Dr Andrea Rossi:
When you will make the demo with the QuarkX, will you adopt calorimetric measurements, or Boltzmann equation, or what?
Thank you if you can answer,
S.
Based on Andrea’s historic comments (a long time ago), I would guess that each Quark is controlled. Furthermore, it is likely that Andrea has determined the “sweet zone” where the Quark optimally performs, whereby it be optimal stability, optimal COP, etc. And the “sweet zone” has some range of operation, say 25% of full power, e.g., the zone might range from a 50% of full power to 75% of full power where the desired average output is 62.5% of its full power capability. So a single nominal 100W Quark unit, in my hypothetical, would be capable of generating 160W of power. Again, this is just my guess.
So in your hypothetical 100 Quark system, the minimal power adjustment might be 0.1% change or even smaller, not an on/off condition of a single Quark unit. This assumes independent operation of the ensemble of Quarks. It is also possible that a change in operating parameters of adjacent Quarks affect the operation of a Quark and thus, the control logic becomes more complex and challenging. Andrea Rossi is free to correct me if I have mis-stated his design or implementation. It is likely much more complex that my simple statement or model suggests.
Thanks for the response. But the underlying ASSUMPTION is that of isolation between the Ecat output and the Ecat input. Only Andrea can specifically address this assumption as to its validity. The “safety concern” could be another phenomena not related to input/output power isolation.
I agree that the typical application for electricity power generation will be an integrated approach. Andrea Rossi has stated this many times over the past few years. But there are applications in remote locations were it may be more economical to be isolated from the electrical grid (too expensive or difficult to run). Or there is no electrical grid – e.g. the Artic. The more conventional applications will come first. But a power input free demonstration would be so nice to see!
If one wants, they can go off grid today. Install a combination of a small wind turbine, solar panels, several Tesla Power-Wall batteries and for good measure, a diesel storage tank and gen-set.
Few go off grid because it simply isn’t economical. The advent of the E-cat won’t change that. We make use of the grid because it provides multiple economic advantages.
I see E-cats providing home heating, but electrical needs will still come from a grid system. Maybe just less centralized.
Steven N. Karels,
Your post makes perfect sense.
Thank you for asking the question “how large of a battery/energy storage device is needed to eliminate the safety issue?”
That is the crux.
Regards
Patrick
Scientists and engineers use to believe that aircraft could not possibly fly faster than the speed of sound, until it was done. There are always reasons why something cannot or should not be done.
The engineer in me wonders why safety considerations indicate an ecat cannot power itself? A gasoline engine can and does run for a long period of time generating the electricity to charge the battery that eventually provides the spark that fires the spark plugs in the cylinders. It runs until the fuel is exhausted. It is not a perpetual motion machine. Neither is an ecat. It will run until its fuel is exhausted.
So hiding behind a mis-statement that somehow self-powering an ecat transforms it into a perpetual motion machine is both illogical and disingenuous. No, I do not have such a patent.
This is a matter of understanding and extending logic. If we agree that an ecat can produce excess energy when the input electrical power is supplied by the national grid or some other independent source of power, and there is no safety issue, then how much can we replace the grid with a large enough battery and suitable electrical control to allow tapping a portion of the produced excess energy, converting it to electricity, as the quark ecat is alleged to do, storing that energy in a battery and then using the battery power to run the control of the ecat?
The ecat concept may be modeled as an energy amplifier and the battery as a large capacitor. If the safety concerns are related to a thermal runaway potential problem due to a transient, a common source of problems in a high gain amplification (energy out versus energy in), then the time constant of the effective network must be long enough to eliminate the possibility of oscillation and runaway. So providing a large enough energy storage device should eventually eliminate any safety concerns due to thermal runaway caused by an output energy transient. It is assumed that an infinite energy source (effectively), such as the national electrical grid provides a stable condition. So how large of a battery/energy storage device is needed to eliminate the safety issue. Unless the safety issue is not a thermal runaway due to the ecat output being used for its own input. That was the question I was asking.
Andrea Rossi may choose not to answer or even to mask the answer in some obscure response – that is his right. But I know and believe he will not deceive us. But saying it can’t be done because Andrea said so is unsatisfying without a valid, understandable explanation. But proprietary information may require him not to directly answer. Still I ask.
Dear Andrea,
You replied to my question that the COP of a cluster of QuarkX’s cannot be higher than the individual COP’s. Previously you have also said that to control a QuarkX cluster the control system does not necessarily need to be connected to all the individual QuarkX’s of that cluster.
My conclusion was that QuarkX’s can somehow be controlled by another QuarkX.
