You have over the years spoken of your daily effort to improve the control (software & hardware) of the original e-Cat and the QuarkX.
As you lived the 1-year test, you likely have seen the apparent change in value of the standard deviation at about day 175 of the 1-year test. And you likely recognize that there are only 3 major transitions from one average COP to another before the end of the 1-year test starting at day 175; one can visually assess a dramatic reduction in the COP variability as compared to the first 175 days.
I point this out as a form of proof of the real change in the performance criteria of controllability and stability. If memory serves me, you have repeatedly mentioned every so often real improvements in the e-Cat performance.
This reduction in the variability and the standard deviation is an example of TQM and Process Control . . . and consequently is a strong example of your and your team’s successful efforts towards 5-Sigma ! ! !
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank uou for the information.
In regards to the switch from intermittent to constant…
1) Did the COP go up, down, or stay the same?
2) Did the operating temperature go up, down, or stay the same?
3) Is it now possible to operate the Quark for a period of time with zero input (true self sustain)?
Hello dr. Red a few days ago the Commission of Production Activities of the Italian Chamber of Deputies has discussed the financing of DTT.
Specifically, the ITER is a deuterium-tritium reactor in which the plasma confinement is obtained in a magnetic field inside a machine called Tokamak. Initially the project included the lighting of tokamak (the so-called ignition of the First Plasma) for 2019, to a total estimated construction cost of 10 billion euros. ITER is an experimental reactor, whose main purpose is the achievement of a stable fusion reaction (500 MW products for a period of about 60 minutes) validating and, if possible, increasing the current knowledge on plasma physics.
Your Hot Cat is easier to build, cheaper and has a much higher COP.
COMMISSION ACTIVITIES ‘PRODUCTION ITALIAN – Project divertor tokamak test facility (DTT), President Enea hearing, Head
Wednesday, February 1, 2017 14:00
The Commission has carried out productive activities the hearing of the President of Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Federico Testa, on the state of development of the project called divertor tokamak test facility (DTT).
COMMISSIONE ATTIVITA’ PRODUTTIVE ITALIANA – Progetto Divertor tokamak test facility (Dtt), audizione presidente Enea,Testa
Mercoledì 1 Febbraio 2017 ore 14:00
la Commissione Attività produttive ha svolto l’audizione del presidente di Enea, Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile, Federico Testa, in merito allo stato di sviluppo del progetto denominato Divertor tokamak test facility (Dtt).
Yes, and we got also an important improvement, since now, due to a better managemant of the heat, we do not need an intermittent operation.
Also today, so far, appears to be a good day, thanks to God.
The E-Cat is not an alternative to the QuarkX.
I am very much impressed of the performance of the 1 MW plant. I know you are not allowed to say anything about this, but I wonder why you have not started the full speed production of these plants, as they are really a goldmine. Instead you are developing a QuarkX, which has probably even more potential, but may require also much more time to get it into production. Can you please give us some insight of what moves you in this?
Thank you for answering our questions.
Kind regards, Gerard
I like the comment of DT!
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Did you learn anything new from the last break of the QuarkX?
Thanks if you can answer,
to make an experimental apparatus just to replicate the effect I could settle for what you are proposing somewhere, doesn’t matter where.
To make an industrial product the situation is totally different and, obviously, what I am engaged now with is in projection of an industrial production.
Setting aside IP issues for the moment, what are the barriers for someone to replicate the QuarkX?
For example: If you were to arrive at a small mid-western town, with your memory intact but no equipment, none of the members of your current team, and a budget of, say $10,000, would you be able to create a QuarkX using local talent and tools and materials available from the local hardware store, pharmacy, etc.?
Or are exotic materials, processes not readily available, or exotic skills required?
I cannot comment on issues whose evidence has to be disclosed in Court.
Thank you for your link. Sorry for the late, but today I finisghed very late with my Attorneys.
