory to explain what fire is. The
    fire, what is the fire, was discovered when alchemy was passed to a
    developed chemical and oxidation processes became known. But the use of fire in engineering fields is much earlier. Here
    we are in a similar situation: that is from an engineering point of
    view we have developed an apparatus that is extremely reliable,
    extremely repeatable. Today
    I went there – as Neri rightly said – today I went there with a little
    luggage, with my team we unloaded some suitcases on the desk, we mounted
    this thing, then when the audience entered , I pressed a button and the thing is gone. So,
    from an engineering point of view it is not that we were there to say
    “let’s hope it goes”, “or my god”, “pulls from there”, “spring beyond”,
    and so on. The
    only time of .. (??) .. we had when I wanted to do a spectroscopic
    analysis, but unfortunately there was the cinema screen that emitted a
    strong light, so the spectrometry was not, it was not possible. But this has nothing to do with the E-Cat. But that was a “more” that had nothing to do with the efficiency or reliability of the E-Cat.

    21:36]
    [Accornero] Andrea if I should – for heaven’s sake, I do not allow
    myself to make suggestions – but if I had to do that spectrometry again,
    if you put the spectrometer inside an aluminum sheath, then darkened,
    and the aluminum sheath arrives inside at E-Cat, maybe he can read …

    [Rossi] Eh but I have a problem that if I put an aluminum sheath I
    have problems with the electromagnetic fields that are around there.

    [Accornero] Then darkened glass?

    [Rossi] And a darkened glass, an insulator? Ok. Thanks for your advice.

    [Accornero] Imagine!

    [Rossi] No, no, I had already happened before, so it’s a … not … I
    mean, I did not consider that with a cinematic screen on, the light is
    very strong.

    [22:18]
    [Menichella] Yes, I wanted to know something else, that is: you think
    that development has now reached the maximum achievable or there are
    still potentials – I do not know – news or other things, and you
    consider it more a goal, then currently or a starting point? Because I think many already made it a milestone.

    [Rossi] No, Mario: it is neither a goal nor a starting point, it is a stage. The stages will never end.

    [Menichella] But for the development you will then tell us an idea, let’s say from the point of view …

    [Rossi] For the industrial development now I would say that we are at the maximum …

    [Menichella] No, just like a reactor, right? I see three generations, no? I thought…

    [Rossi] For the moment I am at the top of that … we are at the top of what we are capable of doing now. But I’m not too convinced that in a month it will still be like this. Up to now there has never been a maximum. Because good or bad comes out of defects, then then you study the development. From a production point of view, however, at a certain point it is
    necessary to stop, at a certain point it is necessary that research and
    development come to a halt, on the one hand, and that production begins.

    [Menichella] Of course, once stability is reached …

    [Rossi]
    I would say that the stability we have reached now, which everyone has
    been able to see, now we have come to: press the key and switch on,
    press the key and switch off. Several
    times today I had to switch on and off when we went from one test phase
    to the other, when we moved from calorimetry to spectrometry, from
    spectrometry to dummy; we had to keep turning on and off, that will turn on and off like a light bulb.

    [23:42]
    [Menichella] And as for this, I ask you this because we say, you have a
    privileged position to answer this question, in these years maybe with
    the latest version, in these last months, you have seen a change of attitude on the part of the media, by other scientists? You mentioned a bit ‘at the beginning, but I was really interested in understanding just what you have perceived in normal life.

    [Rossi] Today, well, today there were people who would never have come two years ago. The professors there are – I can not say who was there – but there were people who would not have come two years. Even in the industrial field there were people who two years would not have come absolutely and were very careful. I mean, they were not there to have fun. So yes: an evolution has been at least at a high level.

    [24:48]
    [Nikolova] Yes, I would say that we are moving towards the conclusion,
    considering the fact that for Andrea today was a very busy day and I
    suppose full of emotions. And just about the emotions, Andrea, I would like to ask you the last question. In
    these years there has been talk of you as the inventor of an unlikely
    device, if not impossible to realize, to the point of questioning not
    only its operation but also the person, the man who invented it. So
    I have to ask: see what happened today, which seems to blatantly deny
    people who have doubts, what are the emotions that have crossed you in
    this last period, and what it feels when despite difficulties,
    suffering, some defeats, can you see your dream realized?

    [Rossi]
    Look … look: a man can do what he really wants to do, and this fact
    is absolutely independent … it’s when one really wants to do
    something, in my opinion, he must be able to isolate himself from
    emotions and from all these things here. Because
    if you get influenced by all the crap that say about you, or from …
    obstacles you have to react simply because if you put a stone in front
    of the car that does not let me go on, I have to move the stone. But that is not an emotion. But
    if one lets himself be influenced by emotions he risks not reaching
    where he wants to go, especially if it is a difficult path. Quite frankly, I do not care what they say about me and I’m always sick of it. This problem I have more or less always had, maybe I still am. (??). but, for me it is like water flowing on the granite when … that is, I do not care. I’m
    interested only in one thing: if I’m doing an experiment, it must
    succeed, I do not give absolutely nothing of what they say … then when
    it is successful I make the product and I sell it. If
    the product is good and they buy it, nobody cares anything for it, and
    anyone who buys it does not care what they said about that product. It’s something that interests him. One thing that interests you when you buy a television is that you put it there, turn it on and watch the game. If it’s Italy-Sweden, forget it. They are all talks that are useless.

    [27:45] [Nikolova] So a good control of the emotions. Well, is there anyone you would like to dedicate this day to?

    [Rossi] Professor Sven Kullander. I also said it during the experiment. Professor Sven Kullander because … Sven Kullander has exerted a considerable stimulus on me. Yes, I would say, since I’m in Sweden … if I were in Italy I would have told Professor Focardi. We are in Sweden, I say: to Professor Kullander.

    [Nikolova] Thanks for sharing, Andrea, and for …

    [Rossi] Thanks to you, I was delighted to see you.

    [Nikolova] … and for giving me some of your time, at this very important moment for future developments. Finally,
    I greet you by thanking you again, with the hope that this invention
    can be industrialized in a short time, so as to contribute together with
    other means, the containment of CO2 emissions, which emerges as
    coresponsabili of the so-called climate changes that are under the eyes of everyone. Thanks again.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      From LENR forum, transcribed by user „can“ – we should stay fair.

      • sam

        I translated it using cans link to Italian version.
        Had translation up on ECat World a few minutes
        before Lenr Forum.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          OK 🙂

    • artefact

      Interesting:

      “[Menichella] It is obsolete. But
      instead, as differences, with the Hot-Cat, I remember at the time we
      talked a lot on the blogs of the technology of the cat and the mouse. That one
      there, say, you brought her back or is that part of the past too?

      [Rossi] That there was today in the oscilloscope. Because
      we have an electric field of an electricity with particles that move
      only in one direction, that is, polarized in one direction with a
      pulsating rhythm. And in those pulsations there is the game of cat and mouse.”

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Pulsed DC was also my guess. Interestingly, he states that “particles […] move only in one direction” – while electrons and cations would actually move in opposite directions. When the DC signal is interrupted they will ‘bounce back’ – possibly generating the electric output of the QX. That output would, however, result from temporary energy storage, not from the LENR reaction itself. As in a spring that is first stretched and then released.

  • Stephen

    Hi Frank, are these messages that seem to copy other people’s comments like the one below Mathis copying sam part of the attack on your site? I wonder if they should be looked into. It’s hard to understand why they are there but it looks to me that they are serving some purpose for someone.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Weekend viewing, where we were 22 years ago…

    Pay particular attention to the technology of Chernetsky discovered in 1980 (37 years ago) and the COP of Patterson.

    https://youtu.be/t98UBY3GhhI

    • Toussaint françois

      Great link !

  • Frank Acland

    We are getting set up

  • gdaigle

    Going well. Can we get a large video view of Rossi while he is speaking?

  • gdaigle

    The question was asked, “What other groups would you be willing to partner with, to explain the underlying physics of your technology?” Very good question. But more than just partnering with physicists, he should partner with those who can explain the physics in layman terms using interactivity, animation, video and other visual means. I know an artist who works closely with DNA researchers to visualize the work they are doing and express it in a visual vocabulary. The same could be done for the QX to make it more accessible. Think “Powers of Ten” and other landmark media used to make the concept more easy to understand.

    • cashmemorz

      My suggestion, based on close scrutiny on the differences between establishment physics and the physics of Randell Mills’/Herman Haus, in the Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics, is to have Brilliant Light and Power analyze Rossi’s device under the predictions in GUT-CP.

  • Vinney

    He states that with his venture partners they are setting up a public company for the purposes of industrialization and distribution of Ecat products.
    This is also because both he and his venture partners want to limit liability from the perceived risk of LENR.
    This means we should get an announcement within a few months of the joint venture company that each entity is licensing their technologies to (and Leonardo Corporation is licensing the Ecat QX ), and which will also have several of its own patent applications lodged by the time the first Ecat prototypes are made.
    This company will have its own distribution network in all major economies (to aggressively defend their IP) to stultify the entry of ‘reverse’ engineered products.
    I don’t see how his is going to stop distribution of these copies in China or Russia (and possibly India and Africa) unless they enter agreements with their individual totalitarian governments.
    If I were Rossi and companies, I would put the first 1000MW of Ecat QX manufactured into the production of energy for mining cryptocurrencies.
    They would be making money in secure locations.

    • Vinney

      If you were wondering how much space 1000MW would take up, apparently they can average 13MW per cubic meter, that means a mere 100 cubic meters.
      The stacks of computers would be at least 100 x bigger. The cashflow would be significantly greater than just selling electricity, and many times more again than just leasing industrial heat.

      • Axil Axil

        A stand alone cryptocurrency system can be supplied with the QX home power system where the homeowner could produce his own crypto-money when the power produced by the QX system was not required…at night or when at work. But do people need to work when they can produce their own money?

        • cashmemorz

          Then there will be too much money made by means no different in principle as printing it. Governments will get to see the close similarity and put a stop to it as if the ones running those computer are mafioso’s. On the other hand the ones generating the dough will cite being similar in nature as the Federal Reserve, also a private concern, in principle. The world is weirder then one imagines,and even weirder then one could imagine just ten years ago.

        • Vinney

          This was suggested just to elevate the price of the venture company at IPO, as there will not be enough Ecat QX’s in the ‘wild’ for competitors or the Chinese and Russians to copy.
          They could also use Ecat QX generated power and heat in their own manufacture.
          Significantly reducing the cost of manufacturing.
          Quoting these figures in the IPO report will really be impressive, confounding competitors or Chinese producers on how cheap they must produce to even compete.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve read where 80% of Bitcoins have already been mined. There will be no more.

  • Stephen

    Thanks very much to the Energy2.0 team and to Andrea Rossi for this very interesting Webcast. There are Some interesting insights into his perspective on industrialisation there. I’m Looking forward to this new phase in the story of the E-cat QX.

  • Dr. Mike

    At about 24:20 in the video Rossi claims he is using the area of the plasma (0.08mm diameter by 0.6mm long) to calculate the output power using Stefan-Boltzmanm equation. My calculation shows that the power output from such a cylinder (ignoring the ends) at 2600K with an emissitivity of 1.0 is about 0.4W (0.42W including the ends of the chamber). Either my calculation is incorrect or Rossi is using a larger area of the QX device in his output power calculation. It is doubtful that the emissivity is really 1.0

    • Vinney

      He also claims (his words) the COP should have been 1500 ( at full capacity).
      The Ecat QX performs better than you and your skeptics assume.
      This is the first time he mentions that actual capacity of this version of Ecat QX.
      I presume in the coning months there will be a demonstration with 100 Ecat QX (1 controller) which will confirm this figure.
      I think he intimated such a demo is possible.
      Its likely after the announcement of a joint venture company, and announcing some of his partners, to lessen media critism towards them.
      But you will get little more than overall power measurements and overall calorimetry calculations of a lengthy demo.
      This could aid his partners in dealing with suppliers.

