How good has been today the QuarkX ?
Dr Andrea Rossi,
More insults and slanders from the puppets of Darden: how can you ignore them ?
Thank you for the link.
Electrolysis is more convenient than thermolysis if you want to separate hydrogen from oxygen. The use of gas to fuel the E-Cat is problematic. We have worked very much on it.
It’s a Freudian mechanism: is called “introjection”.
Some of your detractors now think that I am just you talking to yourself… I quote:
“Sebastian is yet another fake Rossi user.”
“I am always amused by watching Rossi speak to himself through one of his sock puppets!!”
I’m sure they will think this post was also posted by you! I find that quite funny.
Hello Mr Rossi,
I just have a question:
Is it possible to generate directly Hydrogen by making thermolysis of the water molecule in the Ecat?
Normaly, thermolysis of water molecule starts when temperature is above 1200°C.
It could be interesting to see if direct hydrogen generation is possible by water fractionning thanks to Ecat high temperature.
A part of the hydrogen generated could be used to automatically refuel the ecat in hydrogen.
For the beginners I would suggest
“Physics and Our Universe: How It All Works”
by Prof Richard Wolfson ( Middlebury College )
Published by “The Great Courses”, Chantilly, VA (USA)
The Swedish branch of our great Team is making a fantastic job.
I have described our system to utilize hydrogen in my US Patent.
Thank you for your sustain,
I never used radioactive materials so I have not experience with this specific issue, but, obviously, the E-Cat produces thermal energy and any system that needs thermal energy can get profit from the E-Cat as a source of energy, independently from the use such energy is employed for.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Do you think your system can be useful for the treatment of radioactive waste ?
Dear Andrea Rossi:
The more I read the critics of your foes, the more I am convinced you are going to win in the market and in Court. After a bombastic beginning to attack you, now they have lost all their credibility and I appreciate a lot the fact that you are basically turning a blind eye on them, ignoring most of their comments in your blog and continuing to focus on your great work.
Here is a very simple question I wonder if you can answer.
Did you find it easier to trigger massive excess heat utilizing hydrogen from external pressurized cylinders OR utilizing hydrogen from hydrides such as LiAlH4?
My thinking is that with the cylinder you could more precisely and quickly change conditions inside of the reactor.
Congratulations on your new Top Level domain acquisition.
For a beginner that knows nothing of Physics and wants to understand the basics of it, what do you suggest ?
Thank you for your kind attention to the work of my Team.
I presume you keep your eyes open while you drive your car ?
Please do not make other questions related to the measurements made by the ERV: I cannot disclose further information about this issue before the report is disclosed in Court.
I presume the ERV measured pressure of the vapor that exited the 1MW e-cat?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
I am following your work since 2011, when you introduced the E-Cat together with Prof. Sergio Focardi in the University of Bologna. I am really inspired by your huge work, your perseverance and resiliency against any adversity.
Waiting for my E-Cat…
Thank you for the link,
The power calculation was surely simple for a nuclear engineer expert of nuclear power plants as the ERV is. To teach to him how to make the calorimetry of a boiler is naif, at the least.
I had seen the papers related to the 2012 meeting. Now, this is interesting.
Thank you for your link,
Thank you for your kind sustain.
I’m really glad you invented and made the e-cat quark-x, the light it makes and its potential hope must be something beautiful in these times. This is a special gift I think, for all of us someday but especially now for you.
I’m very much looking forward to reading Vessela’s book, I hope it is released in English soon.
If the assumptions of political plots are groundless, were you aware of Darden and Vaughn’s visits to the White House to meet with the President, White House staffers and Energy Department Officials? See the following URL for meeting details:
Given the information that you gave recently (thank you!), it seems to me that power calculation would be very simple.
Very good, still very promising.
3- this datum will be published after the completion of the R&D on course.
Dear Andrea Rossi.
I wanted to follow up on the question I asked a month or so ago regarding the scalability of Quark X 1 MW. You mentioned that it can be scaled, such as half the size, 1/10th the size and so on.
1. Will it produce heat proportional to the scale?
2. Does COP remain constant, independent of the scale? (COP number was thrown around at 20+?)
3. Since you are not ready to give us an answer on the ratio for heat to electrical conversion, can one assume a worse case scenario of 50%?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
How is today out QuarkX ?
Too soon to answer.
I will giove this information when the preliminar R&D on course will have been terminated.
Thank you for your attention,
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for te link.
Hello dr . Rossi:
I send you the link of the second edition of the good book of Vessela Nikolova:
“Vessela Nikolova: Dear Readers, it gives me great pleasure to announce the publication of the extended version of my book, ‘E-Cat The New Fire – The Biography of Andrea Rossi’, which you will find for sale on Amazon, both in digital and paper format, for the moment in Italian, but very soon also in English.”
I have a question concerning the cost of electric power. Today the cost for the suppliers to provide their customers with electric power are in the range between 3.8 euro cents up to 21.5 euro cents per KW/h depending on the source (coal, oil, nuclear, renewable etc.). Could you approximately estimate the cost for one KW/h electric power (or provide me with a factor) out of ECAT technology that is produced as autarky local energy, for example in a CHP station in the basement, excluding the investment costs for the purchase of ECAT hardware.
All the best
The 100.1 temperature is just a clownesque invention, nothing else. It simply does not belong to the Report.
I am not able to answer, but always curious of replications when they are reported.
I think all these assumptions of political plots are simply groundless.
Rip Van Winkle:
That would be perfect, but is an utopia. Still valid as a model, though.
What is your opinion on the governmental system outlined in “The Republic” by Plato?
The only way to continue your work is to start production before your opponents and political favors that are traded in the USA government are used to stop you … I think you have enough faith in God and in yourself to take this first step after your upcoming successful important meeting in June.
“In God we Trust”?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
If I took 40 ounces of nickel powder (99.999% pure) mixed with 4 ounces of pure lithium powder, heated the mixture to 500 degrees C for two hours, then mixed in 4 ounces of potassium carbonate and two ounces of fine carbon powder, then put the entire mixture into a heavy steel Dewar for two days under complete vacuum, and then added hydrogen gas to the Dewar at two atmospheres, and then added a little heat, would there be a reaction? Is there a critical mass of nickel powder at which reactions are easier to start but more difficult to control? There is a rumor on the Internet of a similar experiment (simpler without my added details) using 40 ounces of nickel and hydrogen gas (without any heat added) that created so much unexplained spontaneous heat that the 300 pound Dewar glowed orange (800C) and the nickel powder melted into a solid mass.
Do you think this is all just an Internet rumor, or could it be possible? The idea that using a larger mass of nickel powder might change the potential for reaction interests me and has some theoretical credibility.
You can email me if you don’t want this discussion public.
Sincerely, Christopher Calder
I have a hypothesis for where that whole 100.1 degrees C could come from.
Given that the ERV only considered vaporisation for the COP , he used a dummy temperature output value of 100.1C. Possibly he used 99.9C as input temperature. Possibly there is an entire column full of 100.1C in the data. The title of the column is probably “output temperature used for COP calculation”. Possibly Penon didn’t remove that value from maintenance days.
Most likely there is another column of data with the actual output temperature.
I think some people at IH didn’t read the report closely and, instead of reading with an open mind, they looked for discrepancies.
The 100.1C column must have looked a bit weird, but it makes perfect sense to me.