You said that the temperature of the ecat was 2600K, I imagine derived by spectrometry, because few material and I think no termocouple resist at this temperature.
Melting point of the nickel is about 1600C, but certainly below 2600K.
So this is the temperature of a plasma.
Plasma of what?
How did you manage to not melt the reactor fuel?
What is the maximum temperature that it reaches?
How far is the discharge from the fuel?
Have you tried to get a clean spectrum to infer the plasma material from the peaks emitted by the plasma?
Colin Watters:
You must distinguish the specific situations if you want to make a serious analysis.
One thing is to make a new car or a new electronic device in the context of an already well consolidated industry that already produces massively cars or electronic devices. A completely different situation is to make an industry to produce massively a new apparatus starting from zero. By the way, your information is very particular, because the CEO of one of the major car manufacturer of the world told me that to put on the road a new concept car it takes between 10 and 20 years ( from a consolidated car manufacturer ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Timescales are much shorter in the electronics industry. For something as complicated as a DVD player or TV box it’s possible to go from prototype to automated production in under 1 year.
You said to Italo R. “That the power of the E-Cat is proportional to the number of modules. The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.”.
ASSUMING THAT:
1. The cross-sectional area of the electrical conductor from the control unit to the E-Cat QX cluster remains the same.
2. The temperature difference between the QX reactors and the control unit actually remains the same (in the region of 2600 degrees C), even though more power is generated in the cluster.
3. As you increase the number of QX elements in the cluster, you will also increase the size of the surface area of the heat exchanger between the QX reactors and the load,
THEN:
4. The ratio of the sizes of the two heat conducting surface areas, (Heat Exchanger:Control Unit Conductor X-section) becomes greater as you add more QX elements, more so as you add a very large number of elements.
5. This has the effect that even though the level of heat in the control unit would remain the same, the proportion of heat travelling back to the control unit would decrease with respect to the total heat generated by the whole E-Cat QX system.
6. However, if you do then manage to cool down the control unit, the temperature difference will also increase again and the flow of lost heat will increase proportionately. So, would it still be best to try to prevent the heat being lost from the E-Cat at source, or as you said, to utilize any lost heat usefully?
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your very kind words.
I have the feeling that the spirit of Sergio Focardi was there, together with Sven Kullander.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your invitation to the IVA demonstration, sorry that I
could not attend. The results are astonishing!
Congratulations! Even more exciting, the industrialization that
you now arrange, with an accelerated schedule. The choice of venue
for the presentation was of an exceptionally high caliber, world
class. The attendees were very respectful during the
presentation, your best presentation ever (but we still love Sergio
Focardi). The response to the IVA presentation you described as a
reactor chamber is a delightful illustration.
What you have achieved so far with the Quark seems phenomenally amazing: thank you for all the work you have put into the device! Moreover, I expect that the E-Cat QX has far more potential than mentioned in the presentation.
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects) intensely studied by Ken R. Shoulders, a holder of many patents, a man who was once named scientist of the year, and is known as the “Father of Micro-electrons” for his earlier work?
The same phenomenon he studied is also referred to by other names such as high density charged clusters, ectons (by several Russian teams), micro-ball lightning, condensed plasmoids, and a few others. Basically, they represent a well documented phenomenon in which electrons can overcome their mutual repulsion and cluster together in close proximity. They exist throughout nature and are at the heart of many different phenomena. A simple explanation of one method by which they can be produced is by a discharge between electrodes. The ultra high electrical gradients that occur at surface irregularities and protrusions on a cathode produce very high fields and current densities. A series of events take place, over a precariously short time-frame, that leads to a sudden temperature rise and a micro-explosion of the region of high field density. This releases not only a spray of particles but also a high density of electrons in a small volume. A portion of these electrons can cluster together, overcoming their repulsion, and form an EVO or “charged cluster.”
These charged clusters can behave quite anomalously. For instance, they often pull in and encapsulate positive ions from the environment or particles from their creation. Ken R. Shoulders and others have been able to document that for no additional input kinetic energy beyond what would be required to accelerate the electron cluster, the “screened” or “shielded” interior heavy ion (such as a number of protons as one example) can be hurled onto a target anode at high speeds. Upon impacting the target, the transported heavy ion can possess millions of electron-volts: enough energy to produce nuclear events and transmutations. Ken Shoulders and other teams were able to document such transmutations. In addition, the passage of the EVO or charged cluster through metals can leave a path in which matter seems to be de-molecularized, as if the electron bonds holding the lattice together had been disrupted. SEM images of these boreholes and resulting slag are available on the net.