      • Dr. Mike

        Did you check my calculation? What device surface area should be used for the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation?
        What Rossi claims his device COP to be is of little importance. What any user of his technology wants to know is what is the system COP? The system COP is the number that is going to predict how much money the users might save by using Rossi’s technology. I believe that investors will want to see 100 devices operated by a single controller, and will want to see accurate measurements of the system COP. I’m looking forward to the future when Rossi can demonstrate a product or module that has a reasonable system COP.

  • Buck

    I will listen to this a second time. However, I was pleased to hear at about 1:00:45 Rossi clearly state that he obtained financing in Stockholm.

    It is a small detail, but I think important to remove the need to read between the lines about the financing needed for his next step: industrialization and introduction into the market.

  • Engineer48

    30MWt/m^3 is fantastic!

    • Gerard McEk

      That’s without the heat exchangers, and they will be a factor 10 more in size I assume.

    • Bob Greenyer

      How does that compare with

      3.4 x 10^14 J/kg ?

      From here
      http://convert-to.com/conversion/power/convert-j-per-sec-to-mw.html

      that is 340 000 000 MW/kg

      Which is 340 000 000 000 MW/Tonne

      This is the yield from ‘Cluster Impact Fusion” that was developed at SRI and classified in 1990.

      Of course, this is the energy density in whatever the fuel was, not the volume that would produce useable energy, still there are many orders of magnitude to play with.

    • If you use the dimensions of the plasma that we now know—diameter 0.8 mm and length 6 mm, making the volume 3mm^3—and the output power 30W, you get a power density of 10GW per m^3.

  • Engineer48

    Rossi:

    “Nissan has replicated my effect and is using it to generate heat and cold in cars”.

    • Eyedoc

      When was that said ??? In the webcast ? GOOH

  • Engineer48

    QX reactor glow is OrangeYellow as Frank described.
    Watch this at 0.25 speed to see the glow colour without the room lights.

    https://youtu.be/wLMxQ4CB_lA?t=5
    .

  • Engineer48

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

    Scroll down to Residual Strong Force and watch an animation showing how Pi Mesons are formed and carry / exchange the Strong Force between a proton and neutron.

    Then imagine a photon impacting the in transit Pion and carrying away some of it’s energy.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d50199a31841d840e7a6381f500dec28c810975cd6f2552706726a81fb2e58ea.gif

  • Engineer48

    Andrea answers his critics:

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=291#comment-1302368

    Andrea Rossi
    December 9, 2017 at 11:29 PM
    Frank Acland ( second answer):

    I checked your link and read that a guy has written that, based on the surface of the reactor, he has “calculated” that by the equation of Boltzmann the energy emitted by a reactor is 0.4 W.

    I think your Readers merit a serious application of the rules of Physics and of Mathematics, to avoid to assume wrong scientific information.

    First of all, it is opportune to remember that the measurements at the IVA of Stockholm have been made by means of calorimetry, not by means of spectrometry and following Wien and Boltzmann equations.

    Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare the results obtained by calorimetry ( based on the delta T and the flow rate of water) vs the theoretical energy produced by the reactor using spectrometry and the equations of Wien and Boltzmann.

    Here are the numbers if we respect the rules of mathematic:

    The first step is to calculate the temperature of the plasma. Since do not exist thermocouples able to resist to temperatures above the melting point of platinum and rhodium, to measure the temperature of a plasma is necessary to measure the wavelength of the radiation from the plasma in microns; the measurements I made give a wavelength between 1 and 1.1 microns.

    Now we can use the equation of Wien
    T = 2900/lambda
    wherein
    T= temperature in K
    2900 = Wien constant
    lambda = wavelength ( in our case in microns )

    By substitution we have
    T= 2900/1.1 ( to be conservative we take the minimum lambda )
    Therefore T= 2636 K

    Now that we have found the T, we can proceed to calculate the power using the equation of Boltzmann, whose definition is:
    W = Sigma x Epsilon x T^4 x A

    Wherein:
    Sigma = 5.67 x 10^-8 BUT ATTENTION: we will use 10^-12, because the Area will be calculated in cm^2, not in m^2 and 1 cm^2=10^-4 m^2 Epsilon= emissivity: being plasma a black body the emissivity is 1
    T= temperature of the surface in Celsius degrees = (2636+273)^4 = 7.16 x 10^13
    A= area of the surface of the plasma= 2rPiL= cm 0.08 x 3.14 x cm 0.6 = cm^2 0.15

    Now, we have all the data necessary to resolve the equation of Boltzmann per W:
    W = 5.67 x 10^-12 x 1 x 7.16 x 10^13 x 0.15

    Make the series of multiplications and find the result:
    W = 60.89

    This result is the theoretical thermal power of our plasma. As we have seen from the demo of Stockolm, the calorimetry has given a result that is about the 30% of the total power, because I was afraid of errors and kept the E-Cat QX at low profile.

    Besides, the spectrometry is an immediate measurement that gives the theoretical power, while the calorimetry is made on the actual production of heat through a heat exchanger whose efficiency obviously is not 100%. It is interesting, though, to note that the order of magnitude is reconciled.

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • can

      I tried to check by myself… nope, I get the same result of the so-called “calculation”. Try using standard units.

      https://i.imgur.com/a7d41Hk.png

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

      • Engineer48

        Hi Can,

        Dimensions are in cm. ie 0.08 cm & 0.6 cm
        “A= area of the surface of the plasma= 2rPiL= cm 0.08 x 3.14 x cm 0.6 = cm^2 0.15”

        I get 41.06 Watts

        Seems Rossi used 2,900 K as plasma temp to get the 7.16^13 number he used.

        • can

          The dimensions have so far been reported in millimeters even after asking Rossi confirmation of this multiple times during and after the Stockholm event due to the unusually small size.

          Also, during the interview yesterday at [19:42]:

          https://youtu.be/4YSwrHNJEvo?t=1181

          >> Is plasma in the E-Cat 0.6mm x 0.08mm ? Is that the size of the plasma?
          [Rossi] I would say yes.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            Rossi has been known in the past to get dimensions wrong, sometime maybe on purpose to hide engineering details.

            Here we have Rossi making it VERY CLEAR, in writing, that the dimensions are in cm and not mm.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            As I was also guessing earlier to be the case. He thought cm but wrote mm, and was unable to see the typo even though people pointed it out to him. I guess it’s because they are fractions of cm which one naturally thinks to be millimetres, or something like that.

            I continue to apply the “trust but verify” principle with him.

          • can

            He personally told Lewan (who repeated the information at 1:56:54 in the official Stockholm video, and at 1:32:54 Rossi said this in Italian with him in the one which got deleted – but backups of that still exist) and others that the plasma was the size of a “tiny hair”. In centimeters, that would instead be the size of a tiny noodle.

            Also see: http://e-catworld.com/2017/11/30/rossi-claims-important-stockholm-success/#comment-3651579054

            Many examples of people citing this in millimeters can be found on JONP in comments from the past couple weeks as well.

            Transcription of the short discussion he had with Lewan during the event:

            [1:32:54] [Rossi] Hai fatto una presentazione molto incredibile (?) molto intelligente.

            [Lewan] Bene! Ho dimenticato di dire che il plasma neutro… che il plasma è neutrale.

            [Rossi] Ci penso io.

            [Lewan] Le dimensioni del reattore, hai detto qualcosa di strano, hai detto zero punto…

            [Rossi] 0.8 millimetri, perché il centimetro cubo sono gli impa…(?) le vere dimensioni del reattore, le VERE dimensioni, sono 0.6 mm di lunghezza e 0.08 mm di diametro.

            [Lewan] Millimetri?

            [Rossi] Millimetri, sì.

            [Lewan] Ma che cos’è?

            [Rossi] È un capello.

            [Lewan] Il plasma?

            [Rossi] Sì.

            [Lewan] Non è la luce che vedi, è molto più piccolo?

            [Rossi] Sì, molto più piccolo, molto più piccolo. […]

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            This is the 1st time Rossi has stated the dimension in writing.
            He makes a strong statement, in his post, they are in cm.

            As I said, sometimes Rossi hides what he considers critical details.
            Seems he has now been forced to state the correct dimensions.

          • can

            Consider this: if now the electrode gap is 0.6 centimeters, ~1500V won’t be anymore a high enough breakdown voltage for the QuarkX of the Stockholm demo.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            Depends on the pressure when the QX is cold. Reality is we don’t know the pressure nor the voltage. As there is a plasma, we should assume the voltage applied is enough to strike the plasma.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f6066986e792ef6ffecea52b6bf1264e0a6a775dd17a6dfd736b30d1345c42f.gif

          • can

            How would you create a vacuum inside this kind of reactor which is also supposed to contain LiAlH4?

            https://i.imgur.com/SWZKGQE.png

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            Could only be micro grams of LiAlH4 in there.

            Rossi told Frank the Ni rods were processed, “so to speak”.

            Also there could be a helper gas mix like Ne+Ag that strikes at a very low voltage.

        • Paul Smith

          The surface temperature in Celsius must be 2636 – 273 (not +273). So the final calculation is 26.53 W, almost the same calorimetric value.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Paul,

            Equation uses temp in K. 273 K is normal room temp in K.
            I assume Celsius is a typo and should be Kelvin.

          • Paul Smith

            Yes but if in the formula the temperature must be °K, the value is only 2636°K (without adding 273); if the temperature must be °C, the correct writing is 2636-273 (not+273). Something must be corrected.

          • can

            He used the exact same temperature of the calculations in the Gullström paper on Arxiv. There shouldn’t be any positive or negative offset from that. He used 2636K during the presentation in Stockholm.

            https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf

            https://i.imgur.com/lO3CUtv.png

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            Agree. The plasma temp was what was measured.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I can confirm 0.413 W (reactor size in mm), respectively 41.3 W (size in cm).

        diameter 0.08, length = 0. 6 (mm or cm)
        lambda = 1.1 * 10^-6 m

        For lambda = 1.0 * 10^-6 m, it works out to 0.605 / 60.05 W.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Should be „plasma size“. Maybe reactor size = 10*plasma size?

          • can

            In yesterday’s interview, a couple questions after confirming the size in millimeters, Rossi also said that he measures power using the area of the plasma alone. Here is a paraphrased transcription (aka notes) I took while listening:

            [19:42] Is the plasma in the E-Cat 0.6mm x 0.08mm ? Is that the size of the plasma?
            [Rossi] I would say yes.

            It’s a very small area. Can Stefan-Boltmann laws account for the declared power of this at 2636K? Do we take into account this surface?
            [Rossi] Yes, but in the demo of stockholm we didn’t use those equations because the spectrometry didn’t work, so we used calorimetry. Area of plasma is essence of reactor.

            Only measure the surface area of the plasma?
            [Rossi] yes, because I’m measuring temperature of core of reactor. Core is plasma, so we consider only area of the plasma to measure the temperature that we have in that core.

