Thank you for the interesting information about your E-Cat QuarkX. Can you tell us if the COP is more or less than same regardless of the mix of output energy (electric, light, or heat) or does it depend in a significant way depending on the output mix selected. From your short report it seems the COP is the same but I just want to confirm.
Dear Andrea.
Congratulations for your result. This may be good news for electric cars. A Tesla provided with a “45m long Quark X” will constantly be supplied with 15 kW. Along with a battery of 1/10 of today it will have a infinity mileage. Its total weight will probably be reduced by 40%. The same may also the production costs.
Best regards: Svein Henrik
Dear Dr Rossi:
Please receive my congratulations for your success. I hope you and your Partner will find applications to avoid further carbonization of the atmosphere. Could you imagine to replace the steam producing part of the power plants ?
With my best wishes for your further success and health,
Ulrich W.A. Kranz
1) How was input power applied to the device: electrodes on each end of the 1mm diameter reactor, a resistor coil around the reactor, natural gas, etc?
2) How was output in the form of heat, light, and electricity measured?
3) What was the longest period of self sustain in which the output remained steady or increased with zero input power?
4) During this period of self sustain, what forms of output were being produced?
5) The numbers you provide for COP and percentages for different forms of energy are vague and non-specific — for reasons you have indicated. In a situation where you are attempting to produce the maximum 10% of electrical power (in continual operation and not self sustain mode) how many watts of power are going into the reactor and how many watts are being produced in the form of electricity?
6) According to question 5, what is the COP when only accounting for the input power and the 10% electricity being produced?
7) How is the output electricity being collected?
8) If the reactor itself is serving as a resistive element and electricity is being passed through it via electrodes, is the excess electricity being manifest as a reduction in the voltage drop over the resistor or a voltage increase?
9) Is the reactor truly a “reactor” in that it is a tube of another material (perhaps a Tungsten alloy) that contains the various powders that compose the charge?
10) Is the reactor simply a compressed cylinder of the components that make up the charge?
11) Does the Quark X tested utilize lithium in the charge?
12) Does the Quark X tested utilize nickel in the charge?
13) You have mentioned that the Quark X uses titanium: is this a component in the charge?
14) Did you measure any alpha particles being emitted from the reactor? If so, were their energies consistent with what would result from the proton + lithium reaction?
15) If the reactor reached 1500C, that would represent a temperature beyond the melting point of nickel.
a) Is this possible because the surface of the 1mm diameter reactor is hotter than the inner surface due to eddy currents, as you previously assert?
b) Is this possible because nickel is no longer being utilized and perhaps has been substituted with another suitable metal such as titanium with a higher melting point?
c) Is this possible because the reactions can continue taking place while the nickel is in liquid phase?
You mentioned the use of spectrometer to calculate energy emitted from the device.
1. Can you say How many detectors where used?
2. If more than one: where they of the same type?
3. Can you say something of what frequency range your instrument(s) was designed to detect?
You and your team have accomplished an incredible feat of discovery and engineering. Congratulations!
Have you designed heat exchanger(s) for use in an industrial setting. I am thinking of feedwater heaters set up in a duplex design where one can be taken out of service. I am not sure what to do with the light, maybe solar collector. So many possibilities.
When you say that the performance of the E-Cat QuarkX must be independently verified, do you mean that a third party must verify? If so, are you working towards this?
Congratulations on your stunning achievement. Truly Star Trek like technology.
I calculated the QuarkX 1x30mm rod
.
electrical power density at 424kWe/ltr and the electrical energy density at 3.71GWhe/ltr/year
.
assuming the QuarkX rod’s fuel life is 12 months.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I would like to ask an important question about QuarkX. I want to learn the power to weight ratio, which is very important for possible future applications. Thank you in advance!
As a long time follower I am curious about if your partners from Hydrofusion participated in the test? Did anybody of the team that made the 1 year test on the 1MW E-Cat participate?