There are two additional mechanisms I’ve came across that could allow these charged clusters to produce nuclear reactions.
First, is that when these EVOs (which can assume different geometric configurations) orient themselves into torus shapes the electrical attract to pull exterior ions inwards can become intense, to the point that the pull can impart millions of electron volts to the tractored ions. Basically, these torus shaped EVOs could be considered atom grinders as new ions are smashed against those already present in the interior. The very nature of the EVO shields any hard radiation from escaping this electric “singularity” and the KE produced by the interior nuclear reactions is released upon impact on the anode.
Secondly, is that an EVO (perhaps with a proton at the core) could take the place of an electron in the orbit of a typical atom, reduce the barriers that inhibit nuclear reactions, and trigger LENR.
I expect that the Quark is producing EVOs via one of many mechanisms: including emission from the cathode during “ecton” explosions, in the plasma itself due to pumping with waveforms, or in the nickel cathode when a high loading of nickel results in the production of interior cracks/fissures in the lattice triggering fracto-emission. Moreover, the bombardment of the cathode by protons and other ions could not only produce the high loading ratios but also the physical impulses required to produce interior cracking. Basically, several of these mechanisms could work together, self re-inforcing each other, to produce the enormous COPs produced by the Quark.
Then, again, there could very well be other phenomenon at play: there could be more than one energy producing phenomena. But if EVOs are at play, it could explain some issues and yield even more possibilities. For example, the abnormal heating of your power supply (requiring active cooling). Also, if EVOs are being continuously created and destroyed, I expect a great deal of “longitudinal” — rather than traditional transverse — impulses to be emitted from your reactor. Instead of being idealy received by a traditionally oriented antenna, a long antenna positioned coaxially to the vector of propagation would optimally receive them. Or, with an antenna similar to what Nikola Tesla utilized, a circular metal sphere may intercept them. After reception, the power could be rectified in a number of ways and added to the output total.
My guess is that there’s more of this longitudinal impulse “power” being emitted (which travels through virtually all matter without producing a counter EMF via Lenz Law because of a lack of a magnetic component) than the heat you are able to produce. I expect these impulses may be most intense directly behind the electrodes where EVOs may be impacting, on either side of your reactor.
Again, if you’re not familiar with EVOs (charged clusters, ectons, charged plasmoids, etc) then please let me know and I can provide you with a multitude of links and papers.
Frank Acland:
single module 20 W average, but we were alone and could repair any inconvenience: can you imagine the consequences should something go wrong in front of that audience?
I did not sleep for the three nights since when I arrived in Stockolm on the 21st. Yesterday I came back to Miami, now the focus is exclusively on the industrialization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
You say the E-Cat QX worked at limited power during the Stockolm event at the IVA (20 W). What is its real power?
Regards,
Adrian Ashfield
John C. Evans:
We have arrived to that point, but I cannot disclose these data. By the way, it depends also from the specific applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Are you at a point in your Qx development where the optimum output of heated water parameters can be disclosed? If so are you defining them by the output of various size clusters of Qx’s or is the output consistent varying only in volume as more Qx’s are brought on line?
Good luck and thank you.
John C Evans
I think the energy dissipated by the control system will remain more or less the same, independent of the fact if only 3 E-Cats or up to 100 are controlled by it, so the net produced useful energy of the E-cats increases proportional to the number used, while the energy dissipated by the control system will remain more or less the same (not reduced I think). But, of course, this means that the ratio of dissipated energy by the control system per net energy produced, decreases when the number of E-cats increases.
It seems to me that a substantial amount of R&D involves the development of the controller unit. Do you anticipate that this will be an area that needs to be explored further within the scientific research community?
Will there ever be a time when the little guys, like myself, will ever be able to invest with you in the development of your e-cat line of products?
Yours,
Kenko1
You posted “The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.”
