There still seems to be confusion on the mass and dimensions of the QuarkX. When you speak of the QuarkX, what components does this include: (e.g., reactor, controller, sensors… or just the reactor portion)? See the following exchange:
Andrea Rossi
May 26, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Steven N. Karels:
The weight I indicated is the weight of the QuarkX, as per request of the Reader.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels
May 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The mass and volume of the quark have me confused. I understood you to report the dimensions of a Quark unit was a length of 10mm and a diameter of 5mm. As Dr. Fine computed, this yields a volume of 196.35 cubic millimeters or 0.19635 cc or 0.19635 ml. The density of nickel is 8.9 grams/ml. So the mass of the Quark should be about 1.75 grams but you stated tens of grams. Please clarify.
Joseph Fine
May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
According to the QuarkX dimensions of D = 5 mm and L = 10 mm, the volume of each unit is approximately 196.35 cubic millimeters. For a rating of 20 W, power density is about 0.102 W/cubic millimeter (Or ~0.1 W/cu. mm).
There are 10^9 cubic millimeters in a cubic meter, so a volume of 1 cubic meter might (ideally) enclose a system with a rating of about 10^8 Watts or 100 MW.
Obviously, other components (Heat transfer, structural, instrumentation/control) must be incorporated into a system of 1000 modules or any other large scale system of systems.
At this time, can you mention/estimate the volume of, for example, a complete 10 kW or 20 kW system?
If better is the enemy of the good, you may have reached the best.
Congratulations to you and your team for your/their achievements.
Per aspera ad astra.
Joseph Fine
Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2017 at 7:51 PM
A.Ashfield:
Now the dimensions are length 10 mm, diameter 5 mm, the rating is 20 W. It is the one that will be exposed in the demonstration that should happen this year.
Thank you for your kind words,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A. Ashfield
May 22, 2017 at 5:54 PM
Dr Rossi:
As the QuarkX has changed over the last year, can you tell us the current approximate size and power of the QuarkX that is undergoing the Sigma 5 test?
Is it the one you will be demonstrating this year?
I wish you all the best for your endeavors,
A. Ashfield
The mass and volume of the quark have me confused. I understood you to report the dimensions of a Quark unit was a length of 10mm and a diameter of 5mm. As Dr. Fine computed, this yields a volume of 196.35 cubic millimeters or 0.19635 cc or 0.19635 ml. The density of nickel is 8.9 grams/ml. So the mass of the Quark should be about 1.75 grams but you stated tens of grams. Please clarify.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your great work.
About jet engines: due to the energy density of the QuarkX, it still has strong chances if aerospace applications.
Cheers,
Rudy
Andrea Moraitis:
The weight is several tens of grams and is operating one year since the start. During this period has worked at least 300 days 24/7.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Of course, there will be no measureable mass difference as long as the casing remains intact. What I meant with my first question is that one might want to compare the reactor’s output with the amount of energy that could be released by the most gainful exothermic chemical reactions, related to the mass of the reactants. For example, the reaction of a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen will release about 4.4 Wh per gram. If the mass of the reactor were ten grams, it would have to produce more than 44 Wh to exceed this ‘chemical limit’.
Andreas Moraitis:
1- the mass does not change during the operation, whatever the duration of the operation
2- no, because such a device could not feed the control system. To measure the amount of direct current consumed by an apparatus is very easy
Thank you for your kind words,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I am glad to hear that you have recovered well from your surgery.
Here are two questions regarding the QuarkX:
1 – What is its approximate mass (important to know if one wants to exclude chemical reactions)?
2 – In the presentation, would it be possible to use a battery or an ultracapacitor whose maximum energy content is lower than the expected output of the reactor? By recharging and discharging it once after the test (more convenient with the capacitor) you could make the experiment even more ‘watertight’.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
How is your health? Are you recovering from the three surgeries you got in April?
Take care of yourself, you are too important for us all!
