Dr Andrea Rossi:
Looking at the paper Gullstrom Rossi I understand you measured the wattage across the 1 Ohm resistance to determine the wattage in the circuit, based on the rule of the circuit with two resistances of which one has a known value in Ohm, the other has not. I learned this at the school of electrotecnics: when a circuit is made by a power source and 2 reasistances, to know how much is the energy in the circuit you can measure the voltage across a resistance with well known ohms and get the amps from the ohm’s equation. Multiplying V x A you know the amount of energy in the circuit, less the dissipation caused by the resistance.
Am I correct?
Mario
WaltC:
Very interesting. When the temperature in a field reaches a temperature equal to the mass of an elementary particle, waves corresponding to that particle in the field are formed. The cross section of an interaction is very small, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
There’s an interesting article in Scientific American that talks about the (much simpler) detection of Low Energy Neutrinos. This leads me to the question– do you think that LENR produces Low Energy Neutrinos?
Title: “Ever-Elusive Neutrinos Spotted Bouncing Off Nuclei for the First Time”.
Colin Watters:
Sorry, I never comment these kind of issues, but I want to congratulate MFMP for their enthusiasm and serious engagement in their experiments.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jaroslaw Bem:
The COP is given from the ratio between the energy produced by the E-Cat and the energy consumed by the E-Cat, independently from the energy consumed by the control system.
The control system consume is made by the heat in which the flowing electricity is dissipated, that obviously cannot be accounted for the COP of the reactor.
The thermal energy in which the electricity of the control system is converted can be recovered itself, with a COP close to 1, if opportune, because the heated air can be sent in a preheater of the water before it goes to the reactor. It is just standard air/water heat exchange and it can recover practically all the energy dissipated by the control system. This, obviously, does not change the COP of the reactor.
To reach a COP>1 adding the energy consumed by the control system is enough 1 E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You have got my great respect for your achievements.
I have an practical question.
Assumption: The whole apparatus E-cat QX consist of: array of E-cat QX, heat exchanger, control system, cooling system, converter AC/DC, cables and the pumps.
Each of these components consumes energy.
Assumption: For the user of E-cat QX apparatus, Energy emitted from the other components than heat exchanger, is not usable. Usable Energy is only Thermal Energy from the outlet of the heat exchanger, and the E-Cat QX works at max power = 20 W each cell.
COP = Usable Thermal Energy Produced, to the Energy Consumed by the whole E-cat QX apparatus.
Question:
How many E-cat QX cells in the array is needed to make COP of the whole apparatus bigger than 1?
I know, it depends on the efficiency of the heat exchanger, but for example, how many E-cat QX cells in the array is needed to make COP of the whole apparatus bigger than 1 in your demonstration set?
New result of anomalous heat production in hydrogen-loaded metals at high temperature
Ni-H Research Group
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
Written by Songsheng Jiang E-mail: jiang@ihep.ac.cn
Summary:
The anomalous heat production in the Ni+LiAlH
4
fuels has been observed repeatedly. The heat production can be controlled by input power and can last for a long time. The T2 temperature placed on the outer surface of the fuel cell is about 405
0
C greater than the T1 temperature, T1 is placed on the outer surface of the reaction chamber and near the heater. An estimate power of excess heat is about 600 W. The ratio of excess heat of 600 W to input power of 780 W is 0.77. Considering
self-sustaining effect, the input power might be significantly decreased if a chopper supply can be used to keep excess heat production. How to calculate the ratio of total produced heat energy to electrical input energy remains a question in present work. The consumption of nickel container and Ni + LiAl4
powders is checked to be less than 1 g after experiment. The calculated energy density is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the value of gasoline.
Therefore, the origin of excess heat cannot be explained by any chemical energy. The isotope abundances of nickel and lithium in the fuels after experiment will be analyzed by mass spectrometry technique. A further experiment will be carried out.
From the Rossi-Gullstrom paper, it seems than an ECat QX requires about 0.1V and 0.1A to work.
I know that a series is not the best in terms of dependability, but a series of, say, N elements, instead of a parallel, cut by N the current and let you lose less in the DC/DC converter: if you use a 24V DC as you stated, you can have maximum efficiency with a series of about 200 elements.
A series let you use smaller cables, because the current is always 0.1A.
To compensate the inferior dependability, one can think of more spare “stripes” of Ecats…
What do you think? Could you tell us the series and/or parallel connecting scheme of the ecats?
