Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Please look at this:
Thank you for your opinion,
Thank you for your intelligent reply on why science seem to ignor LENR. I was aware of everything you mentioned and obviously I agree with you that not all scientists ignore LENR.
I find it extremely difficult, though to pursuade scientists in the Netherlands to study the LENR field. They just say that LENR is impossible and look in another direction and I feel dreadfully ignored afterwards.
Let me just say this: I believe that good scientists are those who are critical about their science and the theories. They should find out why the Theory is in conflict with the outcome of a scientifically performed test. It is their duty!
You are critical, you found the anomaly and were able to reproduce it and now you are finding a theoretical way forward. That’s the right behavior, that’s the scientific approach, that makes you a proper scientist!
Kind regards, Gerard
1- it is on course
2- if possible, yes
It is not true that the scientific community refuses LENR.
See the work of the scientists that performed or directed or organized and found the funds for the the Lugano report: Sven Kullander was the Chairman of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science, to cite one, all of them are Prof of Physics in universities among the most credited in Europe, all of them worked in CERN of Geneva, Prof Focardi and Prof Bo Hoistad did direct important groups inside the CERN. Nobel Prize laureate Brian Josephson is positively oriented toward LENR and I could add hundreds of prestigious names of scientists (mainly physicists and nuclear engineers) that sustain LENR. NASA has published positive orientation toward LENR.
On the other side of the playground, it is normal that in the scientific fields there are contrasts. Think about the Relativity theory: at its beginning it was considered a veritable clownerie from many top level physicists. I think the work of my Team has given a strong push to the fact that LENR turned considered worth of strong attention, because we have been able to produce real energy and our E-Cat is not a theoretical issue, but a product, albeit not yet massively diffused, but in the verge to do so. Nissan has replicated the effect described in my patent, I am aware of another replication on course funded by another industrial giant, one of the biggest industrial concerns of the world, Lockeed Martin has started an R&D adjacent to our field, Bill Gates has funded R&D in LENR field, etc. Obviously our products will reduce the skepticism to the edge, as it happened to the Relativity after the use we make of it anytime we make a phone call with out cell.
It is interesting to see that you support science and asked your readers to pay attention, the more because the majority of science seems to ignore and reject LENR. Many of your followers blame these ignoring and rejecting scientists. They should embrace LENR because of the hundreds of peer reviewed reports that show that nuclear reactions are taking place in metal lattices. Clearly the existing theories do not sufficiently support the fact that LENR can take place at low stimulation energies and without the expected radiation, but that should not be a reason to reject LENR. In fact it is unscientific to ignor these hundreds of LENR reports. You studied science philosophy, I believe. Can you tell us what is wrong with science, why science behaves so unscientific from your perspective?
Thank you and kind regards, Gerard
1. What can you tell us about the progress of testing the QuarkX with battery power input?
2. Do you plan to use a battery-powered QuarkX for the planned presentation?
Joya Del Sol:
I think the timeframe of the massive production of the E-Cats will be shorter.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am returning to your blog after a year and half and am curious to know how far down is the commercialization of your ECAT technology for the average user – what is the schedule? Is it 5 years? Or 10 years down the line? When do you foresee ECAT changing the energy landscape and markets of the world? Is it accurate to surmise that 2023 would be that commercial breakthrough year when electricity prices would become super inexpensive by virtue of your ECAT technology? (have been following the ecat story since the beginning in 2011 when you made a demonstration and have been hopeful ever since of the massive imminent positive impact on the world)
Joya Del Sol,
Please go to http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published today on other posts of this blog.
Thank you for your link,
We are working well, operating also on the control system to work well with a battery.
Today is the “Earth’s Day”: more than 600 rallies are on course around the world to sustain the scientific research, also in favour of the protection of the environment.
We of the JoNP stand by the massive crowds that are gathering for science march.
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation and director of the Journal of Nuclear Physics
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
The puppets of the so called “ventriloquist of Raleigh” are saying that IH received the 50 millions from Woodford because they had in portfolio many intellectual properties, not only yours. But I discovered that this is false! Reading the documents published by the Court, I saw that Woodford invested 50 millions in IH on February 2015 and at that time IH had only your IP in the portfolio! To make more clear the fraud of IH toward you, is the fact that Tom Darden made visits with only your IP in IH’s portfolio with senior officers of Woodford in your plant, to convince them to pay him the 50 millions and enjoyed the reference of the engineer of JM (Jim Bass) in the same day, during the visit of the same senior officers of Woodford in your plant of Doral.
Isn’t this true?
A friend of yours of the silent majority that sustains your work and is disgusted from the dishonesty of the ventriloquist.
Thank you for your link,
This is the edition for this Friday- of EGO OUT
Includes a story:
I did, thank you very much for your concern,
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
It is intelligent.
Just thought I would mention a fast track idea I had when I heard about your battery power source.
I’m 99% certain that you already are on this path, but …
Creation of a small device (less than 10KW, or even less than 1kW) for a the US Military and then mass producing it would be a very very much smaller project than mass producing 1MW plants for commercial use. The application of such a device is obvious and does not even need to be mentioned. The beauty of this would be that if you could agree with the client to produce both a commercial and military version then the commercial version could be your first industrial product launch.
If the military haven’t already asked for this, ask them if they would be interested. They will say yes!