Godspeed,
Miriam
First Breakthrough for Future Air-Breathing
Magneto-Plasma Propulsion Systems
B Göksel1*, I Ch Mashek2
1 Electrofluidsystems Ingenieurbüro Göksel, Berlin, Germany
2 St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Email: berkant.goeksel@electrofluidsystems.com
Abstract. A new breakthrough in jet propulsion technology since the invention of the jet engine is
achieved. The first critical tests for future air-breathing magneto-plasma propulsion systems have
been successfully completed. In this regard, it is also the first time that a pinching dense plasma focus
discharge could be ignited at one atmosphere and driven in pulse mode using very fast, nanosecond
electrostatic excitations to induce self-organized plasma channels for ignition of the propulsive main
discharge. Depending on the capacitor voltage (200-600 V) the energy input at one atmosphere varies
from 52-320 J/pulse corresponding to impulse bits from 1.2-8.0 mNs. Such a new pulsed plasma
propulsion system driven with one thousand pulses per second would already have thrust-to-area
ratios (50-150 kN/m²) of modern jet engines. An array of thrusters could enable future aircrafts and
airships to start from ground and reach altitudes up to 50km and beyond. The needed high power
could be provided by future compact plasma fusion reactors already in development by aerospace
companies. The magneto-plasma compressor itself was originally developed by Russian scientists as
plasma fusion device and was later miniaturized for supersonic flow control applications. So the first
breakthrough is based on a spin-off plasma fusion technology.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Based on what you wrote, the QuarkX has a volume of about 0.1 cubic cm: since i liter contains 1000 cubic cm, the density of power of a QuarkX is:
1000/0.1 = 10000 QuarkX per liter
Each QuarkX is rated 20 W, therefore we have 20 x 10000 = 200 kW/liter !!!
Am I correct?
i have an idea to test my theory on RF pulses. You could rent or pay for use a Magnetic Resonance apparatus, not necessarily a medic one. There are also little high field MR for spectroscopy of chemicals, with a small gantry. There you could insert a QuarkX “pellet” and see if the scan triggers some LENR reaction… In those apparatus the field and the RF pulses are accurately calibrated to give the maximum energy to the atomic species of interest…
Ron Stringer:
I understand. We will just substitute the QuarkXes in the locations of the Customers and the retrieved units will be returned to our factories to be recharged and recycled. In this sense, we can define this a “cradle to cradle” cycle.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
No problem: I have to use math every day and still I too make mistakes. We all make mistakes.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am using the term “cradle to cradle” loosely – it is a design philosophy that plans a product from its creation through to its recycling or re-use. Ideally, the materials gained from recycling the product would be used in the manufacture of the next generation of products.
So, you design your products with the recycling and re-use of the materials in mind.
I find the logic game of our interactions rather enjoyable – what I have learned thus far is that spent units will be returned to the factory. If you bother collecting them, it would seem that you have the intent on recycling of some kind. Two alternatives: you can use the materials to make new units, or you can refuel and reuse the units. The units will not be dismantled for the production of new units. But the spent units will not simply be refuelled in the same state they are returned from the users.
So, it looks like the units will be dismantled , but not for the production of new units (yes or no?). The old quarkx units will be refuelled for reuse (yes or no?).
All the best.
Ron
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your insight.
I am not expert of aerospace engineering, but I am not convinced of the numbers. As far as I know, a Boeing 747- 400 has 4 engines each of them having a thrust of 41,500 ft lbs/s.
Making some math, we’d have 4 x 3 x 41,500 x 0.745 = 371.3 MW of power. Surely the conversion 1 lbf/s = 3 HP is variable, because depends on many factors, but the ballpark remains the same.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers of the JoNP:
Has been published the book ” Preparata pathway: how quantum fields keep all matter together”, the editor is Bibliopolis, Napoli (Italy) May 2017.
In this book Prof Preparata, prematurely passed away during the year 2000, made a general theory on the matter coherence based upon the quantistic electrodynamic, such a theory being able to explain a large class of phenomenons.
Regards,
Franco Buccella, INFN, Italy
I found that a typical Boeing 747-400 engine requires 63300 ft.lbf/s per engine to fly, and that 1 megawatt (MW) of power equals 737,562 foot pounds per second (ft lbf/s) in power. So a typical Boeing 747-400 would need about 4 megawatt (MW) of power onboard to fly … or about 250,000 ft.lbf/s.