Are you saying that for the same module power setting, increasing the number of modules from 3 to 100, the total power consumed (and dissipated or recovered) from the Control box will decrease?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Again about the Stockolm test at the IVA of Nov 24th:
The fact that during the operation with the dummy with the 1 Ohm R instead of the Ecat the voltage of the circuit remained moreless the same indicates that the Ecat did not have resistance, therefore to measure the energy consumed by the Ecat finding the voltage across the 1 Ohm R also during the operation with the Ecat and eventually apply the Ohm equations is correct, because that is a way to measure indicated in all the manuals.
Godspeed,
Julian
Italo R.:
No. I said that the power of the E-Cat is proportional to the number of modules. The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.
Warm Regards
A.R.
P.S.
Remember that all the heat dissipated by the control box can be recovered with COP 1.
“…The increase of power is proportional to the quantity of modules…”
in the Stockholm demo the controller produced about 60 watts of heat to be dissipated for feeding 3 modules.
But does it mean that feeding 100 modules, the power to be dissipated would be about 60/3 * 100 = 2000 watts?
You mention that you can control up to around 100 of your QX devices with the same controller that you used in the demonstration. If you were to drive that many devices would your power supply produce appreciably more heat or would it be roughly the same amount of heat as was produced driving the three QX ecats in the demo. I am very happy to hear that your demonstration has produced potential associations or partnerships that will accelerate the industrialization of your technology.I can only say, the sooner, the better. Congratulations!
Dear Andrea:
As you move toward industrial applications of the Qx have you defined the optimum output, x volume of water at a given temperature or x volume of dry steam at a given pressure and temperature?
Good luck and thank you.
John C Evans
John:
The COP will not be affected by the control system by means of a heat recovery system. The recovery system can recover the heat dissipated by the circuitry. Without the heat recovery system not more that 10%.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
When the E-Cat QX will be industrialized, how much do you the COP will be affected by the consume of the control box?
Cheers
John
Frank Acland:
It has been a direct result of the Stockolm event: it has been attended by very high level persons, either from the scientific and the industrial point: the IVA conference room acted just like a reactor containing strongly reactive elements…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Daniel G.Zavela:
Thank you for your kind attention.
During the test at the IVA I put the power at 30% to put the probability of breaks at zero point. The product will perform better, also because now we are focusing on the industrialization and this means also eliminate the overheating problem. We are working along two lines: 1- industrialization of the product, 2- industrialization of the production. These two processes normally are completed up to 10 years ( the CEO of a car industry told me up to 20 years), but we think it will take less than 2 years in our case. I hope one year, but it will be rude.
The charge was standard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The COP of 550 you demonstrated at Stockholm with the E-Cat QX at 30% power was amazing!
Do you anticipate running the commercial E-Cat QX units at greater than 30% power or will you limit their operation to 30% for safety reasons? Does the internal fuel last significantly longer if the E-Cat QX is run at 30% power versus 100% power?
Looking forward to more good news from the Leonardo Corporation in 2018.
Italo R.:
Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days have been momentous.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Some more questions.
You said that the temperature of the ecat was 2600K, I imagine derived by spectrometry, because few material and I think no termocouple resist at this temperature.
Melting point of the nickel is about 1600C, but certainly below 2600K.
So this is the temperature of a plasma.
Plasma of what?
How did you manage to not melt the reactor fuel?
What is the maximum temperature that it reaches?
How far is the discharge from the fuel?
Have you tried to get a clean spectrum to infer the plasma material from the peaks emitted by the plasma?
Regards,
Marco.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you tell us who will make the robotized lines of the E-Cat factory? Are you still working with ABB?
Cheers
Erik
Martyn Aubrey:
Thank you for you insight. I cannot comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Colin Watters:
You must distinguish the specific situations if you want to make a serious analysis.
One thing is to make a new car or a new electronic device in the context of an already well consolidated industry that already produces massively cars or electronic devices. A completely different situation is to make an industry to produce massively a new apparatus starting from zero. By the way, your information is very particular, because the CEO of one of the major car manufacturer of the world told me that to put on the road a new concept car it takes between 10 and 20 years ( from a consolidated car manufacturer ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Mr Rossi,
Just for information it takes about 3 years to design a new car and put it into production. Details here..
https://www.quora.com/Automobile-Design-How-long-does-it-take-to-develop-a-car-design-from-scratch
Timescales are much shorter in the electronics industry. For something as complicated as a DVD player or TV box it’s possible to go from prototype to automated production in under 1 year.