1. Is this conclusion right?
2. If so, then somehow the QuarkX’s that are controlled must deliver some energy to those other that are not direct controlled, to control them indirectly. Is that right?
I hope these questions do not impede the IP and that you will be able to answer these. Thank you for relentlessly replying to questions!
Again, good luck with the tests!
Kind regards, Gerard
Perhaps it is likely that closing the loop to run the QuarkX from it’s own output is possible and even trivial to perform, but creates other issues that you may not perceive. Have you considered the reputation of individuals who have claimed to invent perpetual motion devices in your persistent inquiries?
Of what merit do you value safety certification compared to the obvious answers to your inquiries?
Andrea says the device cannot be self powered because of safety issues. That should be the end of it, don’t you agree? I agree with Andrea. The device cannot be self powered because of safety issues. Do you have a patent for a perpetual motion machine, Steven?
I asked in a previous posting if your “safety concerns” were related to a “feedback” issues. I had previously assumed that your concerns of using the output of power or heat generated from an ecat to control or assist the operation of the same ecat unit was related to a “feedback” condition, where a thermal runaway condition might exist or might be a potential problem. I may have misunderstood your concerns or position. Please clarify. If there are no current “safety concerns” with the current Ecat generation regarding output power being used as an input to the same Ecat, please state so.
Steven N. Karels:
a- no
b- this is a completely different issue, because the grid is redundant respect intrinsecal safety issues of our apparatus
c- no
d- I do not understand what you mean
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I suppose that for your first production of industrial QuarkX heating systems you will supply the complete plant like the 1 MW plant that included heat exchangers. One of the biggest companies for heat exchangers is the swedish company Alfa Laval with over 18000 employees. http://www.alfalaval.com/ Maybe they have some products that could be useful for you.
Best Regards,
Karl-Henrik, Sweden
a. I know in the past you have eluded to “safety considerations” in using the output of an ecat reactor to drive itself or other ecat reactors… Has your position changed or been modified given the increased knowledge you have obtained on the newest generation of ecats?
b. If a hypothetical ecat-based system were generating electricity to feed the national grid, and that grid was the source of power for the input energy for the ecat reactor, does this configuration in itself represent a safety issue? One could argue that because of the massive capacity of the national electrical grid, that an output variation of an ecat-based generator would have little effect on the national electrical grid and therefore the national electrical grid would be a suitable stable source for the control of such an ecat-based system.
c. The next hypothetical would be the same configuration except some of the ecat-based electrical output power is sent to a local battery unit with sufficient energy storage capacity to isolate the ecat input from the ecat output. Does this represent your safety concern?
d. Please clarify if your safety concerns are of a feed-back type of problem.
Dear Dr. Rossi, have you ever tried to feed an E-Cat with heat or electricity provided by another E-Cat? And with the thermal or electrical output of this one feeding the first?
So realizing a closed loop with very very high COP.
But I know you’ve said many times that there are safety problems. Only to know if you have made that kind of test some times.
Best Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea,
Will/can a cluster of QuarkX’s as a whole have a higher COP than individual ones?
Thank you for answering our questions and success in the last phases of the tests!
Kind regards, Gerard
Dear Andrea,
reading carefully your dialogue with Galileo, it seems to me you are announcing a COP greater than 10 !
Am I right ?
Best Wishes for a really hot 2017 !!!
E-catworld.com reports China are experimenting with an EM Drive – a reactionless rocket propulsion system. Looking into the not too distant future, if a self-sustaining ecat reactor could produce electricity to run an EM Drive, this could be the propulsion system for interplanetary cargo ships (much too slow for limited lifetime humans). At least until Faster The Light drives are developed, if ever.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
The idea to use normal calorimetry, easy to be understood also from non experts, is a good idea.
Warm Regards,
DT
Dear Readers:
Please go to
http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments published today in other posts of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sherman:
We did not decide yet, I think we’ll use calorimetry on a water flow.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
When you will make the demo with the QuarkX, will you adopt calorimetric measurements, or Boltzmann equation, or what?
Thank you if you can answer,
S.
Dan C,
Based on Andrea’s historic comments (a long time ago), I would guess that each Quark is controlled. Furthermore, it is likely that Andrea has determined the “sweet zone” where the Quark optimally performs, whereby it be optimal stability, optimal COP, etc. And the “sweet zone” has some range of operation, say 25% of full power, e.g., the zone might range from a 50% of full power to 75% of full power where the desired average output is 62.5% of its full power capability. So a single nominal 100W Quark unit, in my hypothetical, would be capable of generating 160W of power. Again, this is just my guess.