The Boeing 747-400 (aka Airbus A330) uses the CF6-80E1 jet engine which produces 68,000 to 72,000 lbf to power the Airbus A330 (with 4 engines).
http://www.gravity.co/#tech
Richard Browning has invented, built, flown and filed a patent for the suit, which he calls “Daedalus”, paving the way for an entirely new aviation category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF6
The General Electric CF6 is a family of high-bypass turbofan engines produced by GE Aviation. …. The CF6-80A, which has a thrust rating of 48,000 to 50,000 lb (214 to 222 kN), powered two twinjets, the Boeing 767 and Airbus A310.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-horsepower-is-a-Boeing-747-Jet
The Boeing 747–400 needs a total of 63,300 lbf * of thrust to cruise at 567 mph or 49,896 feet/min. The work done in one minute is a force of 63,300 lbf over 49,896 feet in one minute or 3,158,416,800 lbf-ft per minute.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Thank you for your reply. So, each Quarkx is physically connected to its control system, BUT, you don’t need to disconnect to recycle. That is interesting. Could we have a little clarification, please?
I assume a “unit” to consist of a set of multiple quarkx devices, connected to some supporting hardware.
For the user:
1. spent units will be removed and replaced, with the spent units being returned to the manufacturer for recycling. Yes or No?
For the manufacturer:
1. spent units will be dismantled/destroyed and new units manufactured from the materials. Yes or No?
2. spent units will be refuelled, without removing them from the support hardware. Yes or No?
3. Some other arrangement. Yes or No?
I am assuming you have designed with a “cradle to cradle” approach. Yes or No?
All the best.
Ron
Dear Andrea Rossi, the next weeks and months seem to be particularly important. I wish and all your team positive strength and good health over this period. I have the strong impression the time for this technology becoming better know and understood is soon upon us. I’m very hopeful about it.
The QuarkX seems more and more interesting the more we hear about it and the technology of ECat and your other devices seem more and more intriguing as a consequence too.
I wonder if I may ask a few questions about the thermal behavior of your devices (I apologize if some of them are a bit ignorant)
1. I think you mentioned the QuarkX could be turned On quite quickly in a few seconds?
2. Does the QuarkX reach the operational output temperature quickly too? If so does it a) instantly at temperature at switch on or b) takes a few seconds b) a few minutes c) longer
3. Is the output temperature from the device directly from the LENR process it self?
4. Or Does thermal and kinetic effects from sorbtion of Hydrogen have a significant role in the out put temperature of your ECat device?
5. Or does the output heat of the device have some other origin.
6. I think you mentioned the device thermal behavior is quite complex and is a matter of integration. May I ask Is this integration over time? Space (surface or volume) Both or something more complex?
I wish you and your team the best over this important period. It must be amazing and fascinating seeing the technology develop and evolve.
1. For a projection of refueling once per year to be commercially meaningful, that implies that the majority of Quark units within a grouping are functioning over that refueling interval. For example, if a unit contains 1,000 Quark individual reactors, yielding 20 kW of thermal power capability, then one would expect that perhaps 90% of them would still be functioning at the end of one year. This suggests the failure rate (not fuel depletion but an actual fault occurring) must be much greater than one year. Do you agree?
2. You stated that there are no wires connecting to the Quark, no need to unscrew the Quark. This suggests to me an electrical connection, similar to an electrical fuse or a fluorescent light tube. You apparently still need to provide some form of energy to the Quark individual reactor to control it, to activate it and to shut it down. Can you clarify your statement?
Dr Joseph Fine:
The modules are independent. If a module fails there is no reason for others to fail. They are not interacting between them, they just sum up their heat. A shutdown happens in seconds. Every QuarkX can be shutdown independently.
By the way, nothing exists that can never fail: remember the words of the commander of the Titanic: “This ship is unsinkable”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
If you build and test a system with 100’s or 1000’s of modules, and one or several modules fail, it is presumed that individual units/modules fail safely. That is, all of the other modules will continue to function undamaged. At least that is the goal.
Have you considered building/testing a multiple module system to see if a module can fail “gracefully”?
Can you prevent a failing module from damaging the other ones? Or, can you shut down an individual module fast enough?
