Dr Joseph Fine:
The stethoscope is useful not to reveal immediate phenomenons, but to prevent meny negative events days if not weeks before they happen. I give you a paradigmatic example: with the stethoscope used everyday, I can hear the fact that a sector of the boiler is working better and more regularly than another. This phonomenon at its beginning is easy to correct, and the situation is easy because it can take, as I said, days if not weeks before the situation becomes important. So the correction is easy and calm.
Obviously this “ex impromptu” proceeding is not a substitute for an electronic control, that reacts in milliseconds once the phenomenon is already enough developed to affect the sensors. Electronic control is born by rationality and logic in Boolean language and is necessary; ausculting with a stethoscope is an art that talks to the instinct of the very skilled expert of the art: it is useful, mainly in R&D stage, but not necessary.
I made my work with the stethoscope mainly in SSM mode, because the plant worked mainly in SSM mode.
The information given by the stethoscope is rich and diversified. Electronic controls cannot substitute my stethoscope and vice versa, as well as rational logic cannot substitute instinct and vice versa.
I am not a normal operator that uses only normal controls. I am something substantially different, as well as my work is not normal. This does not mean I am better, just means I am different.
Obviously I too need, also for safety reasons, to have the due electronic control devices installed. But it’s not enough, the instinct needs more “antennas” and the stethoscope is one of them.
As I said, I will be able to publish the Report of the ERV after it will have been disclosed in Court, in pursue of precise directions I got from my Attorney.
Dear Dr. Rossi
I would be pleased to know something about the 1-year report of the e-cat tested so far. May be I have lost some episodes.. please repeat in case.
Using a stethoscope, how can listening to the sounds or changes of sounds from an operating plant provide the operator enough time to modify plant characteristics and prevent serious transients or catastrophic damage?
In the case of a required intervention, operator response time would be on the order of several seconds (you might be much faster than most of us) while automatic responses would be on the order of milliseconds.
(You not only have to respond, but you also must take the correct action! )
Serious power transients could develop in milliseconds or microseconds.
As a consequence, is operator intervention possible, or prohibited, when the plant is in steady state mode SSM?
Or, is manual intervention used only when external power sources are active, which prevents rapid power transients?
Are you listening to sounds from the coolant system, so you know when the coolant is boiling?
Isn’t that too late to recover from a power transient?
Sound & harmonic regards,
Dr Andrea Rossi,
How is going today the QuarkX ?
Not yet, but I am preparing an important experiment with him.
Ballpark: between 20 and 100 $/kW.
Thank you for your suggestions,
We made permanent monitoring on the matter and never detected any neutron emission outside the E-Cat beyond the background, above the margin of error of the instrumentation.
I sympathyze with your enthusiasm, at the moment I can only answer F8.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your suggestions, but we are not ready for logistic applications.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If you are considering a demonstration program, I would suggest using an existing car design such as the Chevy Volt. I own one and it is wonderfully designed, automatically switching from battery to gasoline when the battery is sufficiently depleted when operating in the Normal mode. When in the Mountain mode of operation, the gasoline generator runs and operates the Chevy Volt but also charges the battery.
If an auxiliary eCat unit could be implemented on the outside of the Chevy Volt such that it provided the electrical power that the gasoline powered generator would normally provide when the gasoline engine was engaged, you theoretically could run the car continuously for the lifetime of the charge. By mounting the eCat unit externally, although unattractive, it would be cooled by the air flow of the car’s movement/wind.
I would think General Motors is a sufficiently large company that they could secretly perform an experimental program to test and to validate the eCat concept.
Practical considerations are whether charging should be done when stationary (heat build-up of the eCat unit), turn-on time , if more than a few minutes. Even at maximum speed (100 mph), the fully charged Chevy Volt battery has at least 15 minutes of run time. Hopefully, the eCat could be running within that time period. Post-operation charging rate should probably be around 2 hours to keep heat build-up reasonable.
What better way to demonstrate LENR then to drive continuously across the USA without refueling?
Please allow me a brief look into the future – do you think that :
1/ for automobile/ship applications we should still be interested
a) in steam machines (for direct power) or
b) turbines for electricity production, or
c) will Ecatx/quark be sufficiently efficient as to deliver the electrons directly :
c1: via buffer battery?
c2: direct (ecat reaction speeds controllable like explosion engine)
2/ for airplanes applications ecat technology could be applied :
a) indirectly: through production of hydrogen/ artificial natural gas produced with ecat heat
b) directly :
b1: through turbines driven by ecat heat
b2: and/or through ecat generated electricity (vertical take off and landing and horizontal motion
Andrea there is a lot of talk around ME356 & MFMP detecting neutron fluxes in their experiments at times! ME 356 seems to have best understanding of LENR power generating methods! Both have reservation about exposure to neutrons, please be careful in your work! Please review ME 356 part 2 blog on LENR forum to analyze their troublesome developments in light of your knowledge! You might want to pass on some of your cautions in that area! ME 356 is one of my favorite experimenters after you of course! I would not want to see him or others endanger themselves as I know you would not also!
