Steven N. Karels:
It is very difficult to answer, without specific experience. Theoretically the answers would be both “yes”, but I won’t guess.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I would contend that once the effective COP becomes very large, it makes sense to use the system’s output to drive the eCat’s energy input, with suitable buffering. Andrea and I have had previous discussions when the projected COP was 6 about it is more economical to use a different energy source, such as natural gas, rather than use an expensive energy such as that from an eCat reactor. There were also discussions about suitable buffering to avoid instability problems from the output being used for the input to the same reactor.
As COP goes up, beyond some specific value, it makes more sense to use the power plant’s output or waste energy to power the input. Suitable buffering would be needed (think of batteries or similar energy storage) to handle output-to-input oscillations and instability problems. So, conceptually, it is possible that a huge number of small eCat reactors might power a large electricity production plant. 1GW units are in existence (e.g., China). I am asking Andrea if there are less obvious limitations that are not apparent to me regarding this application.
I thought I’ve read somewhere that the present QuarkX comes in units of 20 Watt each, so you will need 125 million such QuarkX reactors tot get 2.5 GigaWatt thermal energy output giving via a Carnot cycle 1GigaWatt = 1000MegaWatt electrical output, replacing an ordinary big nuclear power plant. But of course, we hope the effective COP of the advanced QuarkX even will be higher than 100 (which, of course, already is very, very, very good…).
In my previous post, question 4 dealt with a 1GW electricity production plant running a thermal Carnot cycle. Given a total efficiency of 40%, about 2.5GW of thermal power would be needed to heat the working fluid to power the electricity generation. So, for example, if the eCat individual reactor nominally generated 100W of thermal power, you would need to parallel couple about 25 million such eCat reactors to generate the required amount of thermal power for such an electricity production plant.
1. Is this conceptually possible, control wise or any other limitations?
2. If the effective COP was 100, you would need 25MW of input power to control the eCat reactors or about 2.5% of the electricity plant generation. Does this seem correct?
Dear Andrea,
The so called ventriloquist of Raleigh now is making his puppets say that the window you indicated to be the exhaust of hot air was closed and therefore it could not work: a colossal stupidity, since in your deposition and in the deposition of prof Wong has been clearly said that:
A- the window and its glasses were removable
B- you used to change the output configuration depending on the necessities of the excess heat
Note: they did not present a series of many photos like that, made in different dates,but just one, meaning they did not find the window closed in other moments: which meaning can have the fact that the window was closed for several moments, out of billions of moments? None!
By the way: in that photo it appears that the window had 4 glasses, and while the two right glasses ( from the observer) were on, the two left glasses were missing.
Your say?
Cheers
Prof
I have been away from your forum for a very long time, but as I was, back again, involved in a discussion about future energy production possibilities, I can not else than refer to LENR and your very important work, that is so needed in the world today. So I wish you a very good health, and a lot of strength to go through the litigation, that unfortunately is taking a lot of your time, and, of course, a successful breakthrough to sigma 5 with your Quark X!
The world really needs your invention, and therefore I wish you all success and the strength of a Lion to fight for it.
Steven N. Karels:
1- The QuarkX allows more combinations
2- yes
3- it is not a problem to parallel the boards to a number theoretically unlimitless
4- to do what?
5- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
At one point, you were considering a family of eCat reactor sizes, namely 1kW, 10kW and 100kW thermal output per reactor, as I recall. Most likely, the eCat reactors could be run in parallel to produce a combined power of any multiple of the nominal output per reactor. For example, 100 10kW eCat reactors producing a total of 1MW of thermal output power.
With the QuarkX technology, have you changed your approach regarding a family of reactor output sizes?
1. Do you see a still foresee a family of output sized eCat reactors, e.g., 100W, 1kW, 100kW?
2. Is it more advantageous to stay with a relatively small thermal output and couple them in parallel as compared to a single larger eCat reactor?
3. At what point in parallel operation does control become too complicated, e.g., 255 units?
4. To support a 1GW electricity generation plant, you would need about 2.5GW of eCat reactor thermal output, Do see parallel operation at this output level feasible?
