Uwe Doms:
I am not able to answer to your questions right now, but it seems to me very difficult a microapplication because the governing apparatus cannot be micro. Too soon to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
We are making a new kind of test, mainly dedicated to safety issues and therefore to the certifications.
I cannot give details, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Today there was a recall by Samsung regarding their Samsung Galaxy Note 7, whose batteries can catch fire and/or explode.
In this regard, I have to ask how far the ECAT and Quark X Technology can be scaled in your opinion? Is it possible in the medium term to produce a Micro-Quark-X Device that e.g. can supply a smartphone with energy and if yes, do you think it would be safer than e.g. for example the chemical alternatives such as lithium batteries?
And how it behaves in principle with the efficiency in terms of scale? Does the efficiency of a Quark-X device remains proportionally the same, regardless of whether, for example, is a mini-reactor or a MW plant?
Greg Leonard:
Thank you for your attention, but I cannot comment anything related to the litigation in Court, in pursue of precise direction I got from my Attorneys.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
‘… Court could also infer that Defendants failure to replicate the results achieved by the independent expert could be attributable to (a) Defendants’ failure to follow the instructions and formula contained in the E-Cat IP; (b) Defendants’ intentional sabotage in an effort to avoid having to pay Plaintiffs Eighty-Nine Million Dollars; (c) Defendants’ mere scientific incompetence; (d) Defendants’ use of substandard quality components; (e) Defendants’ failure to properly measure the energy input and output; and/or a litany of other equally likely possibilities. …’
It seems clear to me that IH know they are beaten but, maybe, they are succeeding in their aim – which is to delay the arrival of the EcatX in the market.
Every hour that you spend on the court case (up to 40% of your time), is an hour less in development work.
Every hour lost in development is another hour’s delay in the implementation.
Every hour delay in the implementation is another million dollars of profit to Big Oil and Big Energy.
I, like many others here, would like to help free you from the shackles of the court case.
Perhaps some extra members for your legal team could be funded by ‘crowdsourcing’ from among us…
regards,
Greg Leonard
Dear Dr. Rossi,
your blog is read every day by many people, like me, who are passionate about your work and your person.
We look forward that the lawsuit before the Court is completed, surely with your victory.
You deserve this conclusion, not only from the economic point of view, but above all from a moral point of view.
And you can not waste your time in this way.
You have to do a lot more important things, for the good of all of us.
Dear Andrea,
your answer to Dan is perfect and is what I learnt at school from my teacher.
I think you have not to lose your time with persons that do not know what they are talking about.
Go ahead with your great work.
Regards,
Eros
Gennady:
1- any application wherein light is useful
2- I hope
3- the QuarkX is so small and so pilable up that theoretically in the range there is room for any application. Practically, it has to be seen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Just a little follow up on your kind response to my questions regarding domestic e-cat ( a’ la James Bond’s Spectre). I am sure this topic is very dear to a lot of your readers 🙂
1. What the applications of the output light from domestic unit?
2. Do you expect certification completed in 2017, following by mass production in the same year?
3. What unit sizes are you anticipating (5 kw, 10 kw, 20, kw, etc)?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
I just want to say that the answer you gave to Dan is what all the Physics Professors teach in all the colleges of the world.
Cheers,
Alda
Is there still any interest in the QuarkX thrust effect or is it too insignificant to consider for development and application? Thank you.
Warm Regards,
Brokeeper
Walter:
They are not inconsistent, they are consistent as a series of puppets that take advantage of non expert readers to create a hostile environment around the character they are paid to destroy. It is an old story that many years ago worked, today does not: twenty years ago it was enough to buy a couple of corrupted journalists of main newspapers to assassinate a character and prepare the environment against his work. Today, with the internet, it is impossible, because if you write a stupidity or a falsity it backfires immediately if the reaction is proper. This is the double edge issue of the blogs: from one side, they allow to any imbecile to play the guru, from the other they allow anybody to make the guru naked like the famous king, in real time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1) “Sailboats can often travel faster than the speed of the wind. Why would this not be the same for an electric sail in space?” Short answer: lack of keel. Longer answer: I cannot discount such possibility entirely, but currently no way is known to do it.
2) About the so-called EM-drive. Until someone proves such device experimentally, I do not find it interesting. Theoretically, such a device would be orders of magnitude (or perhaps infinitely) more difficult to understand and to accept than the E-cat, because it would require breaking of a fundamental conservation law (energy-momentum conservation) which would imply that translation invariance of spacetime would be broken. Such possibility is unlikely, because we can observe the universe in large distances without seeing any other evidence of such breaking.