            So the lenr reaction only takes place in plasma?
            [Rossi] I cannot answer this question.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes. Taking the whole reactor’s surface as a basis would be problematic since the casing was transparent. There might be a possibility, though, that it was transparent for visible light, but opaque for IR. I hope this will be clarified.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            He has just corrected the unit from “mm” to “cm”. Now he needs only to explain whose hairs are 0.08 cm thick.

    • Gerard McEk

      I am not really interested in this as the output power using the heating of water was sufficient convincing. Measuring the input power as he did is still a big concern.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I agree – imagine the turmoil if they had not used calorimetry this time. Unfortunately, AR is unbeaten in compensating each step forward immediately by a step backward.

    • Dr. Mike

      Looks like Rossi has decided that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation now requires the temperature to be in Celsius, instead of degrees Kelvin. Also, what is the real size of the of the device? Is it in .08mmin diameter by 0.6mm in length as he has stated at least 2 times or is it 0.08cm in diameter by 0.6cm in length? Centimeters makes more sense to me. Also, Rossi can not be viewing the plasma directly as it is contained by some material. The spectrometer is surely viewing the surface of that material. It seems that the emissitivity used in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation should be the emissitivity of that material.

      • Dr. Mike

        I see that Rossi has deleted the above reply from his blog and replaced it with one where his calculation uses the proper temperature (degrees Kelvin). He now states the size to be centimeters, rather than millimeters (as had been stated in both the demonstration and the interview).. Using cm rather than mm, my calculation now goes to an output of 40W, rather than 0.4W, which is in agreement with Rossi’s. It looks like we at least now have the size of the plasma correct???

        • can

          There’s still an issue that according to Rossi there were three Quark X operating in the reactor during the Stockholm demo, so the area in the calculation would actually have to be multiplied by 3. But so would output power, if the plasma temperature was 2636K.

          0.4W * 3 is still completely wrong, but if 40W was right-ish, what about 120W?

          • can
          • Dr. Mike

            Hard to say what would be measured by a spectrometer of 3 QX devices operating at 30% power. However, my calculation was correct for the power emitted by a blackbody of the size Rossi originally stated. Changing mm to cm made my original calculation off by a factor of 100.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Can,

            Yup, correct.

            I suspect the power was a lot more than Rossi has revealed. Being the Positive Ion Current Gullstrom mentions is electrical power outputted from the reactor, back to the control unit, which was thermalised, heating the control unit and needing cooling.

            Which implies the COP may be around 120,000, with 20W thermal output and 100W electrical output.

  • Stephen

    To me that it is cm rather than mm fully reconciles the issue. Thanks to Andrea for clearing that up. Calorimetry always clearly and definitely showed 20W output. So the original discrepancy when using mm was clearly missing something.

    The point about the size was hinted at very high early in the presentation and returned to several times during it

    When talking about fractions of a cm and being amazed by how small that is it’s easy in conversation for one person to get confused between mm and fractions are of a cm and fractions of a mm.

    I have a suspicion that early in the conversation possibly even during the presentation that Andrea Rossi mentioned fractions of a cm then this got reinterpreted by someone in mm and then by someone else in fractions of a mm and this then got propagated. Andrea was acknowledging it was really small in his later response with out realizing people had changed cm for mm.

    Anyway it’s fully explained now and makes total sense

    • can

      https://youtu.be/Nz0Z94Ix-kc?t=7014

      [1:56:54] [Lewan] And, one last question Andrea: you also mentioned the dimensions of the plasma, which is, as far as I understand, there’s a light inside the reactor which is fairly (?) this size: a few centimeters; but the real size of the plasma is much smaller.
      [Rossi] Yes. It is about 0.6 millimeters in length and 0.08 millimeters in diameter.
      [Lewan] Ok, so a really small grain. Pretty… I mean…
      [Rossi] Like a piece of hair.

      • can

        Diameter of a human hair

        http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/BrianLey.shtml
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair

        The diameter of human hair varies from 0.017 to 0.18 millimeters (0.00067 to 0.00709 in).

        • Stephen

          Yup there was some confusion in the conversation exchanges as happens sometimes. My memory of the presentation is both sub mm scale size descriptions and cm scale conversions were mentioned.

          I raised this question to Energy 2.0 to clear up the point as it come up here and some of us were confused about it.

          I’m happy with his detailed answer now as it clears up the point completely and I assume you will agree makes total sense.

          • can

            Confusion is still being made on this point.

          • Stephen

            For information…on review. It’s clear enough 02:26 to 02:28.

  • Engineer48

    Rossi says the area is in cm^2:

    https://youtu.be/Nz0Z94Ix-kc?t=8780
    .

  • Engineer48

    Can anybody deshake this image?

    It contains a raw look at the plasma inside the QX. Note you can also see the light leaking out at each end of the housing.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/de4846664a1460be1d2a852b4e9bd3b8cc354fbea22f11cd5fd15a01e403cb44.jpg

  • Gerard McEk

    It is a pity that we still do not know the specification of the heat source units that Andrea wants to put on the market:
    – Required input power/output power electrical.
    – Guaranteed COP
    – Preferred heat exchange medium
    – Maintenance requirements, refill/module exchange and lifetime
    – Safety measures
    – Size and weight including heat exchanger
    – Maximum temperature depending on exchange medium
    – Kost of the unit and refill/module exchange

    If Andrea wants to massively enter the market and find industrial partners to realize that, then that must be known.

    Obviously the first industrial prototype still has to be made, so maybe this will be published after that has been done and proven. The time to do that (within next year) seems extremely optimistic. We wait (again) and see what’s going to happen.

    • Omega Z

      Initial designs will be a simple boiler built for a specific task. From there it will evolve and be optimized for that task. This tech is not quite like any current technology so it will be years in optimizing for every different task.

      I think the QX lends itself very well for on demand water heaters. No more storage required. Can be installed at point of use and longevity will be huge. As in years without recharging.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks Mats!
      Check your text, though as it has a typo which gives a misleading meaning:
      “I have now dismantled the pump and I found *now* hidden heaters or other modifications:”

      • Thanks Frank, now adjusted.

      • Don’t know why the first image doesn’t show up above Frank. I tried to post it again but it didn’t help (so I deleted the second post). The link is there anyway.

        • sam

          Thanks for your take on QX demonstration on your
          Blog Mats?

  • Gerard McEk

    Andrea must be quick, AI’s taking over our thinking:
    I.e. http://theconversation.com/googles-new-go-playing-ai-learns-fast-and-even-thrashed-its-former-self-85979
    These computer programs will take over our thinking in the not so far future. At this moment they cannot be used for every issue and fining out the most effective solution, but in the future they can. And they will beat us by far in development speed and cost.
    This will be another revolution.
    Now a new AI program developed by an AI has improved its effectiveness. I am sure a super intelligence is born soon. People should be careful.
    Coming back to Andrea’s development: If an AI would be fed with all the data he has collected, I am sure that it would come up with much better and sophisticated device than Andrea would be able to make in the years to come. And that is how things will go in the future.

    • I have already discussed this with Rossi. He understands the potential of AI in R&D.
      I think it might be used, but not in the early stages in the mentioned joint venture.
      Note that Alpha Zero by (Google owned) Deep Mind learnt how to play chess, on its own, only based on the rules, at a level where it beat one of the best chess robots of the world. But what’s important to note is not that, but the fact that Alpha Zero made unexpected moves, that were not typical for neither humans nor robots. Which means that it has an overview over the game which is far superior to that of human players.
      Either we learn from such AI systems. If we can. If not, we will find ourselves forced to trust such systems’ judgements in domain after domain, without understanding why, just having to acknowledge that their judgements lead to superior results.

      • Bob Greenyer

        As I said a few years ago, LENR may be the last great discovery of man. Lucky then that it ties into nearly everything else.

      • AI is a tool just like everything else. Most will use it to improve life (and the improvements are potentially fantastic), some will decide to use it to harm others or seize power. The race between offensive and defensive capabilities will continue as a result, with survival as the stakes. Hope we get it right.

      • Omega Z

        “Alpha Zero made unexpected moves”

        That’s to be expected. It operates by a set of instructions. While you or I may discard certain possibilities by intuition(we may be wrong) or to save time, the computer will try every line of possibilities. It also can try many more possibilities without considering the time factor. It can calculate in seconds what would take us hours, days, etc…

        Ultimately, it still isn’t thinking. It is just following a set of instructions. Therein lies the risk of (SI)Simulated Intelligence. Unintended-unanticipated or unforeseen consequences. In the 80’s, many programs required (Y)es or (N)o response and when any other key was pressed, instead of looping back, it would follow on to whatever followed. Sometimes crashing, but many times creating havoc. All because the programmer didn’t anticipate that people are prone to error.

        Then you had Windows that would crash or even be hacked by a buffer overflow. An update fix to be repeated weekly etc. You’d have thought they would automatically have went through and fixed all these issues instead of 1 at a time.

        It is not the Simulated Intelligence that worries me. It is human error.

        • Gerard McEk

          The AI’s do not operate so much to ‘a set of instructions’. Obviously they have some, but the way they work is more to look for patterns and how these evolve. Does something lead to a better result Yes or No? It is not simple logical programming any more, it is based on subtle evaluation of multiple possibilities. Exactly as what we are doing in our subconsciousness. It becomes intuitive. That is also why it can see solutions where we don’t any more (see Chess end Go), at least not in the same time. They can do this so endless fast that they outperform the humans by a factor 1000 or more. When they now start to improve themselves by rewriting their own neural network instructions, then it starts getting dubious and people should have to be concerned. That is now the phase we are in.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      There is a lot of discussion about AI currently, usually referring to neural network. There is nothing mysterious in them and they have been studied for years. Some applications are now emerging. That computers compute faster than humans is nothing new. That they play chess better belongs to the same category in my opinion. Whenever the rules are well defined, an expert system can be made. The quality of the results depends on the rules and how well the system was implemented.

      To my knowledge no fundamental programming paradigm change has occurred recently which would somehow enable stronger AI than earlier. Computing power has proliferated and applications come with some delay with respect to the technology that enables them.

      I’m not worried about AI as such. I’m worried about how societies distribute wealth in an emerging situation where full employment is no longer a meaningful goal. If LENR comes, it provides a temporary remedy, I believe.

  • Engineer48

    Excellent image pairs that tie together the observed colour, the measured temp of between 2,600 and 2,900 K and the expected colour.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4b19aab3d7b8bd2f1e4d8ebe0c37a18bc1efb6e8c7d8700ddddd1800f3074d98.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55b53e7e924fb18945c8771ca8556ac0bbd0abedd6cacb3ff5b9468c6e14eb9b.png

    Just need to dial down the image intensity and the colours are a close match, considering phone cameras are not colour calibrated.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Looks like Hydrogen (Blue/Purple) and Helium (Orange/Yellow) plasma colours. Images from wikipedia

      NOTE – most digital camera sensors are over sensitive and will easily saturate to white. We have seen this many times in our work.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc76d8abab2866223e0953911519958720809c2aac70df1a733fd216230d7bd3.jpg

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd9142746c058df5acf6e4e5baff9be7ee57a775730c187d1bc1878aa21294d5.jpg

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bob,

        Rossi may also have Ne+Ag in there as their strike voltage is very low. Then once they strike, they cause the others to ignite. So there may be a mix of many gasses and even Li and Al vapour.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well, LiAlH4 is in there so we know that H2 is in there, then 4He is meant to be produced.