Dear Andrea,
I’ve often thought that in leading-edge science, good experiments provide insights that lead to better theories and good theories provide insights that lead to better experiments. It’s clear that your experimental results have shaped your past and present theoretical work. Is the reverse also true?–
1) Have your theories shaped your experiments in directions that you might not have otherwise discovered?
2) And if so, do you think that those new experimental directions yielded new and even more positive outcomes?
Genesis:
What a nightmare !
But we can turn it into a good auspice: just interpret the little girl as the will to cut the energy bill. She’s little because very young, as the E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards
A.R.
This paper summarizes some of successful experiments by which excess heats were produced in nickel-hydrogen systems. The experiments were carried out at different laboratories by using different experimental devices and techniques in Italy, USA, Russian and China. In the most of the experiments the fuel was mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride. Hydrogen is formed after decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride. The COP factors (ratio of sum of excess heat and input power to input power) are 1.2-2.7 normally, however，COP factors were estimated to be about 3.2-3.6 in the E-Cat test in 2014. The temperature in the reactors was about 1100-1400 0C.
Your kind reply yesterday assures me that your prospective clients have very likely already requested something similar to your agenda, and we all hope that you will soon find the solutions needed to launch product.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I understand that during the test of the 1 MW plant you understood tremendously important things that brought to the Ecat QX and ow you want not to lose time with the past because you made a breakthrough.
Is that correct?
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi, I had visions of you in my dreams, results are positive, with regards to COP, A new sophisticated product is in the making, You look tired and exhausted in my dreams, You might need some rest. Be wary of detractors during presentation, a little girl tried to cut a wire of some sort since she had scissor on her hands. the little girl was with you on workplace.
You had manage to overcome all obstacle. (Y)
Bernie Koppenhofer:
1- the analysis is on course
2- yes
3- it depends on the results
4- most likely yes
5- it depends on the results
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1 – What was the motivations for the choice of a size of 20W that looks quite small ? Was the stability and/or reliability of the reactor a main concern in the decision ?
2 – Yesterday I had a dinner with a friend that works for a very big industry near Modena, where having a lot of heat (at 1200°C) is the main cost of their huge production. I’ve told him about the QX and its performance. He was obviously skeptical but because he trusts in me started to be very interested. The only trouble he raised was about the timing. When would he receive his big heat generators if he order it tomorrow ? The answer is of top importance. Can you give a conservative estimate ?
Dr. Rossi: You said you were going to investigate the charges from the year long test. Can you share anything with us:
1) Were there important isotope changes?
2) Will the investigation help research the QX?
3) Will you change the charges in QX as a result of investigation?
4) Did you find out why the 20 kW reactors did not work?
5) Will the investigation help to improve the 250kW reactors?
Brokeeper:
Without any doubt the E-Cat QX is a sensitive approach, even if the situarion is changed, because at that time I thought to make light directly with the E-Cat QX, while eventually we learnt that it is more simple to produce heat and then electricity with the Carnot cycle, for many reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Michel:
There is a big difference that makes the old E-Cat obsolete respect the QX. The QX is the result of years of experiments and of the 1 year test with the 1 MW plant, an enormous amount of information that has generated a strong improvement.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The old E-cat gives 10Kw thermal power, based on a reliable single cell reactor.
The new Quark requires a thousand cores (assuming 10W each) to get the same output power:
apart from an obvious problem of reliability when assembling so many elements to make them work properly together, i dont see the advantage of the new E-cat compare to the old one ? I hope there will be a data comparison between the two versions during the presentation.
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your suggestion, but our demo will be made with a small module.
We are still in an R&D phase and we are not going to show an industrial E-Cat QX plant, yet. We are not ready for it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have learned in my lifetime that what is possible is mostly limited by what I can imagine.
## Please at least consider trying to put 50 or 100 units on a single platform in order to demonstrate INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL, in order that you do not tempt your attendees to diminish your efforts based on your demonstration concepts.
Your industrial license requires that the MINIMUM QuarkX configuration produce 10kW. This would currently require 500 QuarkX units to be assembled into a single device of some sort. Allow me to envision the use of {5(100 QuarkX units @20 watts)} per 10kW module as the basic design concept for your first Industrial QuarkX device.
Obviously, 100 of these would produce a 1MW device.
I present this to you in the hopes that you would understand (that in my opinion) an industrialist would require this construction logic at a minimum to be able to envision putting $5M or $10M or more into a project to manufacture the QuarkX technology.
I fear that the presentation of a 200-400w device would discourage anything more than the funding of additional research grants, as it would not appear to be industrial at less than 10kW.
All of the above is a preamble to my request of you today.