So in your hypothetical 100 Quark system, the minimal power adjustment might be 0.1% change or even smaller, not an on/off condition of a single Quark unit. This assumes independent operation of the ensemble of Quarks. It is also possible that a change in operating parameters of adjacent Quarks affect the operation of a Quark and thus, the control logic becomes more complex and challenging. Andrea Rossi is free to correct me if I have mis-stated his design or implementation. It is likely much more complex that my simple statement or model suggests.
Malcom:
He, he, he,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dan C.:
I cannot disclose particulars of the control system,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The blog link for today:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-04-2017-lenr-info.html
cheers,
Peter
Dear Andrea,
Question.
Does each Quark have it’s own power input such that if there were 100 Quarks, the power output can be controlled by 1% increments?
Regards,
Dan C.
I suspect the electrons required to drive the QuarkX are of a different type to those being produced 🙂
Patrick,
Thanks for the response. But the underlying ASSUMPTION is that of isolation between the Ecat output and the Ecat input. Only Andrea can specifically address this assumption as to its validity. The “safety concern” could be another phenomena not related to input/output power isolation.
I agree that the typical application for electricity power generation will be an integrated approach. Andrea Rossi has stated this many times over the past few years. But there are applications in remote locations were it may be more economical to be isolated from the electrical grid (too expensive or difficult to run). Or there is no electrical grid – e.g. the Artic. The more conventional applications will come first. But a power input free demonstration would be so nice to see!
Re: Steven Karels
The e-cat go off grid when “she” spins in ar car made in South west off Sweden..
Re- Steven Karels,
If one wants, they can go off grid today. Install a combination of a small wind turbine, solar panels, several Tesla Power-Wall batteries and for good measure, a diesel storage tank and gen-set.
Few go off grid because it simply isn’t economical. The advent of the E-cat won’t change that. We make use of the grid because it provides multiple economic advantages.
I see E-cats providing home heating, but electrical needs will still come from a grid system. Maybe just less centralized.
Steven N. Karels,
Your post makes perfect sense.
Thank you for asking the question “how large of a battery/energy storage device is needed to eliminate the safety issue?”
That is the crux.
Regards
Patrick
Tom Conover,
Scientists and engineers use to believe that aircraft could not possibly fly faster than the speed of sound, until it was done. There are always reasons why something cannot or should not be done.
The engineer in me wonders why safety considerations indicate an ecat cannot power itself? A gasoline engine can and does run for a long period of time generating the electricity to charge the battery that eventually provides the spark that fires the spark plugs in the cylinders. It runs until the fuel is exhausted. It is not a perpetual motion machine. Neither is an ecat. It will run until its fuel is exhausted.
So hiding behind a mis-statement that somehow self-powering an ecat transforms it into a perpetual motion machine is both illogical and disingenuous. No, I do not have such a patent.
This is a matter of understanding and extending logic. If we agree that an ecat can produce excess energy when the input electrical power is supplied by the national grid or some other independent source of power, and there is no safety issue, then how much can we replace the grid with a large enough battery and suitable electrical control to allow tapping a portion of the produced excess energy, converting it to electricity, as the quark ecat is alleged to do, storing that energy in a battery and then using the battery power to run the control of the ecat?
The ecat concept may be modeled as an energy amplifier and the battery as a large capacitor. If the safety concerns are related to a thermal runaway potential problem due to a transient, a common source of problems in a high gain amplification (energy out versus energy in), then the time constant of the effective network must be long enough to eliminate the possibility of oscillation and runaway. So providing a large enough energy storage device should eventually eliminate any safety concerns due to thermal runaway caused by an output energy transient. It is assumed that an infinite energy source (effectively), such as the national electrical grid provides a stable condition. So how large of a battery/energy storage device is needed to eliminate the safety issue. Unless the safety issue is not a thermal runaway due to the ecat output being used for its own input. That was the question I was asking.
Andrea Rossi may choose not to answer or even to mask the answer in some obscure response – that is his right. But I know and believe he will not deceive us. But saying it can’t be done because Andrea said so is unsatisfying without a valid, understandable explanation. But proprietary information may require him not to directly answer. Still I ask.
Frank Ackand:
Not the presentation, but the ground necessary for it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Would you consider a successful presentation of the QuarkX one of the factors that could help with your goal for mass production?
Thank you very much for answering our questions.
Frank Acland
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Here is today’s EGO OUT link:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-03-2017-lenr-why-editnmh-actually.html
Fighting to show that Pd D and NiH are different species.
All the best wishes,
Peter
Gerard McEk:
1- No
2- N.A.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Potentially yes. Actually it depends on many factors.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Do you think you will have the means (e.g. time/facilities/funds/people/technological know-how) to mass produce QuarkXs during 2017?