5. Are smaller thermal output eCat reactors, when used in parallel, easier to control than a single larger thermal output eCat reactor?
Vilma Elxolvy:
We are making a strong work and we are satisfied of the results so far, but I will give precise information only at the presentation of our product.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
In the photo in which you are training your Team in front of the blackboard it is indicated something with a COP over 1700: do you think the QuarkX will be in that range?
DT:
in the report of the “superexpert” of IH, better known as Mr Smith, there is another pearl: before, in other reports of him and the other “superexpert Murray, they said the flowmeter was fake, that the amount of water was minimal, etc etc…now, with a dramatic “u” turn, Mr Smith writes that he has discovered that there was a water pump able to pump the amount od water to reach 1 MW. But, at the same time, he says that in this case the circuit is very restricted and limited to several tens of feet, and makes a sketch of how the circuit “should be”: but if it was true, and if in the plant of JM there was not work going on, which is the base of IH conjectures, alors the steam could never condensate, because there was not room for that and this fact is in contradiction with the other assumption of both these “superexperts”, which is that there was not steam but only hot water: this is impossible, because , as low as the power might be, recirculating the water acrodd so few meters of pipes without heat exchange, the water unavoidably sooner or later becomes steam. I agree with you: either the two “superexperts” of IH are completely inexpert of the matter, or they pretend to be stupid to try to manipulate the non expert audience. In conclusion: either Mr Murray and Mr Smith made voluntarily fraudolent reports, or they are basically ignorant of the matter.
All the best,
Prof
Steven:
Gravity and mass are not directly related. An object that has mass conserves its mass also in absence of gravity, while particles that have not mass, like photons, feel the pull of gravity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
How is it possible that an expert boiler engineer like Smith, the expert of IH, does not know that the flow rate of a fluid pump is an integral in function of the pressure? Is he so stupid or predends to be stupid to try to fool the audience?
All the best,
Julianne
Dr. Rossi, I want to join with all your other Readers.
However I KNOW you are going to have a full recovery.
Because God Himself knows, of the 7 billion people He put on this Earth, you are one of a kind !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea,
Are you still studying together with Catl-Oscar Gullstrom upon the theoretical bases of your effect, after the Gullstrom-Rossi paper?
Cheers,
Alycia
Mr Rossi:
My opinion is that the Quarkx does not exist, the Ecat does not exist, the intellectual property of Leonardo Corporation does not exist. Thank you for spamming this comment.
Dear Rossi,
this international team of researchers develops a thermoelectric device with graphene reduces phonons and by about 95% the thermal conductance so increasing the efficiency.
H-G Branzell:
The paper Gullstrom-Rossi speaks for itself and I want not to comment further the cited experiment. We will give further information related to the QuarkX only when it will be introduced and its experimental phase will have been completed. So far any further information is considered for us confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Let me be the first to wish you a successful return to your factory to make the QuarkX a reality and wish all the Readers Happy Easter !
Sven
Update?
What will you do during these Easter Holidays?
Happy Easter,
Jean Paul Renoir
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
For today I composed this edition of my Blog:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-13-2017-lenr-from-character.html
Cheers
peter
Daniel De Caluwe’:
Thank you very much for your sustain;
I am doing my best at the max of my possibilities.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
It is very difficult to answer, without specific experience. Theoretically the answers would be both “yes”, but I won’t guess.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Daniel De Caluwé,
I would contend that once the effective COP becomes very large, it makes sense to use the system’s output to drive the eCat’s energy input, with suitable buffering. Andrea and I have had previous discussions when the projected COP was 6 about it is more economical to use a different energy source, such as natural gas, rather than use an expensive energy such as that from an eCat reactor. There were also discussions about suitable buffering to avoid instability problems from the output being used for the input to the same reactor.
As COP goes up, beyond some specific value, it makes more sense to use the power plant’s output or waste energy to power the input. Suitable buffering would be needed (think of batteries or similar energy storage) to handle output-to-input oscillations and instability problems. So, conceptually, it is possible that a huge number of small eCat reactors might power a large electricity production plant. 1GW units are in existence (e.g., China). I am asking Andrea if there are less obvious limitations that are not apparent to me regarding this application.