## Please at least try to put 50 or 100 units on a single platform in order to demonstrate INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL, do not tempt your attendees to diminish your efforts.
I apologize in advance, as I understand I have no business providing this council to a man who is obviously quantum leaps ahead of me in science and technology pursuits. I present this from a “strictly business” perspective and that I do indeed have experience in overcoming more than once in my career of software systems and design for nationwide deployment.
I think it is not improper to mention that a basic building block of 100 QuarkX components into a single device would make an even more ideal concept, and provide for the fundamentals required for both industrial and home use.
Thus configured, an industrial unit would be a single unit (QuarkX-10kW), and 100 of these would build a 1MW unit. !!
I have designed functional systems that extend across the entire United States and endured for 5-10 years or more in my past experience, using this type of logic. The extension of my logic appears to require a bare bones QuarkX model rated at 10kW to be presented to any serious investors that might consider funding the “Eve of Industrialization” for the QuarkX.
JPR:
Great test day,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
This is a particular we did not make a decision yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
The publication in the internet of the demo of October 27th will be in direct broadcasting, or will it be delayed?
Cheers
Update?
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Looking at the paper Gullstrom Rossi I understand you measured the wattage across the 1 Ohm resistance to determine the wattage in the circuit, based on the rule of the circuit with two resistances of which one has a known value in Ohm, the other has not. I learned this at the school of electrotecnics: when a circuit is made by a power source and 2 reasistances, to know how much is the energy in the circuit you can measure the voltage across a resistance with well known ohms and get the amps from the ohm’s equation. Multiplying V x A you know the amount of energy in the circuit, less the dissipation caused by the resistance.
Am I correct?
Mario
WaltC:
Very interesting. When the temperature in a field reaches a temperature equal to the mass of an elementary particle, waves corresponding to that particle in the field are formed. The cross section of an interaction is very small, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
There’s an interesting article in Scientific American that talks about the (much simpler) detection of Low Energy Neutrinos. This leads me to the question– do you think that LENR produces Low Energy Neutrinos?
Title: “Ever-Elusive Neutrinos Spotted Bouncing Off Nuclei for the First Time”.
Link:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ever-elusive-neutrinos-spotted-bouncing-off-nuclei-for-the-first-time/
Thanks, WaltC
Dear Andrea,
From your answer to Jaroslaw Bem it would seem that the control system you are using for the E-Cat QX consumes less than 20W. Am I correct?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I agree in full with your answer to Jaroslaw Bem.
Godspeed,
Edward
Colin Watters:
Sorry, I never comment these kind of issues, but I want to congratulate MFMP for their enthusiasm and serious engagement in their experiments.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jaroslaw Bem:
The COP is given from the ratio between the energy produced by the E-Cat and the energy consumed by the E-Cat, independently from the energy consumed by the control system.
The control system consume is made by the heat in which the flowing electricity is dissipated, that obviously cannot be accounted for the COP of the reactor.
The thermal energy in which the electricity of the control system is converted can be recovered itself, with a COP close to 1, if opportune, because the heated air can be sent in a preheater of the water before it goes to the reactor. It is just standard air/water heat exchange and it can recover practically all the energy dissipated by the control system. This, obviously, does not change the COP of the reactor.
To reach a COP>1 adding the energy consumed by the control system is enough 1 E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
On our way toward Sigma 5.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
You have got my great respect for your achievements.
I have an practical question.
Assumption: The whole apparatus E-cat QX consist of: array of E-cat QX, heat exchanger, control system, cooling system, converter AC/DC, cables and the pumps.
Each of these components consumes energy.
Assumption: For the user of E-cat QX apparatus, Energy emitted from the other components than heat exchanger, is not usable. Usable Energy is only Thermal Energy from the outlet of the heat exchanger, and the E-Cat QX works at max power = 20 W each cell.
COP = Usable Thermal Energy Produced, to the Energy Consumed by the whole E-cat QX apparatus.
Question:
How many E-cat QX cells in the array is needed to make COP of the whole apparatus bigger than 1?
I know, it depends on the efficiency of the heat exchanger, but for example, how many E-cat QX cells in the array is needed to make COP of the whole apparatus bigger than 1 in your demonstration set?
Best regards,
Jaroslaw Bem
Dear Mr Rossi,
Lot of people will be interested in your comments on this presentation/warning regarding the effect of Titanium in a LENR cell…
https://e-catworld.com/2017/08/03/mfmp-claims-proof-of-lenr-live-video-now/
Play safe.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the link!
Warm Regards
A.R.
