In other LENR experiments, it seemed that surface/volume ratio was important for the COP. Nickel wires had higher COP than bulk material and powdered nickel even higher.
Is for this same reason, that you passed from big bulky modules in the order of KW to small modules in the order of W?
From the specs it would seem so: LT E-Cat 6-50/80 COP with big elements and QX E-Cat 2000 COP with very small elements.
You also said that the control is easier. This seems reasonable since the bigger the module, the bigger the chance of inhomogeneity and thus hot spots… If the hot spot is far from the surface, there could be problems. But with the tiny size of the QX, an eventual hot-spot is very near to the surface…
Also the two properties could be correlated: high instability means that you must keep the throttle down to avoid meltdown… Low instability means that you can push higher the throttle, and if the reaction is non linear, at higher “throttle” the COP could be higher…
Sounds great. You could have approached the boiling point by reducing the flow rate of the fluid (e.g., water). But the test will be more impressive at larger output thermal powers and the baseline or fixed power consumption of the controller becomes less significant.
As always, I want to stress the necessity of calibration and calibration checks of calibration. Don’t directly rely on a manufacturer’s calibration but verify it yourself. Also run the calibration routines beyond the power level expected for the demonstration using your resistive dummy loads so you are not operating on the edge of calibration but in its center.
Dear Dr Rossi,
When you bundle your modules, must they be rigidly mounted….or can they lie loosely like in a pebble-bed, with the fluid pushing up to cause them to tumble?
Best regards,
Iggy Dalrymple
Steven N.Karels:
1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
2- yes
3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
Direct current, liquid phase
make the test a simpler case
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have been following your progress since your public demonstration will Dr. Sergio Focardi. Your progress has been amazing to watch.
You stated earlier: “Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.”
1. Is this increase in power due to adding more QX reactors to the demonstration setup or due to a changes to the QX and its control system?
2. If due to increase in the quantity of reactors, do you have a ballpark figure for what you are shooting for on the output power?
From a multitude of answers you gave here, I have the impression that you are working to simplify the control to make it as cheap as possible, and that no scientific or technological secrets can actually be deduced from the operation of the control.
A bit like God created the universe: First, it is thought that it all works according to fixed rules that are derived from direct observations, but the more someone begins to investigate, the more he realizes that it is more complex, nested and recursive than what a human brain can understand.
Although the latter may be due to our way of fragmenting the knowledge, and pass these pieces into education in a serial way. It is rather because of coincidence and analogies that our brain makes it a universe again. If at least the brain continues to work well for long enough, which is a bit of a nasty limitation of a human being which also limits humanity in different ways.
Suppose that no pay should be counted, just the materials. How much would 100 E-Cat QX cost, along with a controller in the current state of development and without life-span requirements?
The reason for my question is not to deceive secrets, but because I have seen that both you and some people who make replicas, it is a fact that the experiments look extremely non-tax-paid. This is unlike others who want to impress with expensive looking laboratory arrangements. Is that just practical or is there a philosophy behind?
Just to make sure we understand your nomenclature:
11 grams of water flowed over 1.8 seconds causing a change in temperature of the water of 1.58C.
Water flow rate past the reactor = 11 grams / 1.8 sec = 6.1 grams of water per second
The thermal change rate was 1.58C in 1.8 seconds or 0.88C/sec
Therefore, the amount of water raised 1C in one second was 6.1 grams of water raising 0.88C in one second or 5.4 grams of water was raised 1C in one second
A Calorie is defined as raising 1 gram of water at normal pressure 1 C and 1 Calorie = 4.186 Joules
So raising 5.4 grams of water 1 C in one second required 5.4 Calories or 22.47W
Regarding your response to Silvio Caggia, It seems that everyone looks to you to solve all of our environmental issues. Nearly free electricity powering everything. The coal mines will close, the oil and gas rigs will stop and the wells capped. Great, maybe in time we can eliminate our energy dependence on oil but what about our chemical dependence? What about our need for coal in our metals industries? We’ll still need coal. I believe the Ecat Qx to be a great step forward in energy production and it will positively impact our society in ways we can not yet imagine. The Ecat Qx is not, however, a panacea. Even if it were, I think we humans will continue to invent new ills as quickly as we invent cures.
Good luck and thank you.
Frank Acland:
It is a formula to calculate the speed of heating: it means that we measured a speed of heating of 1.58 Celsius degree every 1,8 seconds in a mass of 11 grams of water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pietro:
I am very sorry, but trying to recover from the spam your comment ( many comments go to the spam involuntarily and I try to recover as much of them as I can), I lost it.
Please send it again.
This is valid also for all our Readers: when you don’t see your comment published, please send it by email to info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Silvio Caggia:
Your comment seems to me affected by whateverism.