Your friend & ally Jim
PS on another subject look at F.B post on “Dark Money” by Jane Mayer & Oil Oliagarch in our country! They don’t seem to be nice on new energy people! Again Be Aware!
Inspiration for you to ponder:
Are you the one who gives the horse its strength? Do you clothe its neck with a rustling mane? Can you cause it to leap like a locust? Its majestic snorting is terrifying. It paws the ground in the valley and exults mightily; It charges into the battle. It laughs at fear and is afraid of nothing. It does not turn back because of the sword. The quiver rattles against it, The spear and the javelin flash. Trembling with excitement, it surges forward, It cannot stand still at the sound of the horn.
When the horn blows, it says, ‘Aha!’ It smells the battle from afar and hears the shouting of commanders and the battle cry.
Regarding the “horn” and the “battle cry” …
We all hope very much that your testing is going well. If so, then the QuarkX may in reality becoming a QuarkX(n) product. Have you started to test the QuarkX(n) configuration? If your reply is yes, are you currently testing more than one such configuration?
I hope my inquiries do not disrupt you or impinge on your need to protect IP. During my successful career as an executive in IT Software design and deployment I became quite skilled at asking disruptive questions in order to best serve my clients. At the end of the day, I too came under attack by a client, who wanted to steal my IP, instead of purchasing it at fair market value. The software I wrote survived a multi-million dollar hacking attack by one of my clients, with the result that they never even cracked one eggshell of the nest. Just sharing.
As a Grandpa now, I try my best to be less disruptive. Not succeeding as much as I’d like to.
Dr Andrea Rossi
I appreciate your policy to focus on the product and ignore the chatters.
Are you still working on the safety certification for the domestic QuarkX ?
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Are you presently working in the USA or in Europe ?
What is youe target of price per kW of power for the QuarkX ?
From the documents that have been published it appears that Tom Darden is a customary fraudster since 15 years. Besides, the fact that IH had the reports of the ERV after 3 months from the beginning of the test, with the same results of the final report and used this preliminary report to collect money instead of criticizing it immediately speaks very loudly in your favour.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Any news about your theoretical work with Prof. Norman Cook ?
The QuarkX makes also 24 hours shifts, but we stop it for many controls now and again.
It is always attended when it works.
Does the QuarkX run 24/7 now? If so, do you ever leave QuarkX running when it is unattended by yourself or other people?
He, he , he: thank you for your insight.
Some of your readers have exposed the crookery and clownery of the people at IH.
Good news: Now you look very good when compared to them. You are effortlessly funny, without being clownish, with your inimitably “bad” English -:) The infidels on some blogs keep analyzing your bad English for clues.
Bad news: The haters will question your judgment in picking such bad people as your business partners. Is there any reason that you did not partner with great philanthropists like Bill Gates or the Google guys?
Wish you good luck with your Quark-X. Do you realize that you are running out of names for your future improvements. So hurry up and let the cat out of the bag.
Honestly this morning I played tennis with my wife.
Now I am working with the QuarkX.
It is going well.
Thank you for your link,
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Today, Sunday, are you working on the QuarkX ?
Please go to http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published today on other posts of this blog.
I cannot answer either in positive or in negative to this question.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Are there fundamental differences between the QuarkX and the E-Cat ?
How is gon today the QuarkX ?
“Jag bara undrar?”:
100% from Leonardo Corporation.
I prefer not to answer to any question connected with the litigation on course.
Thank you for your attention. I see what I can do.
Will the preliminar demonstration only show products 100% from Leonardo? Or will it be products (driven by Quark X) from other partners? What i mean is that Leornado do the Cat/cats and other partner do there products and you put it together for demonstration? Warm regards “Jag bara undrar+”
Thank you for your link !
I fully understand that you can´t answer the detailded questions i my last post. When I come to think of it many design features are also patentable: how to control multiple quarks simultanously, how to put them together in an optimal way for heat exchange and for exchangeability and so on.
Looking forward to see the pictures of the Quark X. Maybe it is possible to publish a photo of one of the earliest prototypes so you dont reveal the latest design features?
Dear Dr Rossi,
Your upcoming work in Europe had me wondering…
From a practical, or legal, standpoint, while the lawsuit is pending, are you allowed to:
1) sell E-Cat units to US companies?
2) work R&D-wise with US companies?
I agree with you.
1- the functions of these metals are totally different. It is like to ask if in a car you use wheels or pistons
2- see 1
3- I cannot give either positive or negative answer, since we are preparing a patent
He,he,he…I am not keeping you in “information starvation”…I just say what I can say in this phase: F8.
More information will come when we will have completed our preliminar R&D.
Karl- Henrik Malmqvist:
Thank you for your insight.
Yes, I agree substantially with what you say.
I cannot enter now in the details of your questions.