Tom Darden has fooled his investors saying IH now has a portfolio of LENR technologies in substitution of your IP, but didn’t say that your technology is real and working, while all he has without the license of your patents is worth zero. This way he is trying to steal the money he owes you, paying peanuts to other guys, or paying them with “millions” in shares that are worth nothing. But I think he is strongly underestimating his foe.
Here is the link of the declarations of the smartass: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/02/01/despite-lawsuit-industrial-heat-continues-mission.html
From Russia, with love,
Minor problem, no stop, on our way to 5 Sigma.
Thank you for your insight, but I have full trust in the American judicial system and our strategy is not gonna change. We will develope the manufacturing in the USA and in Sweden.
I cannot comment on issues that have to be discussed in Court.
Thank you for your insight,
Koen Vandewalle brings to bear many enlightenment’s in his thoughts on time/benefit/investor/value concepts. I have never been able to present my own opinion that your power is truly to be found in distributed marketing vs industrial marketing.
You are currently imprisoned by Industrial Heat, aka Cherokee et al, and cannot even function as an inventor for the foreseeable future. This is common in the USA. You will not be allowed by the wealthy to succeed. It costs them money. If they convince you to “integrate your product into all of the existing energy patterns”, they can stop you by not buying the product, and continuing to deny that it works – regardless of the fact that it really works or how many lawsuits you may win (or lose).
Enslaved populations today must find freedom through new corporations. New corporations in our time era can prevail in revolutions, look at Apple Computer, and Tesla Automotive as examples.
Elon Musk (aka Tesla) is bringing us into space travel and off world colonization on his bare back. Nothing else, just faith that his ideas provide the greater good for the population at large, not just the wealthy monsters in this world.
Tesla’s funding was stopped. His equipment and lab was burned down by J.P Morgan together with the related intellectual property because it posed a threat to undercutting the cost of the conventional electricity grid system. If Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower Project had been allowed to flourish and not be destroyed then today we could well be living in a utopia.
These same forces fight to prevent you from being ‘certified’ right now to change the world, because the rulers like JP Morgan (aka Cherokee) forbid this to happen – EVER.
The Wright brothers fled to France, where their invention was welcome. I think you know right now at least one country where your invention is welcomed with open arms. (psst “Sweden perhaps?”)
As always, may we remember that “In God we Trust”. I do mean that literally. Nothing we do in our lives has any meaning if we do not put faith in our Almighty Father, and act in accord with HIS laws.
None of this really has to do with your court case, Andrea. It has to do with fundamental concepts. Do not let the ruler of this system fool you into failing because of his power over this world (see Ephesians 2:1-9). Allow yourself instead to do good works that befit righteousness – even if you fail you will find that you will succeed in making for yourself a good name known to God.
Please excuse my rant.
In some blog the puppets of IH are saying that the fact that the temperatures measured by the ERV are equal to the temperatures measured by their consultant Fabiani give evidence that the measurements were wrong; but if the probes were at a distance of few centimeters, as you described in past, it is obvious that the temperatures are the same, it is like to measure the fever of the same person with two different thermometers, provided the thermometers are both good. I wonder what they would write if the temperatures measured by their consultant Fabiani were different! The more I read what they write, the more I think they just lie.
From Russia, with love
Dear dr. Andrea Rossi.
I’ve watched the numbers in the report of the yearlong MW operation, and compared them to the actual cost of heat from coal, diesel, and solar. It is still not easy to compete with those. The price of the license demands enormous efforts during a very long time to develop the optimized product and sales and then compete with other already settled energy sources. The market will be difficult. It demands ideology.
There is one remark that has nothing to do with the litigation or the specific results of the test: Industrial heat consumption is mostly located in factories that can easily be provided with the cheapest and easy to transport forms of energy. Coal by ship and railway, and oil and gas by pipelines. In fact, original “factories”, were built around steam and later diesel engines. Before the age of the factories, most production was done by decentralized home-working weavers, blacksmiths, farmers… but because of the price of the steam machines and the central energy production, the workers were concentrated around those machines. Of course, concentration of labour had other advantages too, but that, for now, I will not discuss.