Congratulations on your preliminary test results. It sounds like you have a rough cut of a production model, that needs to be refined for the manufacturing process. Regarding your current mission:
Now we must operate along two directions:
1- consolidate the reliability of the results and the product
2- organize a massive production
I have three questions to request:
a) Can your team consolidate the reliability of the results with you as a mentor?
b) Can your team organize the massive production of the product with you as a mentor?
It would be great if you could start to focus on the next product release, and let your team run with this type of production plan!
Frank Acland:
I perfectly understand and I myself repeat that the results of this preliminar gest have to be verified.
Independently from who the Partner is.
The QuarkX used in this final stage of the preliminar test is different.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Barty:
The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Thank you for the recent test results. I would like to go back and ask about the successful year long test and the 50 COP reactor from that test. Is this E-Cat being manufactured? How many have been sold? Do you have an automated manufacturing line established for this product? I can understand you are totally absorbed by your new research, are you turning over the manufacturing and sale of the 50 COP E-Cat to someone else in your organization?
this is disappointing to hear (to use the produced energy to let it run in continuous self sustain mode).
Can you explain why?
Do you just don’t have the necessary equipment/control system, or is the produced energy different in any way from the current you get out of a wall socket?
Regarding the interest in the identity of the partner, I think I understand from the perspective of an outsider. Many on the outside are intensely interested in your work, and find your results remarkable.
Now there is a saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. From what you say about the E-Cat QuarkX, there is no technology that has ever done what you report, and for some observers, it is hard to accept that it could be real. More witnesses (e.g. your partner) who would step forward and say “yes, we saw this too” would make it easier to accept your report.
You are correct though. If a product works and is available to use, then the partner behind it does not matter very much. I think it’s just that people are impatient at this point.
One more question: Are the reactors used in this test the ones you have been using in your early testing? If so, how long in total have they been operating?
Vitaly and Irina Uzikov:
Thank you, very kind: from your experience of nuclear scientists of the Russian School, your opinion is important.
Did you notice the blue light ? If our measurement also related to it will be confirmed, the theoretical issue is close to be resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations, we are very happy for you, again a fantastic result! We hope Quark X industrialisation will be very fast!
Sincerely Yours,
Vitaly and Irina Uzikov
Robert Dorr:
Thank you.
The negotitions in Sweden are on course.
Yes, I confirm the dimensions. Not the results, that must be verified.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Very important your question 1:
1- the COP numbers are rounded, because the COP is not number, it is an integral. Therefore to give the exact numbers I should have given many numbers in a frame of reference where xs are the values of time and ys are the values of COP. To make it short I rounded the average.
2- yes
3- about 100 hours of effective average
4- to provide protection not just to the eyes
5- n.a.
6- what importance has the name of the Partner ? What is important is that we make a product, not the names listed in the ownership of Leonardo Corporation. When and if our Partner will deem opportune to appear ( if ever) he will do. If he will never do, what is the problem ? Until we do not go public there is no reason at all to communicate anything of the subject. I really do not understand this fever to know who is the Partner, while I totally sympathyze with the fever for the product. The only guy that have good reasons to know who our allies are is our foe, and this is the reason why I do not think it is opportune to disclose our artillery.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor?
If yes, are you doing it at your current test?
This would show that the reactor is 100% able to run long time completely standalone without external power and would convince the hardest skeptic, or at least your potential customers/partners.
Hello, Dr.R, don’t know if you seen this,poem, hope you like it, and congrats on your latest, accomplishments.
How the cat got out of the bag
at a time on mother earth,
On oil we depended,
It supplied our need for power,
It took our money by the hour.
For when at last the oil ran out.
We thought we were doomed
without a doubt
When from Italy came,
The news to set us all aflame.
Dr. Rossi came forth and said for true.
We have, he said the solution too.
The energy we all need now.
Just climb on board,we’ll tell you how.
So a few believed and some did not
That Rossi claims were ought but rot.
As time went by and slowly we formed the e-cat world forum
We tested, and learned and debated it true.
