United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

 

uspto_seal_big

 

Sigillo

 

Alloro del brevetto

.

Read the whole US Patent
Download the ZIP file of US Patent

 

11,464 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Over the last six years you have repeatedly told us there were no safety issues connected to your E-Cats. You recently stated describing the quarkx “The COP is very high, and the small power/module is necessary for safety reasons.” Could you please explain this apparent new safety issue? Thanks for responding to our questions.

  • Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea,

    What does 10 Wcm^-3 convert to for 1 cubic liter please?

    Warm regards,
    Tom

  • Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea,

    Buttare il cappello in aria e iniziare già una festa! Complimenti! Sei il nuovo Tesla e Einstein avvolto in uno! Non noioso!

    Warm Regards,
    Tom

  • Anonymous

    Dr Rossi:
    Is a system of many 20W Quarkx still able to yield a thrust?

  • Gerard McEk

    Dear Andrea,
    I am very happy to read that you made a lot of progress with the QuarkX lately, congratulations!
    What worries me is that because of this development you may need to go again through a new full test cycle again for getting the 5 sigma on all aspects.
    1. Is that true?
    2. Does each QuarkX need to be separately controlled?
    3. Does such a small unit not automatically mean more control complexity for big clusters?
    4. The ability to recharge seems more difficult for such tiny units, is it still possible?
    5. If so, do you think of replaceable and recyclable units?
    6. I assume that using the QuarkX in a jet engine is now one of your favorite applications, am I right?
    7. When do you think you are able to produce a large cluster of QuarkX’s?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    I wish you a lot of progress the coming time!
    Kind regards, Gerard

  • K

    The materials with which is made the QuarkX are in commerce did you invent them?
    Thanks,
    K

  • Piero

    Dear Andrea, I’m puzzled by your statement of planning to use the 20W quarkX for “industrial applications”. So far your industrial plants were meant to generate 1MW. That would require 50,000 modules bundled together. May be this is NOT the type of industrial apps you are thinking of now?
    Keep up your great work. Piero

  • Marco Serra

    Caro Andrea,
    finalmente qualche dato per farci sognare. Negli aggiornamenti quotidiani sul QuarkX ripetevi dei vostri “tremendi progressi”, temevo fosse diventato solo un mantra, e invece …. Complimenti vivissimi !!!! L’entusiasmo che traspare dal tuo resoconto mi ha subito contagiato e ho deciso di scriverti per chiederti alcune cose. La miniaturizzazione che avete raggiunto è ottima, ma che mi dici del sistema di controllo ?

    Domanda 1)
    La densità di 10 Wcm^-3 non comprende il sistema di controllo giusto ?

    Domanda 2)
    La potenza del QuarkX è ora 20W. Le dimensione sono le stesse della versione da 100W (cilindro 3cm x 0.2cm) ?

    Domanda 3)
    In un impianto con tanti QuarkX, quale delle 3 è più corretta:
    A – Ogni QuarkX richiede un suo modulo di controllo.
    B – Un singolo modulo di controllo può controllare una batteria di QuarkX (escludendo i sensori che non possono essere centralizzati).
    C – Sia A che B, cioè esiste un controllo centrale che delega però alcune funzioni a moduli di controllo dedicati ad ogni QuarkX.

    Domanda 4)
    Ovviamente le geometrie del prodotto finito non sono ancora definibili. La miniaturizzazione poi è un processo in continuo miglioramento. Per questo ti chiedo solo una stima anche se so bene che in queste cose sei prudente fino alla scaramanzia. Quanto volume prevedi che occuperà il solo sistema di controllo per ogni 20W di potenza nominale ?

    Ah, ma quante domande che vorrei farti. Ma non voglio distrarti troppo dal tuo lavoro. Continua così. Il mondo ha bisogno di te.

    Che Dio ti benedica
    Marco Serra
    —————————————–
    ENGLISH VERSION:
    Dear Andrea,
    I’m happy to hear of your achievements with the QuarkX. Your continuous repetition of your “huge progress” was not a mantra, it was the truth.
    I would like to ask you some questions about the drive module required to control the QuarkX.
    1) Does 10 Wcm^-3 density you reported include the control system ?
    2) Is the QuarkX-20W size the same as the QuarkX-100W (cylinder 3cm x 0.2cm) ?
    3) Suppose a system with more QuarkXs working together. Which of these is true:
    –A) Each QuarkX require its own control system.
    –B) A centralized control system can drive many/all the QuarkXs (excluding sensors which cannot be centralized).
    –C) Between A) and B): There will be a centralized part of the control system but also dedicated modules, one for each QuarkX.