How fast does each or all of the modules respond to a shutdown signal? (Minutes? Seconds, Milliseconds? etc.)
Do all system modules have to be shutdown simultaneously, or can you operate a Quarkx with a few damaged modules?
Or can the system be made so robust, that the individual modules will almost never fail?
Dr Joseph Fine:
You are right.
I must be sincere: when I work on the QuarkX I am stunned myself.
But it is working and spectrometry and calorimetry are conciliable.
I am not ready to tell you the power density after the application of all the components, also because there are very different possibilities, also depending on the applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
With regards to the Quark X volume you have mentioned: Am I right to assume that it is the volume of the Quark X that heats up?
V/R
Paul
Dear Andrea Rossi,
There still seems to be confusion on the mass and dimensions of the QuarkX. When you speak of the QuarkX, what components does this include: (e.g., reactor, controller, sensors… or just the reactor portion)? See the following exchange:
Andrea Rossi
May 26, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Steven N. Karels:
The weight I indicated is the weight of the QuarkX, as per request of the Reader.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels
May 26, 2017 at 1:28 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The mass and volume of the quark have me confused. I understood you to report the dimensions of a Quark unit was a length of 10mm and a diameter of 5mm. As Dr. Fine computed, this yields a volume of 196.35 cubic millimeters or 0.19635 cc or 0.19635 ml. The density of nickel is 8.9 grams/ml. So the mass of the Quark should be about 1.75 grams but you stated tens of grams. Please clarify.
Joseph Fine
May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
According to the QuarkX dimensions of D = 5 mm and L = 10 mm, the volume of each unit is approximately 196.35 cubic millimeters. For a rating of 20 W, power density is about 0.102 W/cubic millimeter (Or ~0.1 W/cu. mm).
There are 10^9 cubic millimeters in a cubic meter, so a volume of 1 cubic meter might (ideally) enclose a system with a rating of about 10^8 Watts or 100 MW.
Obviously, other components (Heat transfer, structural, instrumentation/control) must be incorporated into a system of 1000 modules or any other large scale system of systems.
At this time, can you mention/estimate the volume of, for example, a complete 10 kW or 20 kW system?
If better is the enemy of the good, you may have reached the best.
Congratulations to you and your team for your/their achievements.
Per aspera ad astra.
Joseph Fine
Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2017 at 7:51 PM
A.Ashfield:
Now the dimensions are length 10 mm, diameter 5 mm, the rating is 20 W. It is the one that will be exposed in the demonstration that should happen this year.
Thank you for your kind words,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A. Ashfield
May 22, 2017 at 5:54 PM
Dr Rossi:
As the QuarkX has changed over the last year, can you tell us the current approximate size and power of the QuarkX that is undergoing the Sigma 5 test?
Is it the one you will be demonstrating this year?
I wish you all the best for your endeavors,
A. Ashfield
When Andrea said: “…. The weight is several tens of grams …..”
I wonder if, because of language difficulties, he had meant to say: “….. several tenths of a gram” ?
Rodney Nicholson.
Steven N. Karels:
The weight I indicated is the weight of the QuarkX, as per request of the Reader.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ingemar:
Not yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The mass and volume of the quark have me confused. I understood you to report the dimensions of a Quark unit was a length of 10mm and a diameter of 5mm. As Dr. Fine computed, this yields a volume of 196.35 cubic millimeters or 0.19635 cc or 0.19635 ml. The density of nickel is 8.9 grams/ml. So the mass of the Quark should be about 1.75 grams but you stated tens of grams. Please clarify.
Dr. Rossi:
There is an ongoing black box test of a LENR reactor being conducted by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project(MFMP). See: http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/26/friday-may-25-mfmp-testing-me356-reactor/ It should be of interest especially if it proves over unity gain with a high COP.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
The power density of the QuarkX makes it a veritable game changer.
Godspeed,
M.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your great work.
About jet engines: due to the energy density of the QuarkX, it still has strong chances if aerospace applications.
Cheers,
Rudy
Mr Rossi:
Do you agree that until you make a presentation with a test as credible as the Lugano test the QuarkX cannot be considered a real thing?