If you make a more thoroughly thinking, you cannot miss that:
1- without oil we could not survive today and we would not survive for many decades from now.
A logic consequence of 1 is:
2- better try to make oil with non polluting sources, if and when possible, at least until oil will becomes history ( probably several centuries, unless we take in serious consideration the mental masturbations of the usual coffe-shop scientists and of the energetic trolls ).
And yes, all the energy sources have to be integrated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve Swatman:
The vaporization heat of water is 540 Kcal
1 kcal= 1.14 W
Plus you need 1 kcal/Celsius degree to raise the T of water from the initial T up to 99.9 C degrees
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Come on, Frank: 1.8 seconds is a very nonsensical time at all: where did you find it?
I never said this obvious nonsense. If you found it somewhere, please tell me, it is obviously a typo waiting to be corrected.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Reading that you are meeting an oil refiner makes your product not so game changer…
Ok, “all sources of energy must integrate”…
But… Oil?!?
Regards
Prof:
In part I agree with you, in part I do not. Supersymmetry is researched for presently by the LHC of the CERN, and it could be a tremendous achievement if the scientists focused on this research would find evidence of a Supersymmetry, because it could resolve the “hierarchy problem” bound to the impossibility to reconcile the expected value of the Higgs field in empty space and the observed value of it, which puts in serious crisis the fundamentals of the Standard Model; the weakly interacting massive particles that could be allowed by the Supersymmetry could explain also the acceleration of the galaxies in the Universe and could give an identity to the “dark matter”.
Think about this: the guys that not so many centuries ago thought that beyond the Hercules Columns there was another continent, that the Earth was orbiting around the Sun and was a sphere were alternatively burnt alive or confined in a recovery for fools…Supersymmetry could just be an analogy ( mutatis mutandis ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
What is your sincere opinion of the so called “Supersymmetry”? How can be taken seriously a simmetry between Bosons and Fermions? It is like find a symmetry between men and elephants!
Cheers
Prof
In your interview with Frank Acland(ECW) July 20th, you said you were to meet with an oil refiner day after tomorrow. That would be July 22nd. On JONP on July 22nd, you posted to JPR, Today great internal test.
Warm Regards, A.R.
Would it be safe to assume the 2 are related?
If so, do you think further meetings with the oil refiner will take place?
In the interview, you also mentioned,
“And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed.”
The upcoming presentation has many of us encouraged, and again, congratulations to you and your team on this schedule. My wife is also very interested in your progress, and sends her regards to you.
It appears that my inquiry about the demonstration earlier was over enthusiastic, a common fault of mine, but one that often in my lifetime has spurred me on to exceptional results… I think perhaps a golf ball was sitting on the “tee” in my last inquiry. Oops … (ouch!)
I have a couple questions though, if you can respond please.
1) Is Sigma 5 prior to the presentation very likely (10%, 50%, 95%?) ?
2) Is the presentation to be hosted at
A) your work facility,
B) an industrial work area (or “other”), or
C) a typical hotel seminar venue?
JPR:
We are still on our way toward Sigma 5 and testing the cluster for the demo.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Andrea,
In other LENR experiments, it seemed that surface/volume ratio was important for the COP. Nickel wires had higher COP than bulk material and powdered nickel even higher.
Is for this same reason, that you passed from big bulky modules in the order of KW to small modules in the order of W?
From the specs it would seem so: LT E-Cat 6-50/80 COP with big elements and QX E-Cat 2000 COP with very small elements.
You also said that the control is easier. This seems reasonable since the bigger the module, the bigger the chance of inhomogeneity and thus hot spots… If the hot spot is far from the surface, there could be problems. But with the tiny size of the QX, an eventual hot-spot is very near to the surface…
Also the two properties could be correlated: high instability means that you must keep the throttle down to avoid meltdown… Low instability means that you can push higher the throttle, and if the reaction is non linear, at higher “throttle” the COP could be higher…
Thoughts?
Regards,
Marco.
Penso La interessi:
https://futurism.com/googles-new-algorithm-wants-to-help-researchers-stabilize-nuclear-fusion-reactions/
la sua RD ha forse bisogno di un fisico specialista in algoritmi?
I think Interests:
https://futurism.com/googles-new-algorithm-wants-to-help-researchers-stabilize-nuclear-fusion-reactions/
its RD has perhaps need a physical specialist in algorithms?
buon lavoro
Pietro F.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Sounds great. You could have approached the boiling point by reducing the flow rate of the fluid (e.g., water). But the test will be more impressive at larger output thermal powers and the baseline or fixed power consumption of the controller becomes less significant.