Till Leonardo corp.and Rossi at last came through,
With subtle hints flung far and Wide,
We raised our examples with fierce pride.
The test proved out to be ‘ right on ‘,
The final Proof—The lights came on.
Now in 2016 it is a simple tone.
E-CATnow is set in stone.
A final note i leave with thee,
my grandkids are at my knee.
I tell them stories of the the E-cat you see.
And with wonderful eyes they look at me
for this old man has played a part,
That set the world on a new start,
Now, the future is coming so fast.
The E-CAT is now world class.
This was composed by a late great friend of mine, who was a great inventor in his own time.— Blake walston, i am sure he would be pleased.
Mark Saker:
I do not know and, frankly, I do not see why it is important: what is important for the public is the product, not the name of the owners of the manufacturer. The only guys that can be viciously eager to know the name of our Partner are our foes, for obvious reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Andrea Rossi:
Thanks for answering my previous question. I noticed from the Report that the QuarkX measurements are 30mm length, 1mm diameter, which is unusually small and would make it similar in size to broken spaghetti.
Can the QuarkX be produced into an arbitrary length and then broken up in smaller pieces without substantially affecting its functionality, just like spaghetti? If yes, I would humbly suggest that perhaps a more fitting name could be SpaghettiX. Hopefully we will someday get to know the “recipe” you’re using.
Cheers,
Ecco
Gerard McEk:
Thank you for your attention and your suggestion.
Our programs for the immediate future are the ones I said here an hour ago.
To the other questions I am not able to answer now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Recently you told us the QuarkX was as big as a pencil, not it turns out to be mm 30 x 1 instead of the expected mm 300 x 10. Why?
Cheers,
Magnus Uvnas
Dear Andrea,
Thank you very much for releasing some details of the QuarkX. It’s amazing what you have accomplished! Congratulations for this achievement!
Can you tell what plans you have further? I.E., will you also publish the full report soon? Will you uncover the name of your new partner/customer in the near future?
I would also very much would appriciate if Frank Ackland, Mats Lewan and Peter Gluck would be invited for an interview/demo as Argon suggested.
Thank you again and kind regards, Gerard
Congratulations, COP~200 for heat and COP~20 for direct production of electricity, WOW. This is a true world changer. Are the next hurdles safety and sustainable long term ssm? Then I guess scaling up bundles of units for the typical power requirements of practical applications; QuarkX Trains, Ships, Cars and Houses?
Dear Dr Rossi
Congratulations on your results, there is no reason why it cannot produce more electricity if the heat is used in a turbine and the electricty produced directly are combined to increase the electricial output. What sort of heat exchanger are you using at those sort of temps.
Also can the Quark produce just heat and electricity only without light
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for the interesting information about your E-Cat QuarkX. Can you tell us if the COP is more or less than same regardless of the mix of output energy (electric, light, or heat) or does it depend in a significant way depending on the output mix selected. From your short report it seems the COP is the same but I just want to confirm.
Sincerely,
Peter Metz
Dear dr. Rossi,
Truly ground braking technology.
Is the photo taken inside the heat-exchanger pipe or outside in open air? And if inside, what medium was present in the heat exchanger pipe.
Kind Regards,
Dear Andrea.
Congratulations for your result. This may be good news for electric cars. A Tesla provided with a “45m long Quark X” will constantly be supplied with 15 kW. Along with a battery of 1/10 of today it will have a infinity mileage. Its total weight will probably be reduced by 40%. The same may also the production costs.
Best regards: Svein Henrik
Dear Dr Rossi:
Please receive my congratulations for your success. I hope you and your Partner will find applications to avoid further carbonization of the atmosphere. Could you imagine to replace the steam producing part of the power plants ?
With my best wishes for your further success and health,
Ulrich W.A. Kranz
Dear Andrea,
Your report is very interesting.
1) How was input power applied to the device: electrodes on each end of the 1mm diameter reactor, a resistor coil around the reactor, natural gas, etc?
2) How was output in the form of heat, light, and electricity measured?