      • Stephen

        If there is a Helium line spectra present that indeed would be really interesting. Especially if it can be shown to increase in intensity with long term use.

        Since it is a light element it might even be possible to see if particular less common isotopes of Helium are present. That might also be possible for the line spectra component for Hydrogen and Lithium isotopes too.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think that the use of spectrometry tells me that there is a desire to see Helium appear, it would be an appropriate way to observe it.

          • Stephen

            Yes he seemed to have the spectrum display scaled to include optical wavelengths. I wonder what we would have seen if he managed to capture the spectrum as he intended. He made several attempts so even though he downplayed it when it didn’t work I think he really want to show that.

  • Bob Greenyer

    NASA establishes that X-rays of between 65-200 keV trigger nuclear reactions – Patent published

    Lawrence Forsely (formerly of SPAWAR) working with team at NASA, find beta and alpha activity in samples of Deuterated Polyethylene and Deuterated Titanium after exposure to X-rays in range of those observed in MFMPs ‘Signal’

    “Nuclear fusion processes with enhanced rates may be realized by providing energetic electrons in an environment containing a suitable fuel gas, a liquid fuel source, a solid fuel source, a plasma fuel source, or any combination thereof.”

    https://steemit.com/steemstem/@mfmp/nasa-establishes-that-x-rays-of-between-65-200-kev-trigger-nuclear-fusion-reactions-patent-published

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bob,

      X-rays are photons. Yes they can hit orbital electrons (Compton Effect), knocking the from their orbit. However the same photons can hit Pions in the nucleus and cause strong force reduction plus take away some of the nucleus stored KE.

      For me this result supports the Rossi QX and that photons from the plasma are involved in triggering the LENR effect.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Electrons or photons at these energies interchange to a degree. In one study they fire specific energy photons from line, in the patent they state that is achieved by providing energetic electrons.

        This is a very large and methodical set of studies over years leading to defined transmutations. Lot’s of hard data shared and the patent is HUGE!

  • Engineer48

    Is NASA supporting the QX reactor driven by low energy photons from the plasma?

    Experimental Observations of Nuclear Activity in Deuterated Materials Subjected to a Low-Energy Photon Beam

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1704/1704.00694.pdf

    Nice paper thanks to Bob.

    • Potentially very important but they say that the beam energy was around 2 MeV, only about 10% below what would be expected to cause photodissociation of the proton and neutron in deuterium. To me it seems like they may have found a way to amplify the beam energy locally or otherwise lower the dissociation threshold some maybe due to lattice effects.

      They say more investigation is needed.

      • Engineer48

        Hi LenrG,

        Now read this one:

        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf

        Much lower photon energy was used.

        • Yes, this is very nice. Maybe someone can take a crack at understanding the energy balance. I calculate ~30 – 200 W of energy in the X-Ray beam (assuming P=IV applies in this situation… which, I don’t know).

      • Bob Greenyer

        They did experiments at 65keV in another paper I linked (link given by E48 below)

        Researchers ALWAYS say “more investigation is needed”

      • Engineer48

        Hi LenrG,

        The issue was discussed:

        ==========
        “This study represents partial results from a larger study, which began using a higher 6-MeV LINAC with
        deuterated materials.

        Above the photodissociation energy of deuterium of 2.226 MeV, it is expected to observe nuclear signatures consistent with neutron activation, kinetic heating, and other processes.

        In the quest for a smaller, lighter weight overall system design, and to investigate how low of energy would still result in nuclear activation, the team explored lower MeV exposures.

        The present study explores and reports reactions of metals and hydrocarbons containing deuterium at high number density plus witness materials, subjected to moderate-energy photons at energies determined to be less than the deuteron photodissociation threshold, using the water tank ionization chamber method.”
        ==========

        Clearly the experiment was designed with the 2.226 MeV effect in mind and to explore the effect at lower photon energies.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction between titanium-50 and deuterium?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process

      Ti(50) + d > Ti(51) + p 4.1479 MeV

      Ti(51) > beta decay to V(51) with an energy of 2.47 MeV and a half-life of 5.76 minutes.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PS
        Also take a C-13 NMR of the DPE ash. Maybe the following O-P reaction took place.

        C(12) +d > C(13) + p 2.72 MeV

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PPS
          C-13 is more of a qualitative rather than a quantitative test but maybe someone knows how it see if there has been an increase of the C-13 signal vs the deuterium NMR signal (Deuterium has a spin of 1+ So it gives an NMR signal.).

  • Bob Greenyer

    In comment at bottom, I have tied NASAs observations with the glowing observed by me356 during excess heat and the ‘glowing through the coils’ observed during Lugano, a possible mechanism and a possible way therefore for control of heat, light and ‘electricity’ via changing of the EM stimulation.

    https://steemit.com/steemstem/@mfmp/nasa-establishes-that-x-rays-of-between-65-200-kev-trigger-nuclear-fusion-reactions-patent-published

  • Engineer48

    Rossi has modifed his calc, now using K onstead of C.

    Rezult is 40W PER REACTOR.

    As there were 3 reactors in the housing, 3x the single reactor surface area, the real power is then 120W, for a COP of 120,000.

    As the thermal output was 20W, does this mean 100W were outputted as electrical energy that was thermalised in the control box?

    Mind boggles at 20W thermal, say 10W thermal radiation losses in the reactor housing and 90W electrical output. FRACK!!!!!

    • Andreas Moraitis

      You could multiply the area by 3 only if the reactors were arranged in a line. If they were mounted in parallel, some of the area would get lost. Anyway, I wonder why AR took the data for a single reactor if he actually used three of them.

      Regarding the difference in calculated and measured power, it seems possible that the emissivity was significantly lower than 1 because the plasma was not dense enough. I would rather rely on the calorimetry here, but as you say the thermal losses of the calorimeter must be taken into account.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Consider also that the plasma temperature has not been measured this time – maybe it was lower than reported in the Gullström paper, especially since the reactors were operated at 30% of their maximum power.

    • Monty

      As long as nobody can verify what he is calculating there he can claim to have a COP of 120,000,000,000.
      It wont matter to anyone…

      • Engineer48

        Hi Monty,

        We do know it takes very little energy to sustain a plasma. Typically 100uA at 300 Vdc or 30mW of input power.

        Based on the calorimetry data the COP would be 20W used to heat the water / 0.03 W input = 667 COP.

        Using the spectrometry data the output was 40W so the COP climbs to 1,333.

        • Monty

          yeah sure. and the 60 watts dissipated by the fan in the energy supply box?
          as long as Rossi is not able to not demonstrate but verify his claims all you write wont matter.
          Don’t get me wrong. I still see the chance of his QX being a success. But the way he is trying to do this is not the best in my eyes.

    • Sommer

      @engineer48:disqus:
      It always makes me think: If you had an uverunity device with cop in the 100s or 1000s WHY woud you refuse to “close the loop”? Any plausible reason from your point of view?

      • Vinney

        Rossi likes drama, he is keeping us all in suspense, and entertained.
        The Ecat can do far more tricks than he has thusfar shown.
        The LENR researchers in the US and ‘orthodox’ science establishments have really dropped the ball in 1989, and he is playing the cat and mouse game out. The cat is orthodox, mainstream science and the mouse is LENR (cold fusion).

        • Engineer48

          Hi Vinney,

          Yup.

        • kenko1

          I wonder if AR is “keepin a list, and checkin it twice. Gonna tell all who’s naughty or nice. Cold Fusion is coming to town!” And ruin the career of every P&F naysayer as they ruined P&F’s career et. al

          • Engineer48

            Hi Kenko,

            Would be good if this time next year P&F receive the Nobel they deserve.

          • kenko1

            Have they ever given a posthoumas Nobel? Now would be a good time for the first.

          • kenko1

            And a one hour standing O appropo after the presentations. For each.

          • Nope, you must be alive at the time the price is announced. Some have died after the announcement (in October) and the ceremony when the price is handed over (December).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Sommer,

        Refuse?

        More like not in Rossi’s business model.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        You would need a high system COP to create a loop, not just an efficient reactor. Remember that the control box still consumes a lot of energy (about 60 W according to AR).

        • Andreas Moraitis

          W = unit of power, Wh = unit of energy. Sorry for being inexact.

    • Stephen

      Hi Engineer.

      I think this may also play a role in part:

      http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783319006116-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1398306-p175157874

      I would think that although the plasma is thick enough to be clearly observed. It’s diameter is still quite thin so may not be completely 100% optically (or IR) thick.

      It’s quit remarkable that the E-Cat QX is apparently able to produce a non transparent thermal plasma signature. This is not a typical plasma lamp in that regard that uses line emissions for visual output.

      Explaining the difference between a the Bremstrahlung spectrum of a dense thermal plasma and a Black Body spectrum to non plasma physicists in a demonstration could be a challenging detail to understand so perhaps using the Black Body spectrum makes good sence in that context especially to an order of magnitude approximation.

      If the plasma is 100% thick it would indeed be fully a Blackbody spectrum though.

  • If there are still any doubts about the dimensions of the plasma in the E-Cat QX as claimed by Rossi, I checked again with him and he says that it is a cylinder with diameter 0.8 mm and length 6 mm (thus 0.08 x 0.6 cm). I had him listen to what he said in the video from the demo, at 49 minutes and 20 seconds, and he understood that he simply used the wrong unit (and that this should be obvious to everyone—of course for anyone who works from day to day with plasma in LENR reactors.. 😉 ).

    • can

      [1:32:54] and [1:56:54]
      For the first timestamp, check here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yrwxmtmNw35uMb0QDuQsDJJsugi_anbp/view

      • Thanks Can

        • can

          Anyway, it’s clear that Rossi doesn’t want to give out the exact specifics of what happens inside the reactor and that he is probably still being intentionally unclear about it. During the demo I thought it would have made sense if the actual reaction was essentially occurring as a very tiny, but also very hot spark/plasma – hotter than stated – also given that he planned to pick the rightmost peaks during the failed spectrometry, meaning that he probably also expected some to be on the left side at shorter wavelengths, even in the darkness.

          Spark gaps in the order of 0.6mm not only are common (spark plugs?), they are easier (e.g. for would-be replicators) to experiment with than a 6mm or larger ones; this should be obvious to Rossi as well.

          • From what I saw of the QX, a plasma that small wouldn’t seem to fit the visual impression. The light field fills up most of the space between the two nickel rods that are at 10-15 mm distance. Also, there’s no sign of what I would normally expect from a spark—intermittent/unsteady light and crackling sound—nothing of that. The claimed dimensions make more sense.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            1.5 cm gap was what Frank estimated.

            Plus he said the Ni rod ends were not flat but were curved. Did you also observe curved rod faces?

            Earlier Rossi did remark thee open reactor was not the reactor in the flow housing and it had a wider gap to make spectrometer measurements easier.

          • Yes.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Curved faces makes sense as then the E field intensity at the single point of closest gap is where the Townsend Avalanche will start to ionise the gas atoms.

          • Stephen

            Do we know if the curved faces were shiny, i.e. highly reflective or if it is darker indicating some kind if surface processing?

            In older versions of the E-Cat we were considering the nickel needed to be in very small um powder form. But it seems the nickel rods are reasonably solid. And possibly even need to be for thermal and electrical conductivity reasons. They could also be fundamentally sized for thermal reasons.