    4) Can you give us an estimate of the volume of the control system for each multiple of 20W power of a plant?

    Please keep up your good work. The world need it a lot.

    God bless you
    Marco Serra

  • Bill Conley

    Dr. Rossi,

    With your recently announced unit power (and size?) reduction for the QuarkX, many have expressed concern that the number of reactors required for larger applications would make refueling prohibitively expensive or at least increase maintenance cost significantly.

    Is it possible that you now consider the QuarkX disposable? Swap-able?

    Any insight you can provide is welcome as always.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    ——

    Here are the websites where the figures come from. Since then, you’ve stated that the maximum output in the form of direct electricity is 20% of the total output.

    http://ecat.com/news/ecat-quark-x-preliminary-report-findings

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/14/report-on-preliminary-findings-from-e-cat-quarkx-testing-posted-on-ecat-com/comment-page-1/

    —–

    You previously stated that the E-Cat Quark X utilized a .5 watt “drive” to produce a total output of 100 watts that can be in the forms of light, heat, and direct electricity.

    .5 watts goes into 100 watts two hundred times. That is where I came up with the COP of 200 number.

    Of this output of 100 watts, you have stated that up to 20% of it can be in the form of directly produced electricity.

    Now…

    A) I’ll admit that your “Report on Preliminary Findings” did not include the word “watt” (a term for power). Instead, you used the terms, “energy consumed” and “energy produced.” I’m simply assuming the 0.5 Wh/h figure represents the input of .5 watts of electricity.

    Energy produced: 100 Wh/h
    Energy consumed: 0.5 Wh/h

    B) I’ll admit that that the input may not all be in the form of electricity. We do not know all of the forms of input. The assumption that the 0.5 Wh/h is all in the form of electricity could be completely incorrect.

    C) I will openly admit the output in the form of direct electricity may not always be constant. However, averaged out, you have indicated twenty percent can be in the form of electricity.

    ——

    So you see, I’m not pulling this figures “out of my hat.” I’ve provided the references.

    If my initial post seemed rude or disrespectful, I apologize.

    I’m simply trying to wrap my head around the performance of the previous 100 watt Quark to the new 20 watt Quark.

    Sincerely,
    Hank Mills

  • Tom Conover

    Dear Dr Andrea,

    a) Was the MINIMUM POWER OUTPUT reduction from 100W to 20W one part of the solution to fix the QuarkX problems?
    b) Did the MAXIMUM POWER OUTPUT (nothing to do with the size) of the QuarkX decrease, and if so was that a part of the solution to fix the problems too?

    Godspeed,
    Tom

    (Questions a,b and c are based on the comments and replies below: …
    Which can be so far the lowest possible power of a QuarkX module?
    September 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM PG:100 W
    Can you tell us what is the minimum power that the Quarkx modules can have?
    September 30, 2016 at 4:08 PM Jose:20 Watts.)

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    1- no
    2- I did not pronounce any COP, but it is very good. F8.
    3- Excuse me, where did you find these numbers? In your hat?
    4- n.a.
    5- partly
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for sharing the interesting news about the Quark X with us!

    1) Did the size of the Quark X reactor go down proportionally with the reduction in rated output?

    2) Is the maximum COP for direct production of electricity the same? Previously, the maximum COP for direct electricity was 40.

    3) Is the maximum COP for production of heat the same? Previously, the maximum COP for heat production was 200.

    4) Since the “drive” had previously been .5 watts, has it been reduced proportionally to .1 watts?

    5) Did the reduction in rated output correspond with a minimization of the control components and electronics for each Quark?

    Thanks!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Toussaint:
    Yes
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • toussaint

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations from the progress made recently on the Quark X.

    Is this progress is due to your 16 hours breifing ?