Andrea Moraitis:
The weight is several tens of grams and is operating one year since the start. During this period has worked at least 300 days 24/7.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Of course, there will be no measureable mass difference as long as the casing remains intact. What I meant with my first question is that one might want to compare the reactor’s output with the amount of energy that could be released by the most gainful exothermic chemical reactions, related to the mass of the reactants. For example, the reaction of a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen will release about 4.4 Wh per gram. If the mass of the reactor were ten grams, it would have to produce more than 44 Wh to exceed this ‘chemical limit’.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Miriam:
Thank you for your concern.
I am perfectly healed: I won this fight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Are there data available about the electricity made directly by the QuarkX?
Gian:
No, until we’ll have completed the R&D cycle.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
1- the mass does not change during the operation, whatever the duration of the operation
2- no, because such a device could not feed the control system. To measure the amount of direct current consumed by an apparatus is very easy
Thank you for your kind words,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
7 A.M. in the factory and the QuarkX is good.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am glad to hear that you have recovered well from your surgery.
Here are two questions regarding the QuarkX:
1 – What is its approximate mass (important to know if one wants to exclude chemical reactions)?
2 – In the presentation, would it be possible to use a battery or an ultracapacitor whose maximum energy content is lower than the expected output of the reactor? By recharging and discharging it once after the test (more convenient with the capacitor) you could make the experiment even more ‘watertight’.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The power density of the QuatkX is impressive. Are you sure of these data?
Gian
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
How is your health? Are you recovering from the three surgeries you got in April?
Take care of yourself, you are too important for us all!
Godspeed,
Miriam
Anonymous:
You have to add the volume necessary to exchange the heat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Great day today: very good measurements, all confirmed so far. Definitely on our way toward Sigma 5.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
First Breakthrough for Future Air-Breathing
Magneto-Plasma Propulsion Systems
B Göksel1*, I Ch Mashek2
1 Electrofluidsystems Ingenieurbüro Göksel, Berlin, Germany
2 St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Email: berkant.goeksel@electrofluidsystems.com
Abstract. A new breakthrough in jet propulsion technology since the invention of the jet engine is
achieved. The first critical tests for future air-breathing magneto-plasma propulsion systems have
been successfully completed. In this regard, it is also the first time that a pinching dense plasma focus
discharge could be ignited at one atmosphere and driven in pulse mode using very fast, nanosecond
electrostatic excitations to induce self-organized plasma channels for ignition of the propulsive main
discharge. Depending on the capacitor voltage (200-600 V) the energy input at one atmosphere varies
from 52-320 J/pulse corresponding to impulse bits from 1.2-8.0 mNs. Such a new pulsed plasma
propulsion system driven with one thousand pulses per second would already have thrust-to-area
ratios (50-150 kN/m²) of modern jet engines. An array of thrusters could enable future aircrafts and
airships to start from ground and reach altitudes up to 50km and beyond. The needed high power
could be provided by future compact plasma fusion reactors already in development by aerospace
companies. The magneto-plasma compressor itself was originally developed by Russian scientists as
plasma fusion device and was later miniaturized for supersonic flow control applications. So the first
breakthrough is based on a spin-off plasma fusion technology.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/825/1/012005/pdf
Update?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Based on what you wrote, the QuarkX has a volume of about 0.1 cubic cm: since i liter contains 1000 cubic cm, the density of power of a QuarkX is:
1000/0.1 = 10000 QuarkX per liter
Each QuarkX is rated 20 W, therefore we have 20 x 10000 = 200 kW/liter !!!
Am I correct?
Marco:
Thank you for the suggestion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
i have an idea to test my theory on RF pulses. You could rent or pay for use a Magnetic Resonance apparatus, not necessarily a medic one. There are also little high field MR for spectroscopy of chemicals, with a small gantry. There you could insert a QuarkX “pellet” and see if the scan triggers some LENR reaction… In those apparatus the field and the RF pulses are accurately calibrated to give the maximum energy to the atomic species of interest…
Regards,
Marco.