3) About your “hunch number three”: indeed, such possibility cannot be discounted, because there are good reasons to believe that technological life (including us in the next few hundred years) would choose to live in artificial habitats built of small body materials of a solar system, because such habitats can provide much more living area than planets and have other benefits as well. If technological life exists and is long-lived, it’s more likely to find it in such habitats (which can be located anywhere in any solar system, not just in the so-called habitable zone) than on planets, because the time it spends on its home planet is probably short (based on our own history).
regards, /pekka
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Obviously your answer to Dan is correct. We had another example of how incensistent your foes are.
Just ignore them and proceed with your great work.
Cheers,
Walter
2) Live an extended lifespan with her utilizing rejuvenation therapies and anti-aging drugs. I knew a couple once who were married 67 years until death separated them — I’d like the challenge of exceeding that massive accomplishment.
3) Travel in space (with said wife) utilizing advanced energy, propulsion, and gravity technologies with the goal of finding or making contact with intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms. My hunch is that they could very well exist in our solar system living inside of artificial habitats.
After I accomplish all that, my hope is that we’d die a peaceful death at the age of several hundred years and explore the afterlife together.
Yep, it is a dream and highly idealistic. But it is what my heart yearns for.
Sailboats can often travel faster than the speed of the wind. Why would this not be the same for an electric sail in space?
Anyway, I’m much more interested in the potential of the EM Drive than the electric sail. My hunch is that the EM Drive will prove to be much more powerful and efficient than most people expect. For example, I don’t buy into the idea that as the EM Drive accelerates that thrust diminishes. I expect that it remains constant or nearly so.
Hank Mills:
Well, I wish you to be able to reach your dream…as for me ( considering I am not an astrophysicist ) I prefer to remain on the Earth to make well my job: keep the seat for you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
No one could pay me enough money to send you off into outer space aboard an E-Cat powered vehicle; conversely, I’d be fighting to get that seat for myself. Exploring outer space has been a dream of mine since childhood, and I’m convinced that fast and practical space travel will require breakthrough technologies such as the Rossi Effect and the EM Drive.
Dan:
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA !!!
That statement is a paradigmatic example of the fact that, as Prof Umberto Eco wrote, in the blogs every imbecile can sell himself to somebody as a scientist even if he is an analphabete.
As every person that has a knowledge of the concept of energy will confirm to you, kWh is a quantum of energy: this is the shortcut of the full name, that is ” kilowatthour”.
Therefore, when you write “x kWh/h”, you shortcut the expression ” x kilowatthour/h”, which means “the kilowatthours that you are generating or consuming in one hour are x”.
To say that the two H eliminate each other because one is in the numerator and the other is in the denominator is not just wrong, it is extremely stupid, because is like to eliminate the letter h from the word kilowatthour at the numerator, where an amount of energy is defined, and the total time from the denominator, which is the Hour of time during which the energy is produced or consumed: in a nutshell, the two H stay for two completely different things, therefore they cannot be eliminated !!! The guy who wrote this bestiality not only has not a minimum knowledge of Physics, but also of Mathematics ( or, better, of elementary school Aritmetics) because not only has not understood what is the concept of energy, but also how the fractions work and when they can be reduced.
So, if you want to be correct, please remember: the definition “1 kWh/h” is absolutely correct, and corresponds to a precise amount of energy ( 860 kcal, or 3526 kJ ) consumed or produced in one hour. When you write that you are consuming ( or producing) 1 kWh/h, you mean that every hour you are consuming or producing 3526 kJ. And please do not eliminate the h from the fraction!
(He,he,he,he…)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. The guy who wrote these bestialities must be pardoned: he is a puppet paid to write bestialities and, as they say in Italy ” Pure lui tiene famiglia” ( he too has to feed his family )
Dr Andrea Rossi:
a guy in a hostile blog has written that when you write ” kWh/h” to indicate energy you make a mistake due to your poor knowledge of mathematics, because the h at the numerator and the h at the denominator cancel each other and remains only kW. What do you answer?
Dan
Patrick Ellul:
Well…to send an E-Cat in a satellite can be done, independently from the destination, that can be more or less realistic. In this sense, I follow you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
We are talking about sending just a small probe with a few instruments that can send data back. With enough power density of new technologies it can accelerate for a long time to a decent fraction of the speed of light. It is not inconceivable.
Regards.