    Warm Regards

    Toussaint françois

  • Andrea Rossi

    Adolf:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Harry:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    10 Wcm^-3
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    M.:
    No comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Rupert:
    I cannot comment anything related to the litigation, upon precise directions from my Attorneys.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jose:
    20 Watts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lupe:
    Very good standing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ruby:
    Because he has been working paid by Industrial Heat from September 2013 to the end of the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat (February 2016). Due to the litigation on course, it is impossible any collaboration between him and us, due to an obvious conflict of interests.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andrea:
    Yes, in these last days we made tremendous progress.
    The modules will be real “quarkx”, they will have a power of 20 Watts each.
    The dimensions will be very small and they will be able to be combined without limit of quantities.
    The COP is very high, and the small power/module is necessary for safety reasons.
    They can produce heat, light, electricity, but the main application will be to produce heat and eventually turn it into electricity by Carnot cycle. It is possible also production of light and direct electricity, but the highest efficiency is achieved making heat an eventually use the Carnot cycle for other energy forms.
    We are very close to industrial applications, we are making important measurements and I am very happy of what is going on.
    Ad majora,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R., from the bench of the QuarkX.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your link,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea

    Dear Andrea,
    Can you describe how will be the model of the QuarkX even approximatively?

  • Ruby

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Why Ing. Fabiani is no more in your team?
    Cheers
    Ruby

  • Lupe

    Dear Andrea
    Please give us our daily update of the Quarkx’s development!
    Cheers,
    Lupe

  • Jose

    Dear Dr Rossi:
    Can you tell us what is the minimum power that the Quarkx modules can have?

  • Rupert

    Dr Rossi,
    What do ypou think of all the comments that are made in the blogosphere about the litigation on course between Leonardo Corp and Cherokee Fund Partners?

  • M.

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Woodford has a very ambiguous behaviour in the situation of the litigation: they should be very angry to have invested money in your technology and lose your IP, but, on the contrary, they pretend to be very happy of the toilet paper that IH has pretended to buy as a surrogate of your IP. What do you think?
    M.

  • Bob

    Mr Rossi:
    What is the power density of the Quarkx? Can you answer?
    Bob

  • Harry

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    In these last months did you see emerging any competitor that could make a risk for your company?
    Thanks,
    Harry

  • Adolf

    Dr Andrea Rossi
    Have you been contacted in past by some German automotive industry?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuseppe:
    The rules are the same, the difference is that industrial applications can sustain them, domestic do not, so far. For example: the apparatus must be attended to by a certified expert: this fact can be easily accomplished in an industry, not in a household.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giuseppe

    Dear Andrea,
    nice to read that problems has been mainly solved.
    I would like to do a question regarding the safety certification.
    Wich are the differences in terms of rules, and the issues that you are experiencing between the industrial and the home certification.
    Best Regards, Giuseppe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gerard McEk:
    If this group has never seen radiations is because they never obtained any effect ( as the patent examiner wrote, which probably is the reason why the patent application has been abandoned ).
    The kind of reactions reported in that patent cannot, by definition, avoid to emit high energy ionizing radiations. If it does not, it is because it does not work.
    I confirm that the E-Cat does not cause any ionizing external radiation above the limits tolerated by Law. Safety certification is on course about this fundamental issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gabriel:
    For the industrial we are very well set, for the domestic there are still issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for your link,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Dear Andrea,
    Recently you replied on my question about that the assumed reaction would cause a lot of radiation and would be killing for people working with it. The patent application however says that these group has never noticed radiation.
    I believe you are saying that the patent does not work and that the nuclear route you are taking with the Ecat/QuarkX is totally different and as you have said many times: “it does not emit any harmful radiation”.
    The process in the Ecat/QuarkX is a LENR process and you are able to generate large quantities of heat, light and even electricity but without harmful radiation.
    Can you tell us:
    1. Is the nuclear LENR reaction that is taking place in the ‘Rossi Effect’ without any harmful internal (within the fuel) radiation?
    2. Does that reaction simply not cause any harmful external radiation?
    3. Have you taken measures to avoid harmful external radiation?
    I hope you will be able to answer these question, but I realize that ithese may hit the IP boundaries.
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

  • Gabriel

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Can you tell us how are going on the certifications for the industrial and the domestic QuarkX?
    Thank you,
    Gabriel

  • Andrea Rossi

    ESG:
    Of course! The E-Cat is designed to be able to be integrated with any energy source.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ralf:
    Yes, F8.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    H:
    He is a retired officer engineer of the US Navy.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dave:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jeremiah:
    Yes to both questions.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Jeremiah

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    After the correction made lately is the QuarkX continuing to work properly? Are still you aiming mainly to get heat?
    Thank you

  • Dave

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Still rhinking to the possibility to use the Quarkx to make a thrust?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>