            I wonder if they could have nano structures in the curved surface that fulfill the attributes of the powder in older versions. If so those structures may not be directly observable in the surface but may be observed as a darkening if the surface fue to optical effects. This could also be an indicator if nano plasmonics is involved on the surfaces.

            On the other hand if the E-Cat QX is so fundemental that he has managed to achieve a device with a single um or nano structure on the surface we would not see it either.

            It could also be that the nano structures are not in nickel the rods anymore but in additional components in the fuel of course.

          • Stephen

            There was also a cluster of 3 in parallel so I suppose they would need to be smaller.

            To my unexpert eyes the single one in the older pictures although small in itself seemed large enough to fill the heat exchanger apparatus. I don’t think there was room for 3 of those.

          • can

            One doesn’t necessarily exclude the other. There are anecdotal reports of Rossi also using sapphire capillary tubes in a different version of the Quark X. Supposedly, these could have been what he used during the demo, although admittedly it’s probably all mostly speculation at this point.

          • Stephen

            In order to observe the blackbody spectrum of the plasma at infrared wavelengths the tube itself would need to be transparent to infrared. Otherwise if the tube was opaque to infrared we would be seeing the emission from the tube itself.

          • can
          • Stephen

            Thanks I wondering about that, I suppose quartz too if it was used but maybe ordinary glass would have problems

    • Martin Berger

      From the original version with sound:
      00:49:20 “The real dimensions of the reactor are…” (Fabiani doesn’t seem to wonder)
      01:33:20 He confirms your question in Italian, “millimetro”
      01:57:23 “It is about .6 millimeters in length and .08 millimeters in diameter” (Fabiani again doesn’t wonder)

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats,

      Thanks for the confirm.

      Very important data.

  • roseland67

    Martin,

    It’s not just you

  • Andreas Moraitis

    It’s typical. But actually, this discussion is superfluous since (1) we do not know how the three units were mounted (in a line or as a bundle) and (2) because the plasma temperature has not been measured. Fortunately, we have the results of the calorimetry, which I would deem acceptable. The serious problem is the input measurement. It should have been made in a more transparent way.

    • Dr. Mike

      After Rossi said 3 or 4 times that the devices were connected in series, he finally corrected himself and said the 3 devices were connected in parallel. (At the 13:00-14:30 portion of the interview.) This is one of the few new things learned in the interview.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I was referring to their physical arrangement (which would influence the effective area for heat transfer), not to the electrical connections. But surely, both factors will depend on each other to a certain degree. If the units were to be connected in parallel, it would be more convenient to arrange them in a bundle, or side by side. In this case, the effective area would be lower than three times the surface area of a single unit.

  • The Great Energy Transition: A Progress Report, by Tom Whipple:
    https://fcnp.com/2017/12/11/great-energy-transition-progress-report/

  • Engineer48

    Seems I was correct. The QX does produce electricity:

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=292#comment-1302748

    “We are working also on the measurement of the electricity directly produced in the reactor, but it is not easy.
    So far we just let it be thermalized.

    Now we know why the control box gets hot!

    • Engineer48

      This also implies the current measured via the 1 ohm resistor is composed of input current to sustain the plasma and output current back to the control box, which is then thermalised and needs a fan to exhaust the heat.

      • Axil Axil

        On the other hand, there is only a small amount of power being feed into the QX. The amount of power feedback into the controller is far larger than the expected reactive power load.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Axil,

          Rossi has shared the QX generates electrical energy and that it is thermalised. This should not be a surprise as he shared that info when he 1st started talking about the QX.

          Hopefull he will share further information.

        • Dr. Mike

          Do you really believe the QX device is a power amplifier when even Rossi has not made such a claim? When Rossi says he hasn’t measured the electricity produced in the reactor but just let it be thermalized, doesn’t this also seem most likely to been in the reactor?
          The Papp engine did not have any type of power amplification, but did capture magnetic field energy that would have otherwise been wasted. Magnetic field energy created from the firing of the plasma was captured as current in an external induction coil and fed to capacitors to provide the voltage for the next firing of the plasma.

    • Axil Axil

      https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-11/true-reactive-and-apparent-power/

      True, Reactive, and Apparent Power

      The plasma produces a virtual capacitive power load. This produces heat from feedback of reactive power load into the controller. All HID bulbs produce heat in the ballast.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Axil,

        Gullstrom gave it away when he mentioned Positive Ion Current.

        No reactive power involved. Just the reaction in the Ni generating excess protons that drive the external energy generation as excess H+ ions.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Each proton will be balanced by an electron, so that you could get at most a local excess (assuming that conservation of charge is valid). If that local excess was solely generated by the applied field, there would be no net energy gain. The only factor that could produce a net gain seems to be an accelerating force which is produced by the reaction itself. Obviously, that acceleration would have to be directed, not just randomly distributed. How this might work is a question that still has to be answered.

        • Axil Axil

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85f7ee23a2f95cbe2bf011da8d49750b9e935f4334610ba6a26f25c633ad3ab8.jpg

          Note positive spike 4 peaks of RF to the right of the centerline of the scope.

          There has been a lot of speculation about what those spikes are, what is producing them and where they are going.

          Take note of the very fast(nanoscale ?) positive voltage spike on the scope. These positive spikes appear randomly superimposed on the RF waveform when the RF waveform is near the maximum. Is a positive charge going into the controller? If so, the electrons to neutralize the positive current is coming from the ground on the controller.

          Is this positive spike what you meant by a Positive Ion Current.

        • Thomas Kaminski
      • Thomas Kaminski
    • Dr. Mike

      If the control box was being overheated by electrical feedback from the 3 QX devices, which Rossi has stated to be about 10% of the total power output, Rossi could have run the fan to the controller from one source and then had a separate power source to show how much power was being consumed to actually drive the QX devices. On the other hand if this 10% electrical feedback power is really overheating the controller from 3 QX devices outputting about 20W, just imagine how hard it is going to be to cool the controller when it gets the feedback from 100-200 devices operating at full power. It makes absolutely no sense that the overheating of the controller is primarily due to electrical feedback if Rossi is to ever develop a system with a usable COP.

      • Axil Axil

        Didn’t Rossi say that he did not understand why the controller was producing all that heat?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Axil,

          Rossi ever said he doesn’t understand why the controller is generating all that heat. Plus He has never given away the keys to the farm.

          As we dissect the data he does provide, he then gives us a bit more.

          • Probably it’s quite a challenge to collect the feedback electricity from the reactor, without just dissipating it, and without disturbing the control signal, which is most likely subject to very sensitive conditions. However, Rossi says he’s on the way to do this. Certainly it is possible.

          • The dimensions of the plasma in the QX gives an effective volume of 3 mm^3. Releasing 30W this means 10GW/m^3. If you add the electrical power produced, which apparently is released as heat in the control system (as Rossi admits in the comment above), you’ll need to multiply this by 3 or 4… Considering heat-electricity conversion, that’s the same order of magnitude, or a couple of times more, than the total installed power in Swedish nuclear plants (about 7GW), providing about half of Sweden’s electricity.

          • Toussaint françois

            WOW !!

          • Dr. Mike

            If the heat causing overheating in the controller was from electrical feedback, Rossi would have shown the electrical power delivered to the electronics of the controller excluding any power used for cooling. It is interesting that you and others are attributing the overheating of the controller to excessive additional power output by the QX devices when such an excessive output power would actually be detrimental to the commercialization of the QX E-cats.

          • I don’t understand your point Dr Mike. Electrical feedback is not easy nor to measure, neither to harvest, if the reaction producing the electrical energy is difficult to control. Yes, it’s certainly an issue, while also being an opportunity if it can be managed. What would you have done?

          • Dr. Mike

            My point is that there is no data showing that electrical feedback is what is causing the overheating in the controller, yet now you are claiming this is a way to get 3-4 times more energy out of the QX device.

          • Buck

            The following points in the direction you seem to purposefully ignore. Further, these posts are only a small portion available regarding the topic of the E-Cat generating electricity.

            ========================================

            Frank Acland
            December 12, 2017 at 6:54 AM

            Dear Andrea,

            You wrote: “We are working also on the measurement of the electricity directly produced in the reactor, but it is not easy. So far we just let it be thermalized.”

            1. Does this mean you have the ability to turn off or minimize the electricity produced in the reactor and somehow transform it to heat?
            2. Is the electricity produced directly by the QX problematic for you, if all you want is heat?
            3. Is the electricity produced directly by the QX responsible for the overheating of the control box?

            Kind regards,

            Frank Acland

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Andrea Rossi
            December 12, 2017 at 7:59 AM

            Frank Acland:

            1- yes
            2- no
            3- confidential in positive or in negative

            Warm Regards,

            A.R.

            ===============================

            Italo R.
            December 12, 2017 at 5:35 AM

            Dear Dr. Rossi,

            as it seems that the electrical power generated by the QX goes back to the control box where it is thermalized, the real total COP of the QX is much greater.

            The problem is, I think, to separate this generated electrical power from control box without disturbing the signal feeding the QX. Is it right?

            Kind Regards,

            Italo R.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Andrea Rossi
            December 12, 2017 at 8:01 AM

            Italo R.:

            Intelligent insight, but I cannot answer in positive or in negative.

            Warm Regards,

            A.R.

          • Axil Axil

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient-voltage-suppression_diode

            A transient-voltage-suppression (TVS) diode, also transil or thyrector, is an electronic component used to protect electronics from voltage spikes induced on connected wires

          • Dr. Mike

            While Rossi refuses to discuss what is causing the overheating in the control box (Question #3), his answers to Frank’s other 2 excellent questions should settle the issue of feedback electrical energy causing overheating of the control box. First Rossi knows how to minimize the electrical energy produced in the reactor and knows how to convert it to heat. Also, any electricity produced in the reactor is not a problem if all you want is heat. Why would Rossi set up a demonstration in which the electricity generated in the reactor was causing an overheating problem in the controller when he claims he knows how to control that electricity? Has Rossi ever claimed that the potential electrical output of his QX reactor to be more than about 10% of the total output?
            Many thanks to Frank for asking great questions to clarify this issue and the issue of the plasma size.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            Rossi never mentioned the controller overheating.

            He did mention the QX overheating without the cooling water flow.

          • Axil Axil

            See my post down from here showing scope of the electrical signals carried on the connection between the QX and the controller.

          • Fair—there’s no data. It’s an hypothesis. One day we’ll know.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            Being a EE, we do know.

            It does not take a lot of energy to create a plasma, maybe 30mW. No heat there.

            So the ONLY explanation that makes EE sense is the thermalised electrical output.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that it does not take much energy to create and sustain a plasma, but perhaps it takes a lot more energy to drive the LENR reaction than claimed in the demonstration? Perhaps the controller is very inefficient driving only 3 QX devices at 30% power, if it was designed to drive 200 devices operating at full power? However, if Rossi has shown you that there is a large electrical output (not the up to 10% of the total output power as he previously claimed) that is thermalized in the controller, rather than a small electrical output that is easily minimized as he told Frank today, then your ONLY explanation must be correct.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            Rossi told me back in the early QX days that he expected the electrical output to be at least 25% of total energy and probably more.

            How Andrea has revealed he can control the amount of electrical output, which is what he said earlier.

            With the 1,100nm spectrometry, which Frank observed 1st hand, the raw output was 40W x 3 reactors = 120w. Assuming there was 10W radiant heat loss plus the 20W into the water, leaves 90W to account for.

            As the reactors were in parallel, the effective radiant surface area would be less than 3x 1 QX so maybe 50 to 60W excess energy to account for.