Dear Dr Rossi,
You said to Italo R. “That the power of the E-Cat is proportional to the number of modules. The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.”.
ASSUMING THAT:
1. The cross-sectional area of the electrical conductor from the control unit to the E-Cat QX cluster remains the same.
2. The temperature difference between the QX reactors and the control unit actually remains the same (in the region of 2600 degrees C), even though more power is generated in the cluster.
3. As you increase the number of QX elements in the cluster, you will also increase the size of the surface area of the heat exchanger between the QX reactors and the load,
THEN:
4. The ratio of the sizes of the two heat conducting surface areas, (Heat Exchanger:Control Unit Conductor X-section) becomes greater as you add more QX elements, more so as you add a very large number of elements.
5. This has the effect that even though the level of heat in the control unit would remain the same, the proportion of heat travelling back to the control unit would decrease with respect to the total heat generated by the whole E-Cat QX system.
6. However, if you do then manage to cool down the control unit, the temperature difference will also increase again and the flow of lost heat will increase proportionately. So, would it still be best to try to prevent the heat being lost from the E-Cat at source, or as you said, to utilize any lost heat usefully?
7. Is this roughly how you see the situation?
Thoughtful Regards,
Martyn Aubrey
Tom Conover:
Thank you for your very kind words.
I have the feeling that the spirit of Sergio Focardi was there, together with Sven Kullander.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for your invitation to the IVA demonstration, sorry that I
could not attend. The results are astonishing!
Congratulations! Even more exciting, the industrialization that
you now arrange, with an accelerated schedule. The choice of venue
for the presentation was of an exceptionally high caliber, world
class. The attendees were very respectful during the
presentation, your best presentation ever (but we still love Sergio
Focardi). The response to the IVA presentation you described as a
reactor chamber is a delightful illustration.
Your team rocks!
Tom
Hank Mills:
Thank you for your kind words and for the links to this phenomenon, that I do not know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
What you have achieved so far with the Quark seems phenomenally amazing: thank you for all the work you have put into the device! Moreover, I expect that the E-Cat QX has far more potential than mentioned in the presentation.
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects) intensely studied by Ken R. Shoulders, a holder of many patents, a man who was once named scientist of the year, and is known as the “Father of Micro-electrons” for his earlier work?
Ken Shoulders
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue61/chargeclusters.html
http://www.keelynet.com/shoulders/pdfs.html
Paper on Ectons
https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/255563/filename/ajp-jp4199707C407.pdf
The same phenomenon he studied is also referred to by other names such as high density charged clusters, ectons (by several Russian teams), micro-ball lightning, condensed plasmoids, and a few others. Basically, they represent a well documented phenomenon in which electrons can overcome their mutual repulsion and cluster together in close proximity. They exist throughout nature and are at the heart of many different phenomena. A simple explanation of one method by which they can be produced is by a discharge between electrodes. The ultra high electrical gradients that occur at surface irregularities and protrusions on a cathode produce very high fields and current densities. A series of events take place, over a precariously short time-frame, that leads to a sudden temperature rise and a micro-explosion of the region of high field density. This releases not only a spray of particles but also a high density of electrons in a small volume. A portion of these electrons can cluster together, overcoming their repulsion, and form an EVO or “charged cluster.”
These charged clusters can behave quite anomalously. For instance, they often pull in and encapsulate positive ions from the environment or particles from their creation. Ken R. Shoulders and others have been able to document that for no additional input kinetic energy beyond what would be required to accelerate the electron cluster, the “screened” or “shielded” interior heavy ion (such as a number of protons as one example) can be hurled onto a target anode at high speeds. Upon impacting the target, the transported heavy ion can possess millions of electron-volts: enough energy to produce nuclear events and transmutations. Ken Shoulders and other teams were able to document such transmutations. In addition, the passage of the EVO or charged cluster through metals can leave a path in which matter seems to be de-molecularized, as if the electron bonds holding the lattice together had been disrupted. SEM images of these boreholes and resulting slag are available on the net.
There are two additional mechanisms I’ve came across that could allow these charged clusters to produce nuclear reactions.