Prof:
I cannot comment issues that have to be discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Steven N. Karels,
I thought I’ve read somewhere that the present QuarkX comes in units of 20 Watt each, so you will need 125 million such QuarkX reactors tot get 2.5 GigaWatt thermal energy output giving via a Carnot cycle 1GigaWatt = 1000MegaWatt electrical output, replacing an ordinary big nuclear power plant. But of course, we hope the effective COP of the advanced QuarkX even will be higher than 100 (which, of course, already is very, very, very good…).
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In my previous post, question 4 dealt with a 1GW electricity production plant running a thermal Carnot cycle. Given a total efficiency of 40%, about 2.5GW of thermal power would be needed to heat the working fluid to power the electricity generation. So, for example, if the eCat individual reactor nominally generated 100W of thermal power, you would need to parallel couple about 25 million such eCat reactors to generate the required amount of thermal power for such an electricity production plant.
1. Is this conceptually possible, control wise or any other limitations?
2. If the effective COP was 100, you would need 25MW of input power to control the eCat reactors or about 2.5% of the electricity plant generation. Does this seem correct?
Dear Andrea,
The so called ventriloquist of Raleigh now is making his puppets say that the window you indicated to be the exhaust of hot air was closed and therefore it could not work: a colossal stupidity, since in your deposition and in the deposition of prof Wong has been clearly said that:
A- the window and its glasses were removable
B- you used to change the output configuration depending on the necessities of the excess heat
Note: they did not present a series of many photos like that, made in different dates,but just one, meaning they did not find the window closed in other moments: which meaning can have the fact that the window was closed for several moments, out of billions of moments? None!
By the way: in that photo it appears that the window had 4 glasses, and while the two right glasses ( from the observer) were on, the two left glasses were missing.
Your say?
Cheers
Prof
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I have been away from your forum for a very long time, but as I was, back again, involved in a discussion about future energy production possibilities, I can not else than refer to LENR and your very important work, that is so needed in the world today. So I wish you a very good health, and a lot of strength to go through the litigation, that unfortunately is taking a lot of your time, and, of course, a successful breakthrough to sigma 5 with your Quark X!
The world really needs your invention, and therefore I wish you all success and the strength of a Lion to fight for it.
Kind Regards,
Daniel.
JPR:
Today will be totally dedicated from me in the factory to the QuarkX: she is going very well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
1- The QuarkX allows more combinations
2- yes
3- it is not a problem to parallel the boards to a number theoretically unlimitless
4- to do what?
5- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
At one point, you were considering a family of eCat reactor sizes, namely 1kW, 10kW and 100kW thermal output per reactor, as I recall. Most likely, the eCat reactors could be run in parallel to produce a combined power of any multiple of the nominal output per reactor. For example, 100 10kW eCat reactors producing a total of 1MW of thermal output power.
With the QuarkX technology, have you changed your approach regarding a family of reactor output sizes?
1. Do you see a still foresee a family of output sized eCat reactors, e.g., 100W, 1kW, 100kW?
2. Is it more advantageous to stay with a relatively small thermal output and couple them in parallel as compared to a single larger eCat reactor?
3. At what point in parallel operation does control become too complicated, e.g., 255 units?
4. To support a 1GW electricity generation plant, you would need about 2.5GW of eCat reactor thermal output, Do see parallel operation at this output level feasible?
5. Are smaller thermal output eCat reactors, when used in parallel, easier to control than a single larger thermal output eCat reactor?
Update?
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Vilma Elxolvy:
We are making a strong work and we are satisfied of the results so far, but I will give precise information only at the presentation of our product.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
In the photo in which you are training your Team in front of the blackboard it is indicated something with a COP over 1700: do you think the QuarkX will be in that range?