          • Dr. Mike

            I assume that by “the 1,100nm spectrometry” you mean the wavelength Rossi determined as the peak of the “blackbody” radiation emitted by the QX device from which Rossi determined the plasma temperature was 2632K. What would the radiant heat have been from 3 QX devices if they had been operating at full power? Assuming the device (plasma) area is as Rossi claims and the spectrometry measurement was correct (with proper calibration of the spectrometer), then the total radiant heat would have been 3 times the 40W, which was calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation, or 120W. All 120W of this energy is radiant energy, not “about 10W radiant heat loss”! With the spectrometer not working in the demonstration we really don’t know what the temperature of the three QX devices operating at 30% power would be, but the radiant output power is probably close to (or a little less than) 30% of the 120W for full power or about 36W. This is just the expected radiant output power of QX devices operating at 30% power based on spectrometry. The output power was only about 22W as measured by calorimetry. Rossi attributed the difference between the spectrometry measurement and the calorimetry measurement to losses in the heat exchanger. However, although the heat exchanger was not calibrated with a controlled heat source as had been recommended prior to the demonstration, I would expect the calorimetry measurement was more accurate than the spectrometry measurement. The bottom line is that all heat is accounted for in the limited measurements of the output power that were made in the demonstration. Excess heat going to the controller as electrical feedback is totally your invention. While I agree that it is possible there is some electrical feedback energy going into the controller, it would be hard to imagine that the electrical feedback would be more than the potential electrical out put of the device (10% as Rossi has stated publicly or perhaps 25% as he has stated to you). Someone might want to claim that perhaps the difference between the spectrometry radiant heat output and the output power from calorimetry (36W-22W=14W) could have been converted to electricity. It could if part of the QX device is also a photovoltaic device. I don’t believe anyone has claimed this.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            What overheating?
            Detrimental? You must be joking?

            All that happened was Rossi tried to hide the electrical output, which was not expected as he earlier had revealed the output.

            Some time ago. I worked with Rossi to design a QX based remote area / emergency power unit. We discussed the electrical output in some detail such that he was confident my plant design would work.

        • Stephen

          It’s a good point so it doesn’t seem to be the processing power required to process the signal data it self as I had previously thought after all.

          If there is feed back current then I wonder if this is AC, or intermittent stochastic high voltage peaks?

          I suppose it’s nof DC as that would be more readily seen.

          If the feed back signal is noisy with high voltage spikes then perhaps this causes components to overheat in the controller from time to time when overloaded and he has previously tried to resolve by brute force external cooling.

          Could it be the 100 Hz ish beating AC signal we saw was coming from the three Ecat QX’s in device rather than the controller? And he just needs to deal with intermittent power spikes?

          Is the input DC needed to bias this?

          • Axil Axil

            I suspect that those random transit positive voltage spikes are being produced by periodic avalanche breakdowns going on in each of the QX plasma channels.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_breakdown

            The chances are good that those randomly appearing transients are produced by each of the QX reactors. They can be controlled by a number of transient voltage control components meant to protect circuits from voltage hits on the connecting transmission lines.

        • Dr. Mike

          Patrick Ellul
          December 11, 2017 at 1:24 AM

          Dear Andrea,
          To solve a problem, it typically helps a lot to understand precisely why it is happening before you can come up with a way to mitigate it. Do you currently understand exactly why your controller is generating so much heat?
          Best regards,
          Patrick

          Andrea Rossi
          December 11, 2017 at 8:19 AM

          Patrick Ellul:

          Yes.

          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

      • Obvious

        How does the feedback sneak through the 1 ohm resistor without being seen on the oscilloscope?

        Since we know that the QX side of power supply has a floating ground set up (or else Fabiani would have caused a short when switching the oscilloscope probe reference ground around), the proposed QX feedback would have to pass through both a transformer and the circuit that causes the DC bias on the QX side of the circuit. (Transformers will only pass the AC component, which means that there will be no DC component [zero volts average] on the AC transferred by a transformer).

        • Engineer48

          Hi Obvious,

          My scopes always run ungrounded. I would assume the scope at the demo was also ungrounded.

          The feedback is the 200kHz signal.

          It is as Rossi explained to me over 1 year ago. Ac with a Dc bias.

          • Obvious

            The Tektronics 1052B scope must not be floated.
            The reference ground to the probe, as well as the entire scope circuit board, is connected to earth ground internally.
            This is a $500 scope he is using, nothing fancy.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            So this scope can’t measure the voltage across a collector load resistor as the ground is on the supply voltage and the probe on the collector?

            No matter what the manuf says, it is standard practice to isolate scope power plug grounds so in circuit measurements can be done and to avoid ground loops.

            Faulvio is an experienced EE. He would have floated the scope as I would have done. I have a similar 50 MHz digital scope and it is floated. No problems.

          • Obvious

            So the oscilloscope measurements were rendered suspect to useless and potentially dangerous by a modification expressly forbidden by the manufacturer, which adds the capacitance of the scope to the waveform, when all that was needed was two isolated probes and the scope to be run in difference mode in order to do the measurement accurately and safely?

            Sounds like the work of professionals to me.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            Ungrounding scopes happens all the time.

            Welcome to the real world.

          • Obvious

            The real world…. where nuclear reactors aren’t installed in irrigation fittings wrapped in electrical tape and blobs of JB Weld sealing the ends, held in place by, and supplied power through, rusty-ended woodworking clamps…

            Good day, Sir.

        • Dr. Mike

          I don’t know that there is any electrical feedback going to the controller- this is what is claimed by Engineer48. See his comment below- he claims the electrical feedback is the ~200KHz signal seen on the scope. I don’t believe there is enough information available to determine for sure if the 200KHz is a drive signal or a feedback signal.
          If you look at Engineer48’s comment from 4 hours ago and my lengthy reply to Engineer48 (about 20 comments down 15-20 minutes ago), I believe you will see how Engineer48 thought that there was some 90W not accounted for, and how I at least tried to explain that there was no excess power that had to be electrical feedback.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            Your theory, not fact.

            BTW please stop stating the controller overheated. Rossi never said that.

          • Dr. Mike

            I believe Rossi did say the controller had an overheating problem that was corrected by active (fan) cooling. I didn’t say some electrical feedback was not possible, just that the magnitude is much less than what you calculated. Do you still believe the radiative heat is only about 10W or do you think that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is a valid way to calculate radiative heat from a blackbody? Do you still claim there is “maybe 50 to 60W excess energy to account for” as you stated in a comment below (down 20 or so comments)? The oscilloscope waveform appears to me to be a high frequency signal superimposed on a lower frequency signal that has a dc offset. An exponential decay (with a time constant of 100’s of microseconds) of the dc offset and the amplitudes of both the high and low frequency signals after they are turned off would be a possible explanation of what is seen in the waveform. Without having a schematic for the controller one can’t claim that the controller turns off signals in fractions of a microsecond, rather than in 100’s of microseconds.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            My 10W was an estimate of the heat radiated by the reactor body and end clamps, into the air.

            I design & build power system microcontrollers. Don’t see anything on the scope or other physical data that would be a challenge.

          • Dr. Mike

            My assumption would be that Rossi set up the heat exchanger around the QX devices to capture as much of the heat as possible since he is trying to show how much heat is generated by his devices. I don’t know where “the reactor body and end clamps” were exposed to air, but they would have to be quite hot to produce any significant radiative heat (which is proportional to T to the 4th power). If a warm reactor body and end caps were exposed to air, there may have been a couple of watts lost by convective heating. A small amount of heat may have been lost by conductive heat through the electrical leads to the the devices. I think that if any of these heat losses were significant in Rossi’s set up, he would have included them in his calculation of heat output.
            I see you did not answer my lengthy reply to you about 20 comments down. Am I to assume that you did not include the fact that the 3 QX devices were running at 30% power when you stated that “the raw output was 40W x 3 reactors = 120w”? Also, do you now agree that all of the “raw power” measured by spectrometry is radiative heat?
            I appreciate your efforts in trying to figure out what is going in Rossi’s set up, but I believe the claim that there is 90W (or 50-60W for 3 parallel devices) of output power not accounted for has confused a lot of readers of e-catworld.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            Look at the discoloration / oxidation of the pusher rods touching the ends of the QX housing.

            To me those rod end get very hot, probably radiating and conducting away at least 10W, maybe more.

            Then add in radiant losses from the reactor housing.

            Normally heat exchangers are heavily insulated to avoid radiant losses. But not here as I suspect Rossi had enough heat to handle the radiant losses, show the non insulated QX housing and still generate a high COP while operating at 30% of power.

          • Axil Axil

            That corrosion could be caused by ozone that is produced by high voltage discharge during reaction activation rather than high heat.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            The colour change on the rods extends quite some way from the reactor housing ends.

            My gut says it is caused by the pushed rods being in contact with the Ni rods, that do get hot.

            I suggest the plasma chamber is sealed. Hard to see how a glow discharge could be created if the plasma chamber was not sealed.

            Plus if it was Ozone fron high voltage on the two pusher assemblies, we would see it everywhere, especially where there are tight radius curves.

            As it is only where the pusher rods connect to the internal Ni rods, suggests it is caused by heat conducted from the reactor interior.

          • Dr. Mike

            If the bars are contacting the ends of a hot QX housing and are good thermal conductors, they could easily be dissipating several watts of heat by conduction (and maybe a little by convection).. Do you know what the bars are made of?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mike,

            Look like Chrome or Ni plated steel.

            From my experience with heat sinking electronics, suggest it gets very hot and could easily radiate 5W per pusher rod.

            Point being there 2 pushers and the reactor housing would radiate and conduct away a significant amount of thermal energy.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            “how do you explain the signal decay as the controller switches off the plasma?”

            The voltage across the resistor will fall when the resistance of the QX rises, provided that the input voltage is held constant. That is, the voltage slope across the reactor would appear inverted in the oscilloscope. If the resistance of the QX were high enough (little or no plasma left), you might see nothing in the scope even if the signal from the control box was still present. But of course, the reactor could still generate its own output.

          • Thomas Kaminski
          • Thomas Kaminski
        • Thomas Kaminski
      • Thomas Kaminski
    • Thomas Kaminski
  • Stephen

    Hi Frank,

    In an earlier post you described observing an earlier/test version of the E-CatQX.

    Are you able to expand on this or is it still somehow best undisclosed further?

    I’m curious if you or Matt’s are able to describe the plasma you saw better?

    I don’t want to put you or Andrea Rossi on the spot to divulge more than he is ready for at this time. I could quite understand that Andrea might want to keep these impressions quiet for now but If he is OK with you passing on these impressions I’m quite curious. If not then are there any more general impressions you can give. (Maybe the answer to point 6?)

    1.Was the plasma homogenous in colour across its width and length? Or how did it vary? I recall Matt’s said he saw a blue ting too was this located in the core or the edges? Was there any hint of the Hydrogen red and blue of Helium yellow tints described by Bob below in parts of the plasma?

    2. Was the plasma basically homogeneous in density (ignoring the bright spots you described) across its width and length? Or how did it vary?

    3. Was there any variability in the over all plasma in time during the periods the device was on.

    4. Was the plasma apparently optically thick or semi transparent?

    5. Could you describe more the bright spots? Were they stationary of moving? In particular positions or distributed? small or large? of the same colour as the plasma but denser? Or different? Were they persistent of intermittent? Deep in the plasma or around it?