Ron Stringer:
I understand. We will just substitute the QuarkXes in the locations of the Customers and the retrieved units will be returned to our factories to be recharged and recycled. In this sense, we can define this a “cradle to cradle” cycle.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
No problem: I have to use math every day and still I too make mistakes. We all make mistakes.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I see that I did not understand properly. Thrust and Power math is more interesting than I suspected … I checked here to find out more and why.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml
Please excuse my mistake, I still am very excited by the QuarkX power density. Wow.
Great work!
Tom
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am using the term “cradle to cradle” loosely – it is a design philosophy that plans a product from its creation through to its recycling or re-use. Ideally, the materials gained from recycling the product would be used in the manufacture of the next generation of products.
So, you design your products with the recycling and re-use of the materials in mind.
I find the logic game of our interactions rather enjoyable – what I have learned thus far is that spent units will be returned to the factory. If you bother collecting them, it would seem that you have the intent on recycling of some kind. Two alternatives: you can use the materials to make new units, or you can refuel and reuse the units. The units will not be dismantled for the production of new units. But the spent units will not simply be refuelled in the same state they are returned from the users.
So, it looks like the units will be dismantled , but not for the production of new units (yes or no?). The old quarkx units will be refuelled for reuse (yes or no?).
All the best.
Ron
Franco Buccella- INFN:
Thank you for the information about the theory of Prof Preparata, that also involved the LENR.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your insight.
I am not expert of aerospace engineering, but I am not convinced of the numbers. As far as I know, a Boeing 747- 400 has 4 engines each of them having a thrust of 41,500 ft lbs/s.
Making some math, we’d have 4 x 3 x 41,500 x 0.745 = 371.3 MW of power. Surely the conversion 1 lbf/s = 3 HP is variable, because depends on many factors, but the ballpark remains the same.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers of the JoNP:
Has been published the book ” Preparata pathway: how quantum fields keep all matter together”, the editor is Bibliopolis, Napoli (Italy) May 2017.
In this book Prof Preparata, prematurely passed away during the year 2000, made a general theory on the matter coherence based upon the quantistic electrodynamic, such a theory being able to explain a large class of phenomenons.
Regards,
Franco Buccella, INFN, Italy
Dear Andrea,
I found that a typical Boeing 747-400 engine requires 63300 ft.lbf/s per engine to fly, and that 1 megawatt (MW) of power equals 737,562 foot pounds per second (ft lbf/s) in power. So a typical Boeing 747-400 would need about 4 megawatt (MW) of power onboard to fly … or about 250,000 ft.lbf/s.
The Boeing 747-400 (aka Airbus A330) uses the CF6-80E1 jet engine which produces 68,000 to 72,000 lbf to power the Airbus A330 (with 4 engines).
http://www.gravity.co/#tech
Richard Browning has invented, built, flown and filed a patent for the suit, which he calls “Daedalus”, paving the way for an entirely new aviation category.
Warmest Regards,
Tom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400
CF6-80E1 jet engine produces 68,000 to 72,000 lbf to power the Airbus A330.
http://www.convert-units.info/power/megawatt/1
1 MW = 737562 ft.lbf/s (foot pound per sec.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF6
The General Electric CF6 is a family of high-bypass turbofan engines produced by GE Aviation. …. The CF6-80A, which has a thrust rating of 48,000 to 50,000 lb (214 to 222 kN), powered two twinjets, the Boeing 767 and Airbus A310.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-horsepower-is-a-Boeing-747-Jet
The Boeing 747–400 needs a total of 63,300 lbf * of thrust to cruise at 567 mph or 49,896 feet/min. The work done in one minute is a force of 63,300 lbf over 49,896 feet in one minute or 3,158,416,800 lbf-ft per minute.
http://www.traditionaloven.com/tutorials/power/convert-mega-watt-mw-to-ft-lbf-per-seconds.html
Amount: 1 megawatt (MW) of power
Equals: 737,562.15 foot pounds per second (ft lbf/s) in power
Stephen:
1. yes
2. few minutes
3. yes
4. no
5. no
6. more complex
Thank you for your kind wishes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ron Stringer:
1A: yes
1B: no
2: no
3: yes
4: what do you mean in this case with “cradle to cradle”, exactly ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Sorry, I cannot discuss here issues related to the litigation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Do you think you need to show economic benefits of your intellectual property to win the court battle against Darden?