3) What was the longest period of self sustain in which the output remained steady or increased with zero input power?
4) During this period of self sustain, what forms of output were being produced?
5) The numbers you provide for COP and percentages for different forms of energy are vague and non-specific — for reasons you have indicated. In a situation where you are attempting to produce the maximum 10% of electrical power (in continual operation and not self sustain mode) how many watts of power are going into the reactor and how many watts are being produced in the form of electricity?
6) According to question 5, what is the COP when only accounting for the input power and the 10% electricity being produced?
7) How is the output electricity being collected?
8) If the reactor itself is serving as a resistive element and electricity is being passed through it via electrodes, is the excess electricity being manifest as a reduction in the voltage drop over the resistor or a voltage increase?
9) Is the reactor truly a “reactor” in that it is a tube of another material (perhaps a Tungsten alloy) that contains the various powders that compose the charge?
10) Is the reactor simply a compressed cylinder of the components that make up the charge?
11) Does the Quark X tested utilize lithium in the charge?
12) Does the Quark X tested utilize nickel in the charge?
13) You have mentioned that the Quark X uses titanium: is this a component in the charge?
14) Did you measure any alpha particles being emitted from the reactor? If so, were their energies consistent with what would result from the proton + lithium reaction?
15) If the reactor reached 1500C, that would represent a temperature beyond the melting point of nickel.
a) Is this possible because the surface of the 1mm diameter reactor is hotter than the inner surface due to eddy currents, as you previously assert?
b) Is this possible because nickel is no longer being utilized and perhaps has been substituted with another suitable metal such as titanium with a higher melting point?
c) Is this possible because the reactions can continue taking place while the nickel is in liquid phase?
Thank you for any answers you can provide.
Hank Mills
Dear Andrea,
Article on your latest news from http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-quarkx-energy-revolution-a-100w-eternal-matchstick-with-cop200-heat-and-cop20-electricity/
Best
Luis
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations to you and your team on a great step forward, also to your partner for their vision.
Best regards
Luis
Dear mr Rossi,
You mentioned the use of spectrometer to calculate energy emitted from the device.
1. Can you say How many detectors where used?
2. If more than one: where they of the same type?
3. Can you say something of what frequency range your instrument(s) was designed to detect?
Mr. Rossi,
You and your team have accomplished an incredible feat of discovery and engineering. Congratulations!
Have you designed heat exchanger(s) for use in an industrial setting. I am thinking of feedwater heaters set up in a duplex design where one can be taken out of service. I am not sure what to do with the light, maybe solar collector. So many possibilities.
God Speed
Hurley
I apologize! I found it at ecat.com!
Rodney.
Hi everyone:
I see messages here congratulating Mr. Rossi on his announced preliminary QuarkX results but, having scrolled back, I did not see them.
Could someone please let me know where I should look to find them?
TIA
Rodney.
Dear Andrea,
When you say that the performance of the E-Cat QuarkX must be independently verified, do you mean that a third party must verify? If so, are you working towards this?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations on your stunning achievement. Truly Star Trek like technology.
I calculated the QuarkX 1x30mm rod
.
electrical power density at 424kWe/ltr and the electrical energy density at 3.71GWhe/ltr/year
.
assuming the QuarkX rod’s fuel life is 12 months.
Do you agree?
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I would like to ask an important question about QuarkX. I want to learn the power to weight ratio, which is very important for possible future applications. Thank you in advance!
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for showing the beautiful light from your E-CAt X.
I wish you all the best with this superb little baby!
Warm regards,
Toussaint françois
Dear Andrea,
As a long time follower I am curious about if your partners from Hydrofusion participated in the test? Did anybody of the team that made the 1 year test on the 1MW E-Cat participate?
Best regards
Toulmin
Tom Conover:
a- yes
b- yes
Thank you for the kind words
Warm Regards
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for the link.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,,
This is my blog issue for the days when we have seen the Light of the QuarkX
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-14-2016-quark-x-little-lighthouse.html
Shine!