As always, I want to stress the necessity of calibration and calibration checks of calibration. Don’t directly rely on a manufacturer’s calibration but verify it yourself. Also run the calibration routines beyond the power level expected for the demonstration using your resistive dummy loads so you are not operating on the edge of calibration but in its center.
Sounds like a lot of work and great fun!
Dr Rossi,
Interesting to see this post on Twitter:
Was a pleasure to meet Rick Harrison of
@pawnstars & discuss the potential for
Low Nuclear Energy Reaction #technology
in the future. #LENR
https://twitter.com/RepWalterJones
Iggy Dalrymple:
This information is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
When you bundle your modules, must they be rigidly mounted….or can they lie loosely like in a pebble-bed, with the fluid pushing up to cause them to tumble?
Best regards,
Iggy Dalrymple
Steven N.Karels:
1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
2- yes
3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
Direct current, liquid phase
make the test a simpler case
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. How many in parallel?
2. All controlled by a single controller?
3. Still no phase change?
Dear Readers:
Please find on
http://www.rossilivecat.com
comments published today in other posts of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- no
2- yes
3- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
No.
If we do not succeed to pile up a more powerful system, we will anyway introduce the basic 20 W module.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof:
He is a Professor of Thermosynamics at the University of Miami. He wrote the book “Thermodynamics for Engineers”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul:
1- we are putting more modules in parallel
2- between 200 and 500 W
Thank you for your attention and sustain,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I have been following your progress since your public demonstration will Dr. Sergio Focardi. Your progress has been amazing to watch.
You stated earlier: “Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.”
1. Is this increase in power due to adding more QX reactors to the demonstration setup or due to a changes to the QX and its control system?
2. If due to increase in the quantity of reactors, do you have a ballpark figure for what you are shooting for on the output power?
May God speed you in your endeavor!
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
The Prof Wong that made the expertice for you during the litigation is a Prof of Engineering?
Dr.Rossi, is it possibile that the increase in power could delay the presentation caused by some problem?
Kind regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Are the improvements:
1. Raising the output power from a single reactor?
2. Ganging additional reactors together?
3. Both?
JPR:
Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Koen Vandewalle:
It is too soon to talk of prices, while costs are confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
From a multitude of answers you gave here, I have the impression that you are working to simplify the control to make it as cheap as possible, and that no scientific or technological secrets can actually be deduced from the operation of the control.
A bit like God created the universe: First, it is thought that it all works according to fixed rules that are derived from direct observations, but the more someone begins to investigate, the more he realizes that it is more complex, nested and recursive than what a human brain can understand.
Although the latter may be due to our way of fragmenting the knowledge, and pass these pieces into education in a serial way. It is rather because of coincidence and analogies that our brain makes it a universe again. If at least the brain continues to work well for long enough, which is a bit of a nasty limitation of a human being which also limits humanity in different ways.
Suppose that no pay should be counted, just the materials. How much would 100 E-Cat QX cost, along with a controller in the current state of development and without life-span requirements?
The reason for my question is not to deceive secrets, but because I have seen that both you and some people who make replicas, it is a fact that the experiments look extremely non-tax-paid. This is unlike others who want to impress with expensive looking laboratory arrangements. Is that just practical or is there a philosophy behind?
Experi-mental regards,
Koen
Toussaint Francois:
Yes.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi ,
At the october E-CAT QX presentation, will there be some guests invited ?
Warm regards,
Toussaint françois
John C. Evans:
I agree with you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g”
Just to make sure we understand your nomenclature:
11 grams of water flowed over 1.8 seconds causing a change in temperature of the water of 1.58C.
Water flow rate past the reactor = 11 grams / 1.8 sec = 6.1 grams of water per second
The thermal change rate was 1.58C in 1.8 seconds or 0.88C/sec
Therefore, the amount of water raised 1C in one second was 6.1 grams of water raising 0.88C in one second or 5.4 grams of water was raised 1C in one second
A Calorie is defined as raising 1 gram of water at normal pressure 1 C and 1 Calorie = 4.186 Joules
So raising 5.4 grams of water 1 C in one second required 5.4 Calories or 22.47W
Is this interpretation correct?
Dear Andrea:
Regarding your response to Silvio Caggia, It seems that everyone looks to you to solve all of our environmental issues. Nearly free electricity powering everything. The coal mines will close, the oil and gas rigs will stop and the wells capped. Great, maybe in time we can eliminate our energy dependence on oil but what about our chemical dependence? What about our need for coal in our metals industries? We’ll still need coal. I believe the Ecat Qx to be a great step forward in energy production and it will positively impact our society in ways we can not yet imagine. The Ecat Qx is not, however, a panacea. Even if it were, I think we humans will continue to invent new ills as quickly as we invent cures.
Good luck and thank you.
John C Evans
Frank Acland:
The choice of a period of 1.8 seconds is due to our kind of calculations.