New result of anomalous heat production in hydrogen-loaded metals at high temperature
Ni-H Research Group
China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China
Written by Songsheng Jiang E-mail: jiang@ihep.ac.cn
Summary:
The anomalous heat production in the Ni+LiAlH
4
fuels has been observed repeatedly. The heat production can be controlled by input power and can last for a long time. The T2 temperature placed on the outer surface of the fuel cell is about 405
0
C greater than the T1 temperature, T1 is placed on the outer surface of the reaction chamber and near the heater. An estimate power of excess heat is about 600 W. The ratio of excess heat of 600 W to input power of 780 W is 0.77. Considering
self-sustaining effect, the input power might be significantly decreased if a chopper supply can be used to keep excess heat production. How to calculate the ratio of total produced heat energy to electrical input energy remains a question in present work. The consumption of nickel container and Ni + LiAl4
powders is checked to be less than 1 g after experiment. The calculated energy density is 4 orders of magnitude greater than the value of gasoline.
Therefore, the origin of excess heat cannot be explained by any chemical energy. The isotope abundances of nickel and lithium in the fuels after experiment will be analyzed by mass spectrometry technique. A further experiment will be carried out.
https://www.scribd.com/document/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded-Metals-at-High-Temperature?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&ad_group=725X1424181X32c1507e38e3ac1f3a2ef1d48f24fe85&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate
Dear Readers:
to send an email to me, please DO NOT use the email address
eon333@libero.it
because I abandoned it.
Please USE THESE:
info@leonardocorp1996.com
or
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Santilli:
Veru interesting, thank you. Great replication!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
Sorry, I prefer not to answer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Marco:
To be experimented.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
On our way toward Sigma 5.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Another serious confirmation from China Institute of Atomic Energy:
https://www.scribd.com/document/267085905/New-Result-on-Anomalous-Heat-Production-in-Hydrogen-loaded-Metals-at-High-Temperature
Dear Andrea,
From the Rossi-Gullstrom paper, it seems than an ECat QX requires about 0.1V and 0.1A to work.
I know that a series is not the best in terms of dependability, but a series of, say, N elements, instead of a parallel, cut by N the current and let you lose less in the DC/DC converter: if you use a 24V DC as you stated, you can have maximum efficiency with a series of about 200 elements.
A series let you use smaller cables, because the current is always 0.1A.
To compensate the inferior dependability, one can think of more spare “stripes” of Ecats…
What do you think? Could you tell us the series and/or parallel connecting scheme of the ecats?
Regards,
Marco.
Dear Andrea,
How long does it take you these days to make a single E-Cat QX reactor?
Thank you,
Frank Acland
WaltC:
1- yes, but also the vice versa is true
2- yes, as well as new experiments did
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I’ve often thought that in leading-edge science, good experiments provide insights that lead to better theories and good theories provide insights that lead to better experiments. It’s clear that your experimental results have shaped your past and present theoretical work. Is the reverse also true?–
1) Have your theories shaped your experiments in directions that you might not have otherwise discovered?
2) And if so, do you think that those new experimental directions yielded new and even more positive outcomes?
Thanks, WaltC
Genesis:
What a nightmare !
But we can turn it into a good auspice: just interpret the little girl as the will to cut the energy bill. She’s little because very young, as the E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Scott:
Yes.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Tom Conover:
Exactly.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Ing Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
This paper summarizes some of successful experiments by which excess heats were produced in nickel-hydrogen systems. The experiments were carried out at different laboratories by using different experimental devices and techniques in Italy, USA, Russian and China. In the most of the experiments the fuel was mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride. Hydrogen is formed after decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride. The COP factors (ratio of sum of excess heat and input power to input power) are 1.2-2.7 normally, however，COP factors were estimated to be about 3.2-3.6 in the E-Cat test in 2014. The temperature in the reactors was about 1100-1400 0C.
http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Ni-H-fusion-reaction.pdf
Dear Andrea,
Your kind reply yesterday assures me that your prospective clients have very likely already requested something similar to your agenda, and we all hope that you will soon find the solutions needed to launch product.
Please excuse my rant yesterday, and let the good times roll …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCmkZFMSuFQ
Thank you!
Tom
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I understand that during the test of the 1 MW plant you understood tremendously important things that brought to the Ecat QX and ow you want not to lose time with the past because you made a breakthrough.
Is that correct?
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi, I had visions of you in my dreams, results are positive, with regards to COP, A new sophisticated product is in the making, You look tired and exhausted in my dreams, You might need some rest. Be wary of detractors during presentation, a little girl tried to cut a wire of some sort since she had scissor on her hands. the little girl was with you on workplace.