Dear Andrea,
Sending now the EGO OUT posting for today:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-12-2017-lenr-info.html
Cheers
peter
DT:
in the report of the “superexpert” of IH, better known as Mr Smith, there is another pearl: before, in other reports of him and the other “superexpert Murray, they said the flowmeter was fake, that the amount of water was minimal, etc etc…now, with a dramatic “u” turn, Mr Smith writes that he has discovered that there was a water pump able to pump the amount od water to reach 1 MW. But, at the same time, he says that in this case the circuit is very restricted and limited to several tens of feet, and makes a sketch of how the circuit “should be”: but if it was true, and if in the plant of JM there was not work going on, which is the base of IH conjectures, alors the steam could never condensate, because there was not room for that and this fact is in contradiction with the other assumption of both these “superexperts”, which is that there was not steam but only hot water: this is impossible, because , as low as the power might be, recirculating the water acrodd so few meters of pipes without heat exchange, the water unavoidably sooner or later becomes steam. I agree with you: either the two “superexperts” of IH are completely inexpert of the matter, or they pretend to be stupid to try to manipulate the non expert audience. In conclusion: either Mr Murray and Mr Smith made voluntarily fraudolent reports, or they are basically ignorant of the matter.
All the best,
Prof
JPR:
Thanks to God, we are here in the factory and the QuarkX is continuing his trip to Sigma %.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The blog issue for now is here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-11-2017-lenr-not-easy-life-for.html
Best regards
peter
Robert Curto:
As everybody is. Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Also today we are on our way toward Sigma 5.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven:
Gravity and mass are not directly related. An object that has mass conserves its mass also in absence of gravity, while particles that have not mass, like photons, feel the pull of gravity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Julianne:
I cannot comment issues that can be discussed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
How is it possible that an expert boiler engineer like Smith, the expert of IH, does not know that the flow rate of a fluid pump is an integral in function of the pressure? Is he so stupid or predends to be stupid to try to fool the audience?
All the best,
Julianne
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you explain how are related gravity and mass?
Thank you,
Steven
Update?
Dr. Rossi, I want to join with all your other Readers.
However I KNOW you are going to have a full recovery.
Because God Himself knows, of the 7 billion people He put on this Earth, you are one of a kind !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
ihfanboy:
Thank you for your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alycia Lema:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Our modest contribution for the new week start is here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-10-2017-lenr-litigation-not.html
Best wishes,
Peter
@DT:
Great comment, thank you,
Brian
Dear Andrea,
Are you still studying together with Catl-Oscar Gullstrom upon the theoretical bases of your effect, after the Gullstrom-Rossi paper?
Cheers,
Alycia
Mr Rossi:
My opinion is that the Quarkx does not exist, the Ecat does not exist, the intellectual property of Leonardo Corporation does not exist. Thank you for spamming this comment.
M.Sc. Enrico Billi:
Thank you for the information.
Lavolale, lavolale!
A.R.
Dear Rossi,
this international team of researchers develops a thermoelectric device with graphene reduces phonons and by about 95% the thermal conductance so increasing the efficiency.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b02005
Hope can be usefull for your “nucleon” reactor, lavoLale lavoLale.
Enrico Billi
H-G Branzell:
The paper Gullstrom-Rossi speaks for itself and I want not to comment further the cited experiment. We will give further information related to the QuarkX only when it will be introduced and its experimental phase will have been completed. So far any further information is considered for us confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Very interesting battle. Very interesting indeed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sven:
Thank you for your kind wishes and I too wish a Happy Easter to you and all our Readers!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Vernell:
I will have an idea when I will receive a complete report about it. So far I do not have enough information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
What do you think of the attempt of replication of your effect on course with the experiment “New Fire” made by MFMP in India?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Let me be the first to wish you a successful return to your factory to make the QuarkX a reality and wish all the Readers Happy Easter !
Sven
Hello dr. Rossi:
I am sending an interesting article.
Battle between quantum and thermodynamic laws heats up
Physicists try to rebuild the laws of heat and energy for processes at a quantum scale.
Davide Castelvecchi
http://www.nature.com/news/battle-between-quantum-and-thermodynamic-laws-heats-up-1.21720
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You did not want to comment on a picture taken during a session under NDA at Lenoardo Corporation. I can appreciate that.
Let us instead look at the publicly available document: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf
Ina this report similar calculations are described, quote:
“Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance.”
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.