Gerard McEk:
1- maybe
2- this does not depend on me
3- obviously in due time the QuarkX will be introduced to the public
4- for all our production
5- I prefer not to comment the work of our competitors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have some questions which came up after reading your answers to Eugenio Mieli:
1. You are now producing industrial plants; will they also be delivered this year (2016)?
2. Is it likely that one of the customers is willing to publish the data of these plants openly on the internet?
3. How do you intend to present the QuarkX? Will it be a public demonstration? Or just the confirmation of QuarkX data we already know? (I Obviously hope for the first option!)
4. Is mass production plants being designed for the QuarkX only or also for the industrial Ecat plants?
5. My last question is about the theory under development: Do you believe that the Widom-Larson theory ( which assumes an fusion between a proton and an electron, producing an ultra-cold neutron which is absorbed by nearby atoms the then causes the decay of atoms like Ni, Al and Li or others in PdD reactions) is totally wrong or may it partly be right?
Thank you for answering our questions!
Kind regards, Gerard
Dear Andrea:
Are you still working on 200 patent applications?
Have a nice weekend,
DT
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Can you explain the last documents served in Court from your attorneys?
Brad
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Where do you suggest to study the foundamentals of Physics and in particular the concept of power and energy?
Thanks,
Johnie
Mr Andrea Rossi:
What are you going to do during this long Labor Day weekend?
Cheers,
D.B.
Uwe Doms:
I am not able to answer to your questions right now, but it seems to me very difficult a microapplication because the governing apparatus cannot be micro. Too soon to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul Calvo:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
We are making a new kind of test, mainly dedicated to safety issues and therefore to the certifications.
I cannot give details, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Are you doing a new kind of test with the QuarkX this week — something that has not been done before? Can you provide any details about it?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
Here is the link to my blog issue of today.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-02-2016-in-lenr-now-ignoring.html
It shows how dangerous is in LENR today to ignore technology or to fight against a valid fine technology.
warm greetings,
Peter
Dr Rossi
This solar Coldbox concept would be an excellent use for your Cats.
please view this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eCRXPdFXko
Regards,
Paul Calvo
Dear Andrea Rossi
Today there was a recall by Samsung regarding their Samsung Galaxy Note 7, whose batteries can catch fire and/or explode.
In this regard, I have to ask how far the ECAT and Quark X Technology can be scaled in your opinion? Is it possible in the medium term to produce a Micro-Quark-X Device that e.g. can supply a smartphone with energy and if yes, do you think it would be safer than e.g. for example the chemical alternatives such as lithium batteries?
And how it behaves in principle with the efficiency in terms of scale? Does the efficiency of a Quark-X device remains proportionally the same, regardless of whether, for example, is a mini-reactor or a MW plant?
Thanks for your attention and all the best
Uwe Doms
https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/
Eros:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
Thank you for your sustain to our Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Greg Leonard:
Thank you for your attention, but I cannot comment anything related to the litigation in Court, in pursue of precise direction I got from my Attorneys.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
I have just been reading the latest entry to the court papers from the link.
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/rossi-mtd-on-counterfud-reveals-the-stupidity-of-darden-vauhn-and-their-jones-day-lawyer-drones/
I understand why you found the IH plea for dismissal so amusing – I nearly fell off my chair when I read the following in Sifferkoll’s blog.
‘… Court could also infer that Defendants failure to replicate the results achieved by the independent expert could be attributable to (a) Defendants’ failure to follow the instructions and formula contained in the E-Cat IP; (b) Defendants’ intentional sabotage in an effort to avoid having to pay Plaintiffs Eighty-Nine Million Dollars; (c) Defendants’ mere scientific incompetence; (d) Defendants’ use of substandard quality components; (e) Defendants’ failure to properly measure the energy input and output; and/or a litany of other equally likely possibilities. …’
It seems clear to me that IH know they are beaten but, maybe, they are succeeding in their aim – which is to delay the arrival of the EcatX in the market.
Every hour that you spend on the court case (up to 40% of your time), is an hour less in development work.
Every hour lost in development is another hour’s delay in the implementation.
Every hour delay in the implementation is another million dollars of profit to Big Oil and Big Energy.
I, like many others here, would like to help free you from the shackles of the court case.
Perhaps some extra members for your legal team could be funded by ‘crowdsourcing’ from among us…
regards,
Greg Leonard
Dear Dr. Rossi,
your blog is read every day by many people, like me, who are passionate about your work and your person.
We look forward that the lawsuit before the Court is completed, surely with your victory.
You deserve this conclusion, not only from the economic point of view, but above all from a moral point of view.