You had manage to overcome all obstacle. (Y)
Bernie Koppenhofer:
1- the analysis is on course
2- yes
3- it depends on the results
4- most likely yes
5- it depends on the results
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Still in very good standing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Toussaint Francois:
There needs to be more R&D.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Marco Serra:
1- no
2- not yet
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have two questions if I can:
1 – What was the motivations for the choice of a size of 20W that looks quite small ? Was the stability and/or reliability of the reactor a main concern in the decision ?
2 – Yesterday I had a dinner with a friend that works for a very big industry near Modena, where having a lot of heat (at 1200°C) is the main cost of their huge production. I’ve told him about the QX and its performance. He was obviously skeptical but because he trusts in me started to be very interested. The only trouble he raised was about the timing. When would he receive his big heat generators if he order it tomorrow ? The answer is of top importance. Can you give a conservative estimate ?
God bless you
Marco Serra
Dear Andrea Rossi
One question please, Does the assembly system of modules of the E-CAT QX is ready to be mass produced, or there need to be more development ?
Warm regards
Toussaint françois
Update?
Dr. Rossi: You said you were going to investigate the charges from the year long test. Can you share anything with us:
1) Were there important isotope changes?
2) Will the investigation help research the QX?
3) Will you change the charges in QX as a result of investigation?
4) Did you find out why the 20 kW reactors did not work?
5) Will the investigation help to improve the 250kW reactors?
Brokeeper:
Without any doubt the E-Cat QX is a sensitive approach, even if the situarion is changed, because at that time I thought to make light directly with the E-Cat QX, while eventually we learnt that it is more simple to produce heat and then electricity with the Carnot cycle, for many reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Michel:
There is a big difference that makes the old E-Cat obsolete respect the QX. The QX is the result of years of experiments and of the 1 year test with the 1 MW plant, an enormous amount of information that has generated a strong improvement.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
The old E-cat gives 10Kw thermal power, based on a reliable single cell reactor.
The new Quark requires a thousand cores (assuming 10W each) to get the same output power:
apart from an obvious problem of reliability when assembling so many elements to make them work properly together, i dont see the advantage of the new E-cat compare to the old one ? I hope there will be a data comparison between the two versions during the presentation.
Michel
Dear Andrea,
Have you made any progress on your inspired chosen model “Dream Town” conceived on New Year’s Eve 2016?
Warm Regards,
Brokeeper
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your suggestion, but our demo will be made with a small module.
We are still in an R&D phase and we are not going to show an industrial E-Cat QX plant, yet. We are not ready for it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have learned in my lifetime that what is possible is mostly limited by what I can imagine.
## Please at least consider trying to put 50 or 100 units on a single platform in order to demonstrate INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL, in order that you do not tempt your attendees to diminish your efforts based on your demonstration concepts.
Your industrial license requires that the MINIMUM QuarkX configuration produce 10kW. This would currently require 500 QuarkX units to be assembled into a single device of some sort. Allow me to envision the use of {5(100 QuarkX units @20 watts)} per 10kW module as the basic design concept for your first Industrial QuarkX device.
Obviously, 100 of these would produce a 1MW device.
I present this to you in the hopes that you would understand (that in my opinion) an industrialist would require this construction logic at a minimum to be able to envision putting $5M or $10M or more into a project to manufacture the QuarkX technology.
I fear that the presentation of a 200-400w device would discourage anything more than the funding of additional research grants, as it would not appear to be industrial at less than 10kW.
All of the above is a preamble to my request of you today.
## Please at least try to put 50 or 100 units on a single platform in order to demonstrate INDUSTRIAL POTENTIAL, do not tempt your attendees to diminish your efforts.
I apologize in advance, as I understand I have no business providing this council to a man who is obviously quantum leaps ahead of me in science and technology pursuits. I present this from a “strictly business” perspective and that I do indeed have experience in overcoming more than once in my career of software systems and design for nationwide deployment.
I think it is not improper to mention that a basic building block of 100 QuarkX components into a single device would make an even more ideal concept, and provide for the fundamentals required for both industrial and home use.
Thus configured, an industrial unit would be a single unit (QuarkX-10kW), and 100 of these would build a 1MW unit. !!
I have designed functional systems that extend across the entire United States and endured for 5-10 years or more in my past experience, using this type of logic. The extension of my logic appears to require a bare bones QuarkX model rated at 10kW to be presented to any serious investors that might consider funding the “Eve of Industrialization” for the QuarkX.
On your order list since ?? 2011,
Tom Conover