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea,
You replied to my question that the COP of a cluster of QuarkX’s cannot be higher than the individual COP’s. Previously you have also said that to control a QuarkX cluster the control system does not necessarily need to be connected to all the individual QuarkX’s of that cluster.
My conclusion was that QuarkX’s can somehow be controlled by another QuarkX.
1. Is this conclusion right?
2. If so, then somehow the QuarkX’s that are controlled must deliver some energy to those other that are not direct controlled, to control them indirectly. Is that right?
I hope these questions do not impede the IP and that you will be able to answer these. Thank you for relentlessly replying to questions!
Again, good luck with the tests!
Kind regards, Gerard
Dear Steven N. Karels,
Perhaps it is likely that closing the loop to run the QuarkX from it’s own output is possible and even trivial to perform, but creates other issues that you may not perceive. Have you considered the reputation of individuals who have claimed to invent perpetual motion devices in your persistent inquiries?
Of what merit do you value safety certification compared to the obvious answers to your inquiries?
Andrea says the device cannot be self powered because of safety issues. That should be the end of it, don’t you agree? I agree with Andrea. The device cannot be self powered because of safety issues. Do you have a patent for a perpetual motion machine, Steven?
Tom
Steven N. Karels:
The issue remains consistent.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Also today appears to be a good day.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I asked in a previous posting if your “safety concerns” were related to a “feedback” issues. I had previously assumed that your concerns of using the output of power or heat generated from an ecat to control or assist the operation of the same ecat unit was related to a “feedback” condition, where a thermal runaway condition might exist or might be a potential problem. I may have misunderstood your concerns or position. Please clarify. If there are no current “safety concerns” with the current Ecat generation regarding output power being used as an input to the same Ecat, please state so.
Steven N. Karels:
a- no
b- this is a completely different issue, because the grid is redundant respect intrinsecal safety issues of our apparatus
c- no
d- I do not understand what you mean
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
Absolutely yes.
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I suppose that for your first production of industrial QuarkX heating systems you will supply the complete plant like the 1 MW plant that included heat exchangers. One of the biggest companies for heat exchangers is the swedish company Alfa Laval with over 18000 employees. http://www.alfalaval.com/ Maybe they have some products that could be useful for you.
Best Regards,
Karl-Henrik, Sweden
Dear Andrea Rossi,
a. I know in the past you have eluded to “safety considerations” in using the output of an ecat reactor to drive itself or other ecat reactors… Has your position changed or been modified given the increased knowledge you have obtained on the newest generation of ecats?
b. If a hypothetical ecat-based system were generating electricity to feed the national grid, and that grid was the source of power for the input energy for the ecat reactor, does this configuration in itself represent a safety issue? One could argue that because of the massive capacity of the national electrical grid, that an output variation of an ecat-based generator would have little effect on the national electrical grid and therefore the national electrical grid would be a suitable stable source for the control of such an ecat-based system.
c. The next hypothetical would be the same configuration except some of the ecat-based electrical output power is sent to a local battery unit with sufficient energy storage capacity to isolate the ecat input from the ecat output. Does this represent your safety concern?
d. Please clarify if your safety concerns are of a feed-back type of problem.
Gerard McEk:
No.
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
No, I did not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, have you ever tried to feed an E-Cat with heat or electricity provided by another E-Cat? And with the thermal or electrical output of this one feeding the first?
So realizing a closed loop with very very high COP.
But I know you’ve said many times that there are safety problems. Only to know if you have made that kind of test some times.
Best Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea,
Will/can a cluster of QuarkX’s as a whole have a higher COP than individual ones?
Thank you for answering our questions and success in the last phases of the tests!
Kind regards, Gerard
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Good standing also today,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
second day of 2017, second issue of EGO OUT:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-02-2017-organizing-editnmh-and-lenr.html
And I want to continue! As much as i can, things will be very interesting this year.
Faithfully yours,
Peter
Calvin:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
For a demo of the QuarkX we’ll get ready before its commercialization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rick 57:
F8.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
reading carefully your dialogue with Galileo, it seems to me you are announcing a COP greater than 10 !
Am I right ?
Best Wishes for a really hot 2017 !!!
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Thank you for the profound comment with the dialogue between Andrea and Galileo: impressive hypertext.
Update?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
E-catworld.com reports China are experimenting with an EM Drive – a reactionless rocket propulsion system. Looking into the not too distant future, if a self-sustaining ecat reactor could produce electricity to run an EM Drive, this could be the propulsion system for interplanetary cargo ships (much too slow for limited lifetime humans). At least until Faster The Light drives are developed, if ever.
Nibbius:
Really ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea.
In the dialogue with Galileo you have starred as Simplicio but not in the implicit meaning.
Nibbius