    6. Did you also see the spectrum from the plasma? If so did you see the broad Black Body spectrum described? Did you see any particularly strong emission peaks?

    7. When the device was off was the gap between the electrodes apparently completely empty of any material?

    8. Were the ends of the electrodes highly reflective or shiny or dull or dark or otherwise optically affected?

    Just some thoughts. I can understand though and respect if they are still under some level of NDA at the moment.

    • Frank Acland

      1. Yes homogenous, similar to this color: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22bb2e7687d9ecc5be0906dd8df1e80bfc42f5b86b0eeff34b8024604d10b429.png
      no blue or red.
      2. Yes I would say homogeneous in density
      3. Slight movement, similar to what you might see in a plasma ball
      4. Maybe slightly transparent
      5. One or two tiny pinpricks of light floating slowly within the plasma
      6. Saw the spectrometer reading showing 1100 nm, don’t recall the details of emission peaks.
      7. Completely empty
      8. Somewhat shiny, but not like a mirror. See this image — the device on the right, you can see one of the ends.

      • Stephen

        Thanks very much Frank,

        These are good answers and good impressions.

        Was there a second image meant to be posted in your answer to 8?

        • Frank Acland

          No, that’s the only photo of it that I know of, I didn’t take any photos myself.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Frank I got it now earlier I was missing the one attached to point 8 earlier when I looked on my phone.

            Every time I see that image I can’t help being amazed how beautiful and simple and elegant it looks even if we know it is much more complicated both on a scientific and engineering level underneath. It’s amazing he achieved this huge step in design when we consider what pressure he was under this last year. He claimed to not be a good designer in the Energy 2.0 webcast. But honestly that device is beautiful.

  • Engineer48

    Anybody remember this discussion where Andrea was helping me get this design right?

    http://e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

    In this design, the loop was closed, with Andreas approval.

    Maybe time to bring that discussion back to life?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aee048a84a8998a39ebced0c5ead6fc90504f58983946fd90df23c257890acd0.jpg

  • Engineer48

    To add to the discussion of what comes out of the QX reactor I submit these images showing the 100kHz current waveform decays just before the plasma turns off, which is not what it would do if it was generated by the control box.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d027988b6fa83458bea91dbd765e6cbc8eced7c4918c054ab09773ef23322ba.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2cd862d4d1165e873359a1e4267d739d5a0c2500931c7251c500a0e9b3b33177.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87c222372752500de3fdd1d9ef97ed2400b5d75603064ccff5071e92b3ee86b5.png

    • Da Phys

      Interesting. Does someone know what are the frequencies involved?

      • Engineer48

        Hi DaPhys,

        Scope time base was 100 usec per division or 1 msec side to side.

        Freq estimated to be 100 kHz.

      • Axil Axil

        Someone said the scope was set to 100uS/div which gives something around 83kHz.
        A close match is 83.03kHz being modulated by 9.5kHz
        83.03kHz * ABS(9.5kHz)

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That was also my first thought when I saw it. However, the ‘decay’ of the voltage (measured across the 1 ohm resistor, not the reactor) could as well result from rising plasma resistance, caused by de-ionization of the plasma when it cooled down.

      If the 100 kHz signal comes from the reactor, it might have its origin in (1) acoustic resonance or (2) ion oscillations. For electron oscillations, the frequency seems to be too low. But surely, we do not know what happened beyond the limit of the oscilloscope.

    • Stephen

      I think this and Andreas Maraitis points below could well be right on the point.

      I was also wondering about acoustic resonance. The acoustic wave length of 100Hz could be quite close to the 6mm size of the reaction zone gap. Depending on the Pressure and Temperature and consequently the speed of sound in the device. I think at air pressure and normal temperatures it is about 3mm for example. Obviously the actual pressure and temperature in the device could be different.

      Andreas is also right to mention that since we are talking a plasma we could be talking about other Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD)oscillations than normal acoustic oscillations including ion oscillations, Alfvén waves, Larmor waves etc.

      One thing intresting about this if those 100Hz oscillations are related to the acoustic conditions in the device is that changes in frequency would indicate changes in speed of sound in the device which could give very fast feed back on the pressure and temperature inside the device. And perhaps the intensity and shape of the oscillations rate of change could give even more data especially if they are passed through a Fast Fourrier Transform ( FFT) to extract detailed frequency information. This could be very important fast and responsive information regarding the conditions in the device if it needs to be maintained in a very precise conditions such as temperature and pressure to work. And could also give good feedback when those conditions start to change or become exhausted.

      Regarding the Oscillations they look like Beats between two or three sources at close to 100 kHz but separated by about 10 kHz to me. This could also be consistent with the control of the device.

      Andrea Rossi often talked about resonance in his devices. I think he could be using this to amplify a particular condition in the device he needs for self sustain. It could also be that by tuning the three Ecat-QX’s to resonate together it supports these resonances in like a tuning fork.

      The tuning like effect at the beginning might be an attempt to get the three Ecat QX’s in phase and in resonance with each other. Perhaps once in phase like this the three eCats support each other in a kind of self sustain. Is this why he uses three devices?

      On one hand you might want a resonance to operate the device at the edge so to speak to stimulate something in the device but on the other hand usually in control theory you want to avoid these kinds of resonances as they can lead to runaway behaviour, structural breakdown and/or loss of control. Perhaps this is why we see Beats, as the device is being maintained in a controlled resonance but with out being aloud to runaway in full resonance.

      FFT analysis and Processing the modulation wave form of the beats might also give information about how the devices are working together, if one is getting out of tune etc.

      Of course all this is completely speculative but I think it could fit well.

      If there is an acoustic/MHD wave counter part to the 100 kHz signal I wonder if the bright spot seen by Frank are artefacts of a standing wave in the device.

      I do have some reserve about this approach though. Recently Andrea Rossi mentioned on his blog that the device does not produce an acoustic output. so maybe the idea doesn’t hold after all. But I think it could be he was talking about outside the device rather than Acoustic or MHD shocks or waves inside the device.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Stephen,

        I think the beat is because there are slightly different freq generated in each of the 3 parallel QX reactors plasma.

        And yes the acoustic resonance could be greater than air’s 3mm at that freq.

        Plus yes. Modern microcontrollers have more than enough fire power to do a high res analysis of every part of the plasma generated waveform.

        Would suspect there is more than enough data recoverable from the signal to reveal a lot of real time operational data about the status of the reaction.

        BTW in the 1 year ECats there was circuitry in the control boxes to monitor EM fields generated by the reaction and report that info, in real time, back to the main control computer. I have always believed the QX control system would be similar to that used before.

        I suspect the smaller spiky pulses are kick along plasma sustain pulses when the controller determines the plasma needs a little help to maintain a constant reaction rate.

        • Stephen

          My impression is given what we currently know there are two possible types of locations for the source of energy and LENR.

          1. Is in the plasma it self and that the very specific control of that plasma is optimizing the environmental conditions at particular locations in that plasma for it to occur. (Perhaps this would fit his ideas about resonance and particles production)

          2. The LENR is occurring in the Nickel Rod surfaces and generating high energy ions that are later thermalised in the plasma.

          To put my speculation hat on…

          My personal preference is option 2. In this case we would need the Nickel Rods to be kept at particular temperature ranges where Hydrogen sorbtion processes can still occur. This might account for their separation and size to some extent to allow them to maintain a lower temperature than the plasma. I think the LENR process it self causes the ions to shake off the nickel so to speek with very high kinetic energy. This might require nano structures on the surface to replace what the former powder was doing. A too small structure would over heat and melt. A too large structure would not pass enough kinetic energy to all the hydrogen ions in the surface. The nano structuring on surface of the structure could also impact the density of hydrogen sorbtion and path of flight on ejection.

          Some of the high velocity ions produced may support further LENR interactions other would maybe released at high KE.

          I think the thermalisation of the plasma is occurring in the dense parts of the plasma through interaction with the high energy ions possibly the bright spots mentioned by Frank are those dense regions if they are indeed due to standing waves as I was speculating

          • Axil Axil

            You might have hit upon the proper mechanism for LENR reaction generation in the QX. The light produced by the central plasma ball might be a stimulator of the reaction and not where the LENR reaction is actually occurring. The RF wave feed by controller fluxuates between a minimum to a maximum at 100 KHZ. This light production stimulus could produce a light source that flickers like the light from a strobe bulb.

            Like the laser from the Holmlid experiments, the light triggers the LENR reaction. Also, in the HID bulb, the light is produced by a square wave that produces light only when the square wave is at maximum.

            This stimulation is a result of the AC KERR effect.

            The LENR reaction might be centered in the electrodes that you pointed out and/or the pinpoint ball lightning spots that are seen floating around inside the QX gas envelope.

            If this hypothesis is true, than all the measurements done by Rossi are invalid including the COP calculations. Also, I would be disappointed in Rossi if he knows about this QX mechanism and is covering this IP feature up to deceive the competition.

          • Stephen

            I’m not fully into it yet there is slot to understand but I don’t think it invalidates Rossi at all. If this bright spots are where the plasma is thermalised in a standing wave the thermal plasma itself would still extend the whole plasma I think.

            But I am guessing.

            It’s a good idea though that you mention that msybe something about it is stimulating the LENR elsewhere in the rods. For sure we seem to have some degree of feed back and control of the LENR it self.. I dint think my speculations explain that part yet.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding control…

            The frequency of the RF controls the power level of the LENR reaction. The higher the RF frequency applied, the higher the LENR power output.

            The electrodes do not melt even with the plasma so close to the electrodes because the plasma is cold…that hydrogen plasma does not produce all that heat.

          • Stephen

            It’s very likely the plasma in contact with the electrodes is much lower than that in the reaction zone as you say. This is in common with all plasma lamps I think. They should be separated by sufficient distance that 1/r^2 results in the temperature at that point being low enough for not to melt at least but also maybe low enough for adsorption to occur.

            I agree though it would be really interesting to characterize the thermal behavior in more resolution especially the bright spots. I think that’s maybe your point? At least I think it would better clarify your position if that kind of measurement was possible.

  • Engineer48

    Should add my collection of switch on images.

    This image is the very 1st ignition pulse, which failed to start the reactor and got a few worried looks from Rossi and Faulvio.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7549a700b4102f878f6bb6521eac9d8496048a6e44eef92506b92e9b96fb7ae.png

    Here is the 2nd ignition pulse, which did start the reactor. Note the massive spikes that occurred on the right side of the screen that did not occur with the 1st ignition pulse. I believe this adds to the data that when the reactor is running, it is outputting AC electrical energy.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/609588dc495559e7bb673ef0ee49f6abce80d9eb8481980f47d7fe8d570af80a.png

    Here are other ignition pulses that occurred during the 1 hour run. Note they are very much cleaner, probably because the reactor was hot.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2a9fbb81b9924ba15a3512e7398980f0846912780948f7f04fb959955e9035b.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d08525571df38f6b87aadc07f8b375d49f50a276745385246e2915a6c476981f.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a64b8e718b76020da091a61d3784583f7929a27625b3e8a4885a1a009cdd3f3c.png

    • GiveADogABone

      The close fit of the oscillation frequency on the demo oscilloscope and the frequency on Fig.5.[1:] is not coincidental IMHO. The beat frequency on the oscilloscope is the product of the Rf frequency of the fireball and the output frequency of the controller. The ‘beat’ is the ‘cat'[controller] and ‘mouse'[fireball] in operation.