And you can not waste your time in this way.
You have to do a lot more important things, for the good of all of us.
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea,
your answer to Dan is perfect and is what I learnt at school from my teacher.
I think you have not to lose your time with persons that do not know what they are talking about.
Go ahead with your great work.
Regards,
Eros
Gennady:
1- any application wherein light is useful
2- I hope
3- the QuarkX is so small and so pilable up that theoretically in the range there is room for any application. Practically, it has to be seen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Nancy:
We will have a more precise idea within the next week, but I think we are going well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wade:
It is not wrong to be sceptic.
F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Just a little follow up on your kind response to my questions regarding domestic e-cat ( a’ la James Bond’s Spectre). I am sure this topic is very dear to a lot of your readers 🙂
1. What the applications of the output light from domestic unit?
2. Do you expect certification completed in 2017, following by mass production in the same year?
3. What unit sizes are you anticipating (5 kw, 10 kw, 20, kw, etc)?
Kind Regards,
Gennady
Dr Andrea Rossi:
News about the QuarkX?
You said this week was important.
Regards,
Nancy
Mr Andrea Rossi,
I am still sceptic about the QuarkX.
Cheers,
Wade
Dr Peter Forsberg:
He,he,he…ok, I’ll try!
Thank you for the link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Brokeeper:
Yes, it is still an R&D objective.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alda:
I know, and also is the same you find in all the Physics manuals on the issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The first Autumn issue of my blog, this year:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-01-2016-about-toughness-of-lenr.html
good, better and best wishes,
peter
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
I just want to say that the answer you gave to Dan is what all the Physics Professors teach in all the colleges of the world.
Cheers,
Alda
Dear Andrea,
Is there still any interest in the QuarkX thrust effect or is it too insignificant to consider for development and application? Thank you.
Warm Regards,
Brokeeper
Dear Andrea,
Don’t be a wimp: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physics-confronts-its-heart-of-darkness/
I wish you success with your R&D effort.
Best Regards
Peter
Walter:
They are not inconsistent, they are consistent as a series of puppets that take advantage of non expert readers to create a hostile environment around the character they are paid to destroy. It is an old story that many years ago worked, today does not: twenty years ago it was enough to buy a couple of corrupted journalists of main newspapers to assassinate a character and prepare the environment against his work. Today, with the internet, it is impossible, because if you write a stupidity or a falsity it backfires immediately if the reaction is proper. This is the double edge issue of the blogs: from one side, they allow to any imbecile to play the guru, from the other they allow anybody to make the guru naked like the famous king, in real time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hank Mills,
1) “Sailboats can often travel faster than the speed of the wind. Why would this not be the same for an electric sail in space?” Short answer: lack of keel. Longer answer: I cannot discount such possibility entirely, but currently no way is known to do it.
2) About the so-called EM-drive. Until someone proves such device experimentally, I do not find it interesting. Theoretically, such a device would be orders of magnitude (or perhaps infinitely) more difficult to understand and to accept than the E-cat, because it would require breaking of a fundamental conservation law (energy-momentum conservation) which would imply that translation invariance of spacetime would be broken. Such possibility is unlikely, because we can observe the universe in large distances without seeing any other evidence of such breaking.
3) About your “hunch number three”: indeed, such possibility cannot be discounted, because there are good reasons to believe that technological life (including us in the next few hundred years) would choose to live in artificial habitats built of small body materials of a solar system, because such habitats can provide much more living area than planets and have other benefits as well. If technological life exists and is long-lived, it’s more likely to find it in such habitats (which can be located anywhere in any solar system, not just in the so-called habitable zone) than on planets, because the time it spends on its home planet is probably short (based on our own history).
regards, /pekka
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Obviously your answer to Dan is correct. We had another example of how incensistent your foes are.
Just ignore them and proceed with your great work.
Cheers,
Walter
Hank Mills:
May God help you to realize all your dreams.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the kind words.
My three big dreams in life are as follows:
1) Find a wife.
2) Live an extended lifespan with her utilizing rejuvenation therapies and anti-aging drugs. I knew a couple once who were married 67 years until death separated them — I’d like the challenge of exceeding that massive accomplishment.
3) Travel in space (with said wife) utilizing advanced energy, propulsion, and gravity technologies with the goal of finding or making contact with intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms. My hunch is that they could very well exist in our solar system living inside of artificial habitats.
After I accomplish all that, my hope is that we’d die a peaceful death at the age of several hundred years and explore the afterlife together.