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Thank you for your reply. So, each Quarkx is physically connected to its control system, BUT, you don’t need to disconnect to recycle. That is interesting. Could we have a little clarification, please?
I assume a “unit” to consist of a set of multiple quarkx devices, connected to some supporting hardware.
For the user:
1. spent units will be removed and replaced, with the spent units being returned to the manufacturer for recycling. Yes or No?
For the manufacturer:
1. spent units will be dismantled/destroyed and new units manufactured from the materials. Yes or No?
2. spent units will be refuelled, without removing them from the support hardware. Yes or No?
3. Some other arrangement. Yes or No?
I am assuming you have designed with a “cradle to cradle” approach. Yes or No?
All the best.
Ron
Dear Andrea Rossi, the next weeks and months seem to be particularly important. I wish and all your team positive strength and good health over this period. I have the strong impression the time for this technology becoming better know and understood is soon upon us. I’m very hopeful about it.
The QuarkX seems more and more interesting the more we hear about it and the technology of ECat and your other devices seem more and more intriguing as a consequence too.
I wonder if I may ask a few questions about the thermal behavior of your devices (I apologize if some of them are a bit ignorant)
1. I think you mentioned the QuarkX could be turned On quite quickly in a few seconds?
2. Does the QuarkX reach the operational output temperature quickly too? If so does it a) instantly at temperature at switch on or b) takes a few seconds b) a few minutes c) longer
3. Is the output temperature from the device directly from the LENR process it self?
4. Or Does thermal and kinetic effects from sorbtion of Hydrogen have a significant role in the out put temperature of your ECat device?
5. Or does the output heat of the device have some other origin.
6. I think you mentioned the device thermal behavior is quite complex and is a matter of integration. May I ask Is this integration over time? Space (surface or volume) Both or something more complex?
I wish you and your team the best over this important period. It must be amazing and fascinating seeing the technology develop and evolve.
Steven N. Karels:
1- No
2- No
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giuseppe:
No, the issue is much more complicated. It derives from a system of integrals.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
does the output temperature of a single quark is direct proportional to its dimension, lenght or diameter?
Regards, Giuseppe
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Your comments are very interesting.
1. For a projection of refueling once per year to be commercially meaningful, that implies that the majority of Quark units within a grouping are functioning over that refueling interval. For example, if a unit contains 1,000 Quark individual reactors, yielding 20 kW of thermal power capability, then one would expect that perhaps 90% of them would still be functioning at the end of one year. This suggests the failure rate (not fuel depletion but an actual fault occurring) must be much greater than one year. Do you agree?
2. You stated that there are no wires connecting to the Quark, no need to unscrew the Quark. This suggests to me an electrical connection, similar to an electrical fuse or a fluorescent light tube. You apparently still need to provide some form of energy to the Quark individual reactor to control it, to activate it and to shut it down. Can you clarify your statement?
Dr Joseph Fine:
The modules are independent. If a module fails there is no reason for others to fail. They are not interacting between them, they just sum up their heat. A shutdown happens in seconds. Every QuarkX can be shutdown independently.
By the way, nothing exists that can never fail: remember the words of the commander of the Titanic: “This ship is unsinkable”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
If you build and test a system with 100’s or 1000’s of modules, and one or several modules fail, it is presumed that individual units/modules fail safely. That is, all of the other modules will continue to function undamaged. At least that is the goal.
Have you considered building/testing a multiple module system to see if a module can fail “gracefully”?
Can you prevent a failing module from damaging the other ones? Or, can you shut down an individual module fast enough?
How fast does each or all of the modules respond to a shutdown signal? (Minutes? Seconds, Milliseconds? etc.)
Do all system modules have to be shutdown simultaneously, or can you operate a Quarkx with a few damaged modules?
Or can the system be made so robust, that the individual modules will almost never fail?
That might be the best way.
Multiple regards,
Joseph Fine
Dr Joseph Fine:
You are right.
I must be sincere: when I work on the QuarkX I am stunned myself.
But it is working and spectrometry and calorimetry are conciliable.
I am not ready to tell you the power density after the application of all the components, also because there are very different possibilities, also depending on the applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.