First, is that when these EVOs (which can assume different geometric configurations) orient themselves into torus shapes the electrical attract to pull exterior ions inwards can become intense, to the point that the pull can impart millions of electron volts to the tractored ions. Basically, these torus shaped EVOs could be considered atom grinders as new ions are smashed against those already present in the interior. The very nature of the EVO shields any hard radiation from escaping this electric “singularity” and the KE produced by the interior nuclear reactions is released upon impact on the anode.
Secondly, is that an EVO (perhaps with a proton at the core) could take the place of an electron in the orbit of a typical atom, reduce the barriers that inhibit nuclear reactions, and trigger LENR.
I expect that the Quark is producing EVOs via one of many mechanisms: including emission from the cathode during “ecton” explosions, in the plasma itself due to pumping with waveforms, or in the nickel cathode when a high loading of nickel results in the production of interior cracks/fissures in the lattice triggering fracto-emission. Moreover, the bombardment of the cathode by protons and other ions could not only produce the high loading ratios but also the physical impulses required to produce interior cracking. Basically, several of these mechanisms could work together, self re-inforcing each other, to produce the enormous COPs produced by the Quark.
Then, again, there could very well be other phenomenon at play: there could be more than one energy producing phenomena. But if EVOs are at play, it could explain some issues and yield even more possibilities. For example, the abnormal heating of your power supply (requiring active cooling). Also, if EVOs are being continuously created and destroyed, I expect a great deal of “longitudinal” — rather than traditional transverse — impulses to be emitted from your reactor. Instead of being idealy received by a traditionally oriented antenna, a long antenna positioned coaxially to the vector of propagation would optimally receive them. Or, with an antenna similar to what Nikola Tesla utilized, a circular metal sphere may intercept them. After reception, the power could be rectified in a number of ways and added to the output total.
My guess is that there’s more of this longitudinal impulse “power” being emitted (which travels through virtually all matter without producing a counter EMF via Lenz Law because of a lack of a magnetic component) than the heat you are able to produce. I expect these impulses may be most intense directly behind the electrodes where EVOs may be impacting, on either side of your reactor.
Again, if you’re not familiar with EVOs (charged clusters, ectons, charged plasmoids, etc) then please let me know and I can provide you with a multitude of links and papers.
Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Hank
Frank Acland:
single module 20 W average, but we were alone and could repair any inconvenience: can you imagine the consequences should something go wrong in front of that audience?
I did not sleep for the three nights since when I arrived in Stockolm on the 21st. Yesterday I came back to Miami, now the focus is exclusively on the industrialization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Can you say what was the average power output of the reactor you did the 5 Sigma testing on? And for how long it ran in total?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Adrian Ashfield:
Average 60 W, max for continuous operation 100 W
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi:
You say the E-Cat QX worked at limited power during the Stockolm event at the IVA (20 W). What is its real power?
Regards,
Adrian Ashfield
Julian:
Exactly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N.Karels:
I am saying exactly what I said.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Kenko:
I think that after the product will have been put in the market we will become a public company.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Enrique:
Yes, also.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mattias Anderson:
We are working on this with our specialists.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John C. Evans:
We have arrived to that point, but I cannot disclose these data. By the way, it depends also from the specific applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Are you at a point in your Qx development where the optimum output of heated water parameters can be disclosed? If so are you defining them by the output of various size clusters of Qx’s or is the output consistent varying only in volume as more Qx’s are brought on line?
Good luck and thank you.
John C Evans
@Steven N. Karels,
I think the energy dissipated by the control system will remain more or less the same, independent of the fact if only 3 E-Cats or up to 100 are controlled by it, so the net produced useful energy of the E-cats increases proportional to the number used, while the energy dissipated by the control system will remain more or less the same (not reduced I think). But, of course, this means that the ratio of dissipated energy by the control system per net energy produced, decreases when the number of E-cats increases.
Kind Regards,
Dear Andrea,
It seems to me that a substantial amount of R&D involves the development of the controller unit. Do you anticipate that this will be an area that needs to be explored further within the scientific research community?
Kind regards,
Mattias
Dear Andrea
The dummy with the resistance of 800 Ohms had the duty to give evidence that the power source was not one with fixed amperage, correct?
Will there ever be a time when the little guys, like myself, will ever be able to invest with you in the development of your e-cat line of products?