      1: http://www.physics.ucla.edu/plasma-exp/research/Fireballs/index.html
      Electrons from the ambient plasma are accelerated into the fireball by the double layer potential drop (approx. equal to the ionization potential). The beam-plasma system inside the fireball excites electron plasma waves. …
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3479f5ec1cde058907484ec3a77336a27a4c41459c04f80c850505363ac27977.jpg

      Fig. 5. Waveforms of the electrode voltage, current , light and rf emissions for a pulsating fireball. The rf modulation arises from the density oscillations and the narrow receiver bandwidth.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GADAB,

        Welcome to the puzzle Rossi has set us and discussion on how to solve it.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Nice find. Note that the oscillation frequency is about 50kHz — similar to that observed in the QX waveforms. Also, other graphs show current pulses — similar to the pulses seen occurring in the QX waveform and maybe coincident with the pinpoints of light (See Frank’s description of the plasma below — “5. One or two tiny pinpricks of light floating slowly within the plasma”).

    • Axil Axil

      Regarding:”Also take note the 100kHz signal amplitude is not stable right after the ignition pulse, which to me says the 100kHz signal is being generated by the reactor. ”

      I remember the waveform produced by the controller used to stimulate the LENR reaction depicted by the frequency and harmonic analyzer in the Lugano demo was a RF shaped complex sine waveform.

      It is possible that the QX reaction sometimes produces a RF signal that can interact and combine with the controller produced signal.

      Also…since there were three QX reactors in operation, if each QX produced its own RF signal then the combined RF signal would be very complex, continually changing and random.

      • …if they’re not adapting to each other, in resonance.

        • Axil Axil

          If the QX produces RF, then when the 3 second “on” portion of the controller cycle stops, then the RF signal would continue during the 4 second “off” self sustain portion of the controller cycle. What remains “on” is the light produced by the plasma. That light could be the sync up signal.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            There is no energy production during the 4 sec OFF periods. The plasma and reaction stops.

          • Axil Axil

            Didn’t Rossi state that the reaction goes into self sustain mode when the input energy stops? Rossi said that there was a 3/7 factor in the COP calculation? Or am I not remembering the demo correctly?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            It was 3 sec on and 4 sec off.

            Self sustain occurred after 1st bright ignition pulse at the start of each 3 sec on period. So 3 seconds of self sustain, plus I suggest a few smaller voltage and shorter duration kick along self sustain helper pulses.

          • Axil Axil

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8587&v=Nz0Z94Ix-kc

            Ar 2:20 give or take of the demo, the spectrometer readings were displayed on the laptop. The light spectrum on the laptop persisted for the entire 7 second cycle for a few cycles at least. Check it out I could be wrong.

    • Axil Axil

      What the QX reactors do self generate is the light that they all produce. When the RF is switched off the light of the plasma stays on.

    • GiveADogABone

      Compare photos [2:] of the demo oscilloscope during QX startup to [1:]. To my mind, Fig 4 and the photos have the same general form. The core of the paper is an equation, presented as (1) : i(t) = C.dV/dt + V.dC/dt

      The QX and controller appear to be, in essence, a series RLC electrical circuit that oscillates at a near resonant frequency in normal operation. The second term of the equation shows the ‘C’ in the ‘RLC’ varying in time and this second term is always negative because V and dC/dt are always of opposite sign.

      If C.dV/dt is low positive and V.dC/dt is large negative with positive V, then the value of i(t) can be negative whilst V is positive. The current then flows in the opposite direction to the voltage which is a definition of NDR (Negative Differential Resistance). The double layer inputs AC electrical energy into the external circuit.

      The addition of a sufficient positive bias current to the circuit stops i(t) ever going negative in normal operation of the QX.

      [1:] http://vant.kipt.kharkov.ua/ARTICLE/VANT_2017_1/article_2017_1_219.pdf
      These equations are solved by numerical methods. Fig. 4 shows the dynamics of the double layer current capacitive component i (t) C (curve 1) and the active voltage U (t) a (curve 2) in the high-current pulsed discharge.
      Fig. 4. The dynamics of the double layer current capacitive component i (t) C (1) and the active voltage U (t) a (2) of the high-current pulsed discharge

      [2:] http://e-catworld.com/2017/12/09/energy-2-0-society-to-hold-webcast-with-andrea-rossi-as-guest-december-9-2017/
      Photos of oscilloscope during QX startup

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48

    It seems likely the polarity of the plasma ignite and sustain was altered each switch on cycle, so to cause the LENR reaction in the Ni to switch electrodes.

    Here you can see alternative polarity ignite pulses.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2a9fbb81b9924ba15a3512e7398980f0846912780948f7f04fb959955e9035b.jpg

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d08525571df38f6b87aadc07f8b375d49f50a276745385246e2915a6c476981f.jpg

    Also note the 100 kHz feedback signal is not constant amplitude just after the ignite pulse, which could be understood as the plasma is just getting started. Plus we see a brief higher light leak with the ignite pulse, which then drops down in light intensity but the 100 kHz signal does not vary to the extent of the plasma on pulse.

    Next note that just before the ignite pulse, the base line increases a bit, which may indicate the controller switching to the high voltage generator output (relay click?) just prior to the controller commanding a pulse of voltage X and duration Y.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Is everyone satisfied with Rossi’s answer to the 5 sigma question? Before the demonstration he announced the QX reactor had reached 5 sigma. He operated the demonstration reactor at 30% and had control box heating problems. How could he have reached 5 sigma with those limitations?

    • Jas

      Sigma 5 relates to the reactor only.

    • Dr. Mike

      You and I would probably think 5 sigma reliability as a manufacturing failure rate at something like less than 1 failure in several million samples. Rossi’s 5 sigma reliability has always referred to something about the operation of a small sample of QX devices. I don’t recall if he ever gave a definition of what he was claiming as a 5 sigma reliability, but I think Rossi made it clear that he wasn’t evaluating the failure rate of a large number of manufactured devices.

    • roseland67

      Was it ever defined by Rossi?

  • John Littlemist

    ECW is not the optimal place to ask questions from Rossi, instead you should post your question to Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics blog.

  • Engineer48

    Submitted to JONP:

    Engineer48
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    If you recall our discussions in June 2016 about the QX reactor based Remote Area / Emergency power plant that I planned to build in 8ft containers.

    Please refer to the discussion on ECW:
    https://e-catworld.com/2016/06/22/remote-area-disaster-relief-acdc-power-heated-air-warm-water-and-clean-water-e-cat-quarkx-system-concept-engineer48/

    and the plant schematic: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aee048a84a8998a39ebced0c5ead6fc90504f58983946fd90df23c257890acd0.jpg

    I’m still keen to move forward with this project as I believe these plants can deliver life saving energy and clean water to many of the world’s population that are energy and clean water poor. I’m sure many storm damaged areas of the planet would also benefit from drop in QX reactor based power plants delivering electricity, clean water, hot water and steam.

    Back then you shared the QX could output 10% of total energy as electricity and that you had a goal to achieve at least 20% by product launch. Is the 10% still available and have you achieved the 20% goal?

    I look forward to receiving my 1st QX reactor and building a pilot plant.

    • Dr. Mike

      Too bad Rossi did not answer your question about the potential electrical output as it would have been good to know if it is now possible to get more electrical output:

      Andrea Rossi
      December 13, 2017 at 9:36 PM

      Engineer48:

      We are working very hard to start the massive sales of the industrial E-Cats within 2018. It will be hard, but we are struggling.

      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Let’s hope that Rossi’s final statement: “It will be hard, but we are struggling” is the result of his familiarity with English, rather than he is really “struggling”.

      • Omega Z

        Well, they may be “struggling”, but I don’t think that’s what he meant. It’s like his use of the term factory. May be well and good in Italy, but not so much in the U.S.. I would never call my 30×40 shop a factory even at 5 times it’s size.

  • Engineer48

    Here is the killer statement in the 2nd NASA paper, top of page 16:

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf

    “It can be seen from both sets of data the photon stimulation technique with deuterated materials created new isotopes with 100 percent reproducibility.”

    Seems the Cat is out of the Bag, so to speak.

    Photon triggered LENR, which I believe includes the QX, is very real and probably coming to a LENR lab real soon, if not already there.

    • Stephen

      Very interesting, I suppose they did not all ready consider Carl Oscar’s theory although interestingly the last paragraph may be alluding to it.

      I was once wondering if the Mossbauer effect plays a role in translating the nuclear energy released into phonons and ultimately through coupling or some kind of internal conversation into ejection of the ions. Ni61 is a Mossbauer isotope.

  • Engineer48

    The NASA patent application claim to be able to cause a short term shutdown of the deuterium’s Coulomb barrier, so to allow deuterium fusion to occur at much lower energies than normal.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a8b244f723d5793caa05564b635e005017e6c9e297dcfdde36898bc4de5ec8c.png

    Then the deuterium fusion triggers fission in the deuteriated high Z or high proton count, host matrix.

    Seems they suggest a 4 stage process.

    Load deuterium into the host high Z matrix, ie deuteriate it.
    Screen the Coulomb force in the deuterium for a short period.
    Initiate deuterium fusion.
    This fusion triggers fission in the high Z host matrix.

  • Vinney

    Eng48,

    In a reply to Manuel Cilia a few days ago, he states that he has no licensees in Australia.
    I don’t know what role Roger Green ( E-cat Australia) now plays.
    But why not mount a case to trial and test Ecat QX boilers at that power plant you had commercial relations with.
    If the power company can contribute some resources, you may have the first pilot site in the world.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Vinney,

      I emailed Roger Green last year. Told me he passed his Australian license back to Leonardo.

      Said he was a non exclusive agent for Leonardo.

      I’m also a non exclusive agent for Leonardo. Have an order for a 10kW QX reactor with min 10% electricale energy output. No money paid, awaiting on the invite to come, inspect and test. Then money changes hands.

      • Vinney

        It would be interesting to see a discussion here on how the thousands QX reactors are going to be mounted.
        Rene said a year ago that they would be dimples on steel sheeting or pipes.
        That’s fine if a lot of them were controlled simply by EMF, RF or just heat.
        But it appears a vast number of them will need an electrical source.
        Rene recently said they most likely be spaced out on thin concrete slabs or pipes.
        I would add a number of different shape ceramics.
        Both concrete and ceramics can easily accommodate thousands of tiny wires in the manufacture process.
        Any engineers here have any better configurations or base material compositions.
        How would a 10MW boiler be efficiently configured.

        • Vinney

          Thinking about it, the thin concrete slabs or pipe segments (semicircular segments) that will fit into boilers, and similar high temperature ceramic elements, where the thousands of wires and reactor housings are (set in case of concrete) baked in.
          These intricate housings contain no sensitive IP and can be manufactured by third parties.
          Rossi’s robotized lines would simply install the keyed reactors in these keyholes (already set into the concrete of ceramics) by the thousands. As can be expected by a newer technology, these tiny reactors can also be removed when spent, and replaced. These concrete and ceramic sections can be re-used up to 10 times (although highly dependent on sustained temperatures reached and duty cycle).
          The other manufacturing line Rossi would want to maintain ‘in-house’ is the manufacture and preparation of the nickel, and the insertion of the mixture into the housing tube.
          This would require pharmaceutical level production machinery, easily customisable from machines already built for other customers.
          There is nothing outlandishly difficult about the industrial boiler ecat production line.
          All the heat exchanger assembly can be built by the customer or any number of hundreds of companies already making them (including in China).

  • Thomas Kaminski

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