Peter
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations on your preliminary test results. It sounds like you have a rough cut of a production model, that needs to be refined for the manufacturing process. Regarding your current mission:
Now we must operate along two directions:
1- consolidate the reliability of the results and the product
2- organize a massive production
I have three questions to request:
a) Can your team consolidate the reliability of the results with you as a mentor?
b) Can your team organize the massive production of the product with you as a mentor?
It would be great if you could start to focus on the next product release, and let your team run with this type of production plan!
Warm regards,
Tom
Frank Acland:
I perfectly understand and I myself repeat that the results of this preliminar gest have to be verified.
Independently from who the Partner is.
The QuarkX used in this final stage of the preliminar test is different.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Barty:
The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
The manufacturing of the 1 MW plants proceeds independently from the R&D on the QuarkX.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Thank you for the recent test results. I would like to go back and ask about the successful year long test and the 50 COP reactor from that test. Is this E-Cat being manufactured? How many have been sold? Do you have an automated manufacturing line established for this product? I can understand you are totally absorbed by your new research, are you turning over the manufacturing and sale of the 50 COP E-Cat to someone else in your organization?
Dear Dr. Rossi,
this is disappointing to hear (to use the produced energy to let it run in continuous self sustain mode).
Can you explain why?
Do you just don’t have the necessary equipment/control system, or is the produced energy different in any way from the current you get out of a wall socket?
Thank you and keep up the good work!
Greetings
barty
Dear Andrea,
Regarding the interest in the identity of the partner, I think I understand from the perspective of an outsider. Many on the outside are intensely interested in your work, and find your results remarkable.
Now there is a saying that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. From what you say about the E-Cat QuarkX, there is no technology that has ever done what you report, and for some observers, it is hard to accept that it could be real. More witnesses (e.g. your partner) who would step forward and say “yes, we saw this too” would make it easier to accept your report.
You are correct though. If a product works and is available to use, then the partner behind it does not matter very much. I think it’s just that people are impatient at this point.
One more question: Are the reactors used in this test the ones you have been using in your early testing? If so, how long in total have they been operating?
Best wishes,
Frank
Magnus Uvnas:
You are right. We decided to make this test with the smaller possible unit, to define a fundamental element.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ecco Yumi:
No, I suppose that we reached is a sort of a “quantum”, or, if you prefer, a fundamental dimension.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Clovis Ray:
Thank you, very nice.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Barty:
No, it is not possible.
Too bad for the hardest skeptics!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Vitaly and Irina Uzikov:
Thank you, very kind: from your experience of nuclear scientists of the Russian School, your opinion is important.
Did you notice the blue light ? If our measurement also related to it will be confirmed, the theoretical issue is close to be resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations, we are very happy for you, again a fantastic result! We hope Quark X industrialisation will be very fast!
Sincerely Yours,
Vitaly and Irina Uzikov
Robert Dorr:
Thank you.
The negotitions in Sweden are on course.
Yes, I confirm the dimensions. Not the results, that must be verified.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gianvico Pirazzini:
He,he,he.. you could also say:” days don’t end for lack of nights”
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Very important your question 1:
1- the COP numbers are rounded, because the COP is not number, it is an integral. Therefore to give the exact numbers I should have given many numbers in a frame of reference where xs are the values of time and ys are the values of COP. To make it short I rounded the average.
2- yes
3- about 100 hours of effective average
4- to provide protection not just to the eyes
5- n.a.
6- what importance has the name of the Partner ? What is important is that we make a product, not the names listed in the ownership of Leonardo Corporation. When and if our Partner will deem opportune to appear ( if ever) he will do. If he will never do, what is the problem ? Until we do not go public there is no reason at all to communicate anything of the subject. I really do not understand this fever to know who is the Partner, while I totally sympathyze with the fever for the product. The only guy that have good reasons to know who our allies are is our foe, and this is the reason why I do not think it is opportune to disclose our artillery.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor?
If yes, are you doing it at your current test?