Yep, it is a dream and highly idealistic. But it is what my heart yearns for.
Pekka,
Sailboats can often travel faster than the speed of the wind. Why would this not be the same for an electric sail in space?
Anyway, I’m much more interested in the potential of the EM Drive than the electric sail. My hunch is that the EM Drive will prove to be much more powerful and efficient than most people expect. For example, I don’t buy into the idea that as the EM Drive accelerates that thrust diminishes. I expect that it remains constant or nearly so.
Hank Mills:
Well, I wish you to be able to reach your dream…as for me ( considering I am not an astrophysicist ) I prefer to remain on the Earth to make well my job: keep the seat for you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
No one could pay me enough money to send you off into outer space aboard an E-Cat powered vehicle; conversely, I’d be fighting to get that seat for myself. Exploring outer space has been a dream of mine since childhood, and I’m convinced that fast and practical space travel will require breakthrough technologies such as the Rossi Effect and the EM Drive.
Dan:
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA !!!
That statement is a paradigmatic example of the fact that, as Prof Umberto Eco wrote, in the blogs every imbecile can sell himself to somebody as a scientist even if he is an analphabete.
As every person that has a knowledge of the concept of energy will confirm to you, kWh is a quantum of energy: this is the shortcut of the full name, that is ” kilowatthour”.
Therefore, when you write “x kWh/h”, you shortcut the expression ” x kilowatthour/h”, which means “the kilowatthours that you are generating or consuming in one hour are x”.
To say that the two H eliminate each other because one is in the numerator and the other is in the denominator is not just wrong, it is extremely stupid, because is like to eliminate the letter h from the word kilowatthour at the numerator, where an amount of energy is defined, and the total time from the denominator, which is the Hour of time during which the energy is produced or consumed: in a nutshell, the two H stay for two completely different things, therefore they cannot be eliminated !!! The guy who wrote this bestiality not only has not a minimum knowledge of Physics, but also of Mathematics ( or, better, of elementary school Aritmetics) because not only has not understood what is the concept of energy, but also how the fractions work and when they can be reduced.
So, if you want to be correct, please remember: the definition “1 kWh/h” is absolutely correct, and corresponds to a precise amount of energy ( 860 kcal, or 3526 kJ ) consumed or produced in one hour. When you write that you are consuming ( or producing) 1 kWh/h, you mean that every hour you are consuming or producing 3526 kJ. And please do not eliminate the h from the fraction!
(He,he,he,he…)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S. The guy who wrote these bestialities must be pardoned: he is a puppet paid to write bestialities and, as they say in Italy ” Pure lui tiene famiglia” ( he too has to feed his family )
Dr Andrea Rossi:
a guy in a hostile blog has written that when you write ” kWh/h” to indicate energy you make a mistake due to your poor knowledge of mathematics, because the h at the numerator and the h at the denominator cancel each other and remains only kW. What do you answer?
Dan
Patrick Ellul:
Well…to send an E-Cat in a satellite can be done, independently from the destination, that can be more or less realistic. In this sense, I follow you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
We are talking about sending just a small probe with a few instruments that can send data back. With enough power density of new technologies it can accelerate for a long time to a decent fraction of the speed of light. It is not inconceivable.
Regards.
Gerard McEk:
1- maybe
2- this does not depend on me
3- obviously in due time the QuarkX will be introduced to the public
4- for all our production
5- I prefer not to comment the work of our competitors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eve:
Is behaving well, still very promising.
F8.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I like progress in technology and therefore I wrote this blog issue today:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-31-2016-progress-illusion-and.html
Warm regards to you and your readers,
Peter
Dr Andrea Rossi:
News about the QuarkX?
Dear Andrea,
I have some questions which came up after reading your answers to Eugenio Mieli:
1. You are now producing industrial plants; will they also be delivered this year (2016)?
2. Is it likely that one of the customers is willing to publish the data of these plants openly on the internet?
3. How do you intend to present the QuarkX? Will it be a public demonstration? Or just the confirmation of QuarkX data we already know? (I Obviously hope for the first option!)
4. Is mass production plants being designed for the QuarkX only or also for the industrial Ecat plants?
5. My last question is about the theory under development: Do you believe that the Widom-Larson theory ( which assumes an fusion between a proton and an electron, producing an ultra-cold neutron which is absorbed by nearby atoms the then causes the decay of atoms like Ni, Al and Li or others in PdD reactions) is totally wrong or may it partly be right?
Thank you for answering our questions!
Kind regards, Gerard