The certification of such a tiny device for consumer use after millions are produced (might only take 12 months to get a very dramatic number of these installed) could influence the certification for home use.
I am very excited to hear about this, mostly for the above reason.
Questions for you, (Y/N)
1) Is this path consistent with your current ideas for manufacturing?
2) Is this path for home use certification something you think is a good idea?
Congratulations on the battery powered version of the Quark. This is a very dramatic breakthrough!
Your team rocks!
I hope you have recovered from your surgery.
There is a need to bombard the reactor with halogen at the core level. Thus it will create a new form of light and new material/byproduct will be made.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The AC output previously mentioned: AC is a broad term. Can you bound the measured frequency?
a. below 100 Hertz
b. Above 1 MHz
c. Somewhere between a and b.
Thank you for the suggestion, but I do not agree.
Anybody can easily measure the energy consumed by an appliance and the calorimetric energy it produces by measuring the delta T of a certain amount of fluid. In addition, direct current makes things very much simpler.
Your suggestion is a complication, not a simplification.
Can´t you drive E-cat quarkX from a capacitor which both give and recieve electricity whitout a battery?
Then will, for example, at a demonstration, quarkX work continously until the spectators finally notice its capacity.
Dr Joseph Fine:
Thank you for your kind concern and for the information,
Not ready for an answer.
Also today very well.
Steven N. Karels:
2- skip a step
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You mentioned experimenting with a battery to power the eCat as opposed to using AC power as the power input from the electrical grid. Please clarify when you say a battery input as opposed to a DC voltage source.
1. Are you looking for the portability of battery operation?
2. Circuits exist to convert battery power to AC power. Why the interest in battery input versus a battery power inverter as an input?
3. Is the mentioned difference in eCat performance related to battery capacity or the DC input voltage characteristics?
you are experimenting the QuarkX with DC voltage. But you also said that the current produced by the QuarkX is AC. So it seems that the AC frequency is not related with the input power frequency. What frequency does it have? Is it modifiable? What is the range?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I hope you have been recovering well and are back up to full power.
The area of modular metals or laminates may be useful in your work.
One of Modumetal’s alloys contains Nickel and Aluminum, which may or may not be an advantage.
Since you contain materials at high temperatures, this technology may enhance product safety and performance.
I am confident with the fact that You now are testing batteries as the power source for the QuarkX
This confirm that the more critical issues now are completed. I hope you now may answer the following questions.
1.Is a well working heat exchanger solution between the QuarkX and steam found?
2.Is the meltdown problem truly overcome by regulating the capacity of the QuarkX?
3.What is the highest number of QuarkX possible in a heat exchanger of 1000 cubic cm?
4.May you now regulate the capacity of each QuarkX in a bundle?
5.Or may the capacity of a bundle be regulated by on/off by each QuarkX?
6.May the capacity automatically be regulated by the temperature of the steam produced?
7.Do you see a possibility for the direct produced currency from the QuarkX to be used to charge batteries parallel to a heat production?
Best regards Svein Henrik.
Reading your comments about the testing of the E-Cat Quark X is fascinating. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how this technology may work, and the following questions are based on those thoughts. So if my thinking is somewhat off or incorrect, I’ll thank you ahead of time for your typical gracious attitude towards some of us who must seem quite clueless.
1) Are you feeding the output of the battery directly to the Quark X or are you feeding it into any control apparatus you may be using?
2) Do you have a mechanism to adjust the voltage going to the Quark in response to the amperage being measured traveling between the cathode/anode and through the circuit?
3) Is the rated voltage of the battery high enough to ignite the electrical arc discharge without some sort of DC voltage booster or inductor?
4) Have you considered coating your nickel cathode with a layer of amorphous diamond or what is also referred to as “tetrahedral amorphous carbon” (Q Carbon is another name)? This is a substance that is composed of an approximate combination of 85% sp3 (diamond like) carbon bonds and 15% sp2 (graphite/graphene) like carbon bonds. The material is high density with the greatest number of nucleons per unit volume of any known substance. This property, among others, lowers the “work function” of the material which would enhance the thermionic emission efficiency (converting the anomalous heat to emitted electrons) and lower the start up voltage. A sputter coated layer of this material — the methods are in the literature — could possibly make the Quark X more compatible with a battery input.
The only problem I see with such a coating is if your nickel cathode requires a continuous bombardment with hydrogen ions (bare protons)to continually produce excess heat. If this is the case, it is plausible that the amorphous diamond coating could either/or get worn away by the bombardment OR block the incoming ions that may be needed to keep the reaction going. However, if the cathode can be pre-hydrogenated for a period of time so that it has a long lasting store of hydrogen, the coating of amorphous diamond might not be an issue.
Additionally, amorphous carbon is a perfect black body radiator, and it could also provide cooling for your nickel cathode — perhaps keeping it at a lower temperature. Amorphous diamond does “denature” at a really high temperature (I would have to look it up but I think it is over 1000C) and re-graphitize so that the sp3 diamond like bonds convert back into sp2 bonds.
Finally, if the LENR reactions are producing any type of electromagnetic emissions, the amorphous diamond may efficiently convert them to electrons.
Thank you for keeping us updated!
Dr. Rossi, am I correct saying that the DC of battery enters in a circuit that powers in some way the QuarkX?