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Dear Andrea,
Thanks very much — makes sense now. (I do wonder why pick a seemingly arbitrary time period like 1.8 seconds)
Best wishes,
Frank
Frank Acland:
It is a formula to calculate the speed of heating: it means that we measured a speed of heating of 1.58 Celsius degree every 1,8 seconds in a mass of 11 grams of water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Sorry, it may have been a misinterpretation from the Gullstroem-Rossi paper”
Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g
What does (“) represent?
Thank you!
Frank
Pietro:
I am very sorry, but trying to recover from the spam your comment ( many comments go to the spam involuntarily and I try to recover as much of them as I can), I lost it.
Please send it again.
This is valid also for all our Readers: when you don’t see your comment published, please send it by email to
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Silvio Caggia:
Your comment seems to me affected by whateverism.
If you make a more thoroughly thinking, you cannot miss that:
1- without oil we could not survive today and we would not survive for many decades from now.
A logic consequence of 1 is:
2- better try to make oil with non polluting sources, if and when possible, at least until oil will becomes history ( probably several centuries, unless we take in serious consideration the mental masturbations of the usual coffe-shop scientists and of the energetic trolls ).
And yes, all the energy sources have to be integrated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve Swatman:
The vaporization heat of water is 540 Kcal
1 kcal= 1.14 W
Plus you need 1 kcal/Celsius degree to raise the T of water from the initial T up to 99.9 C degrees
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Come on, Frank: 1.8 seconds is a very nonsensical time at all: where did you find it?
I never said this obvious nonsense. If you found it somewhere, please tell me, it is obviously a typo waiting to be corrected.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Andrea,
Can you explain why the test cited in the recent Gullstroem-Rossi paper ran for only 1.8 seconds? It seems quite short to me.
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Mr Rossi,
Thank you for the answer to my last question.
If I may ask,
Approximately how quickly (if possible) could a single Qx bring 1 ltr of water to boiling point?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Reading that you are meeting an oil refiner makes your product not so game changer…
Ok, “all sources of energy must integrate”…
But… Oil?!?
Regards
Marcus:
He,he,he
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Are you the rabbit?
Ha,ha,ha!
Cheers
Pavel
Prof:
In part I agree with you, in part I do not. Supersymmetry is researched for presently by the LHC of the CERN, and it could be a tremendous achievement if the scientists focused on this research would find evidence of a Supersymmetry, because it could resolve the “hierarchy problem” bound to the impossibility to reconcile the expected value of the Higgs field in empty space and the observed value of it, which puts in serious crisis the fundamentals of the Standard Model; the weakly interacting massive particles that could be allowed by the Supersymmetry could explain also the acceleration of the galaxies in the Universe and could give an identity to the “dark matter”.
Think about this: the guys that not so many centuries ago thought that beyond the Hercules Columns there was another continent, that the Earth was orbiting around the Sun and was a sphere were alternatively burnt alive or confined in a recovery for fools…Supersymmetry could just be an analogy ( mutatis mutandis ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
What is your sincere opinion of the so called “Supersymmetry”? How can be taken seriously a simmetry between Bosons and Fermions? It is like find a symmetry between men and elephants!
Cheers
Prof
Dr Rossi,
not sure if you missed the VIDEO – Monty Python
and the – Holy Grail – Bunny Attack Scene that was
posted on LENR Forum while back?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
G’day Mate
Dan C.:
Sorry, all this information is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In your interview with Frank Acland(ECW) July 20th, you said you were to meet with an oil refiner day after tomorrow. That would be July 22nd. On JONP on July 22nd, you posted to JPR, Today great internal test.
Warm Regards, A.R.
Would it be safe to assume the 2 are related?
If so, do you think further meetings with the oil refiner will take place?
In the interview, you also mentioned,
“And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed.”
Is this related too?
Warm regards to you and your team,
Dan C.
Tom Conover:
1- 90%
2- B
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The upcoming presentation has many of us encouraged, and again, congratulations to you and your team on this schedule. My wife is also very interested in your progress, and sends her regards to you.
It appears that my inquiry about the demonstration earlier was over enthusiastic, a common fault of mine, but one that often in my lifetime has spurred me on to exceptional results… I think perhaps a golf ball was sitting on the “tee” in my last inquiry. Oops … (ouch!)
I have a couple questions though, if you can respond please.
1) Is Sigma 5 prior to the presentation very likely (10%, 50%, 95%?) ?
2) Is the presentation to be hosted at
A) your work facility,
B) an industrial work area (or “other”), or
C) a typical hotel seminar venue?
Luke 12:29-31 may provide you with some peace today if you have a moment.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/luke/12/
Thank you, Andrea!
Tom and Alice