This would show that the reactor is 100% able to run long time completely standalone without external power and would convince the hardest skeptic, or at least your potential customers/partners.
Greetings
barty (LENR Forum Admin)
Hello, Dr.R, don’t know if you seen this,poem, hope you like it, and congrats on your latest, accomplishments.
How the cat got out of the bag
at a time on mother earth,
On oil we depended,
It supplied our need for power,
It took our money by the hour.
For when at last the oil ran out.
We thought we were doomed
without a doubt
When from Italy came,
The news to set us all aflame.
Dr. Rossi came forth and said for true.
We have, he said the solution too.
The energy we all need now.
Just climb on board,we’ll tell you how.
So a few believed and some did not
That Rossi claims were ought but rot.
As time went by and slowly we formed the e-cat world forum
We tested, and learned and debated it true.
Till Leonardo corp.and Rossi at last came through,
With subtle hints flung far and Wide,
We raised our examples with fierce pride.
The test proved out to be ‘ right on ‘,
The final Proof—The lights came on.
Now in 2016 it is a simple tone.
E-CATnow is set in stone.
A final note i leave with thee,
my grandkids are at my knee.
I tell them stories of the the E-cat you see.
And with wonderful eyes they look at me
for this old man has played a part,
That set the world on a new start,
Now, the future is coming so fast.
The E-CAT is now world class.
This was composed by a late great friend of mine, who was a great inventor in his own time.— Blake walston, i am sure he would be pleased.
Martyn Aubrey:
Thank you for your very kind words, but remember that the results we got must be verified.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mark Saker:
I do not know and, frankly, I do not see why it is important: what is important for the public is the product, not the name of the owners of the manufacturer. The only guys that can be viciously eager to know the name of our Partner are our foes, for obvious reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Giannino Lodovuco Ferro Casagrande:
It will be possible when the product will be ready.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Manuel Cilia:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John C Evans:
Too soon to answer. By the way: the results must be verified.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Andrea Rossi:
Thanks for answering my previous question. I noticed from the Report that the QuarkX measurements are 30mm length, 1mm diameter, which is unusually small and would make it similar in size to broken spaghetti.
Can the QuarkX be produced into an arbitrary length and then broken up in smaller pieces without substantially affecting its functionality, just like spaghetti? If yes, I would humbly suggest that perhaps a more fitting name could be SpaghettiX. Hopefully we will someday get to know the “recipe” you’re using.
Cheers,
Ecco
Joe:
By means of a spectrometer and following calculations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gerard McEk:
Thank you for your attention and your suggestion.
Our programs for the immediate future are the ones I said here an hour ago.
To the other questions I am not able to answer now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Recently you told us the QuarkX was as big as a pencil, not it turns out to be mm 30 x 1 instead of the expected mm 300 x 10. Why?
Cheers,
Magnus Uvnas
Dear Andrea,
Thank you very much for releasing some details of the QuarkX. It’s amazing what you have accomplished! Congratulations for this achievement!
Can you tell what plans you have further? I.E., will you also publish the full report soon? Will you uncover the name of your new partner/customer in the near future?
I would also very much would appriciate if Frank Ackland, Mats Lewan and Peter Gluck would be invited for an interview/demo as Argon suggested.
Thank you again and kind regards, Gerard
Dear Andrea,
Can you tell us anything about how you quantified the energy of the light emitted?
Best regards,
Joe
Congratulations, COP~200 for heat and COP~20 for direct production of electricity, WOW. This is a true world changer. Are the next hurdles safety and sustainable long term ssm? Then I guess scaling up bundles of units for the typical power requirements of practical applications; QuarkX Trains, Ships, Cars and Houses?
Thank You for your Work
John C Evans
Dear Dr Rossi
Congratulations on your results, there is no reason why it cannot produce more electricity if the heat is used in a turbine and the electricty produced directly are combined to increase the electricial output. What sort of heat exchanger are you using at those sort of temps.
Also can the Quark produce just heat and electricity only without light
Thankyou and get some sleep