Yours,
Kenko1
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.”
Are you saying that for the same module power setting, increasing the number of modules from 3 to 100, the total power consumed (and dissipated or recovered) from the Control box will decrease?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Again about the Stockolm test at the IVA of Nov 24th:
The fact that during the operation with the dummy with the 1 Ohm R instead of the Ecat the voltage of the circuit remained moreless the same indicates that the Ecat did not have resistance, therefore to measure the energy consumed by the Ecat finding the voltage across the 1 Ohm R also during the operation with the Ecat and eventually apply the Ohm equations is correct, because that is a way to measure indicated in all the manuals.
Godspeed,
Julian
Italo R.:
No. I said that the power of the E-Cat is proportional to the number of modules. The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.
Warm Regards
A.R.
P.S.
Remember that all the heat dissipated by the control box can be recovered with COP 1.
Dear Dr. Rossi, you wrote:
“…The increase of power is proportional to the quantity of modules…”
in the Stockholm demo the controller produced about 60 watts of heat to be dissipated for feeding 3 modules.
But does it mean that feeding 100 modules, the power to be dissipated would be about 60/3 * 100 = 2000 watts?
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
John C. Evans:
Yes.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Robert Dorr:
The increase of power is proportional to the quantity of modules.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
You mention that you can control up to around 100 of your QX devices with the same controller that you used in the demonstration. If you were to drive that many devices would your power supply produce appreciably more heat or would it be roughly the same amount of heat as was produced driving the three QX ecats in the demo. I am very happy to hear that your demonstration has produced potential associations or partnerships that will accelerate the industrialization of your technology.I can only say, the sooner, the better. Congratulations!
Sincerely,
Robert Dorr
Dear Andrea:
As you move toward industrial applications of the Qx have you defined the optimum output, x volume of water at a given temperature or x volume of dry steam at a given pressure and temperature?
Good luck and thank you.
John C Evans
John:
The COP will not be affected by the control system by means of a heat recovery system. The recovery system can recover the heat dissipated by the circuitry. Without the heat recovery system not more that 10%.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Claud of Silent Minority:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for sharing with us the domo of the E-Cat QX: priceless!
Godspeed,
Claud
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
When the E-Cat QX will be industrialized, how much do you the COP will be affected by the consume of the control box?
Cheers
John
J.U.:
True, but we are working hard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Now we are focused on the robotized lines and on the miniaturization and design of the E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Aftermath update?
JPR
Dr Andrea Rossi:
If you will be able to put the product for sale in an industrialized feature within 2018, that will be another miracle.
Godspeed,
Jim
Frank Acland:
It has been a direct result of the Stockolm event: it has been attended by very high level persons, either from the scientific and the industrial point: the IVA conference room acted just like a reactor containing strongly reactive elements…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Daniel G.Zavela:
Thank you for your kind attention.
During the test at the IVA I put the power at 30% to put the probability of breaks at zero point. The product will perform better, also because now we are focusing on the industrialization and this means also eliminate the overheating problem. We are working along two lines: 1- industrialization of the product, 2- industrialization of the production. These two processes normally are completed up to 10 years ( the CEO of a car industry told me up to 20 years), but we think it will take less than 2 years in our case. I hope one year, but it will be rude.
The charge was standard.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
The COP of 550 you demonstrated at Stockholm with the E-Cat QX at 30% power was amazing!
Do you anticipate running the commercial E-Cat QX units at greater than 30% power or will you limit their operation to 30% for safety reasons? Does the internal fuel last significantly longer if the E-Cat QX is run at 30% power versus 100% power?
Looking forward to more good news from the Leonardo Corporation in 2018.
Best Regards,
Daniel G. Zavela
Dear Andrea,
The important agreement you speak of, was it a direct result of the demo you did in Stockholm, or did it come from some earlier contact?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Here is the link to the Italian conference made in Italy just after the Stockolm event at the IVA:
http://www.ecat-ilnuovofuoco.it/blog/laudio-della-conference-call-rossi/
Italo R.:
Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days have been momentous.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Roberto M.:
Thank you for your kind words.
Answers:
a- yes
b- industrial: done; domestic: couple of years
c- industrial
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Tamerlano:
With a controller used in the demo we can control at least 100 systems.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Thank you,
Warm regards,
A.R.