So therefore your invention, as a source that is more dense in power and dense in energy and very constant in quality, should find some advantage in decentralized or mobile applications, where the transportation of large amounts of continuous energy sources suffers from a bottleneck. But also there is a limitation with the energy that is needed: If solar panels and solar boilers can provide convenient energy, then people will not buy too expensive yearlong lasting batteries.
But there is also something else:
You’re 10 to 50 years ahead of your time. Just like the insights of Leonardo Da Vinci were 500 years ahead at that time.
Most of the fruits of the E-Cat will be eaten by those who have no vote and no voice yet. So, while in their interest, they cannot invest. Nowadays, the power of decision is in the hands of the people of the oil-era, and the people of the era of the conventional renewables, and in the systems and structures created by them. And there seems to be enough energy for what we do now and what will be done in the near future.
People who invest large amounts of money (and time) in your invention now, have some short term disadvantages according to the most efficient users of conventional technologies and systems.
I will make a comparison, exagerated of course, to make it more fun and clear:
Compare it to the laboratory-based development of cruise missiles in the ages of…. 1492.
The armies, and later the armada of the Spanish king, would have no advantage from cruise missiles: capabilities to demolish the gate of a fortress at hundred miles distance. I believe he would continue his investments in armor, and conventional weapons.
So the price one can ask for a technology depends on the cost and the dimensions of the problems it can solve. I do not know many grandfathers who invest lots of their money only to solve the problems of the unborn grandchildren at the risk of loosing the profit for themselves or even losing everything because of a competitor that takes advantage of the temporarily weakened position of the grandfathers due to his long-term investments.
That is where the taxpayers money comes into place and the government-owned resources: To build the roads, the harbors, the bridges, the schools and universities and the first nuclear power plants, and to build an army to protect all that. All things of common interest. Later, when all are in place, maybe some of those important things can be transferred to private ownership and industry to improve efficiency. “Ownership” of a good, a piece of land, an idea, is a system that is invented by man in order to make sure that the “owner” treats that good with his best possible effort and responsability. Some things that are from nature and serve everyone on the planet, like water, air, sun, but also finite resources like forests, oil fields, rivers and some rights on the use of energy sources and the disposal of waste should be governed by the countries, not the market and not by individuals.
But my point is that you might be ahead of your time if you want to make an industry that profits from your invention. Unless the QuarkX is soon able to fulfill all the needs for heat of the common man, because there is al lot of unefficiënt use of distributed low quality heat for now I think.
Also the common man wants to invest some hundreds or even a couple of thousand Dollars or Euro’s for his own device, even if the financial return comes after twenty years, or worse. Some -like me- even believe in ideology to save the planet. That is something that the market will not easily do, although it may be important for all future generations.
Thank you for your link,
now I am sending the link to today’s EGO OUT edition:
I cannot make any comment about issues that have to be discussed in Court, in pursue of precise orders given to me by my Attorneys.
Dr. Rossi, about the 1 year test of the 1MW Plant and the graph of its COP recently published.
Looking at the graph, the value of COP has dropped from about 110 to about 75 around the day 220.
Can you, if you may, explain what has happened? Thank you.
Our path to 5Sigma is going on along its schedule.
My attorneys have forbidden me to talk about any issue that has to be discussed in Court.
I cannot answer to questions related to the litigation on course.
Dr Andrea Rossi
Great report from the ERV : is it complete or is there more in the raw data?
months ago you said that the full report with the raw data should be something around 60000 pages, do you confirm?
All the best,
You must distinguish:
when I write 20 W it’s the rating of the power. When I write 20 Wh/h, that’s the energy produced in one hour.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Nowadays you speak about 20 Watts, and no longer about 20 Wh/h.
Is this about control and stability ?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The papers you deposited in Court are very impressive: can you discuss about them in this blog?