Rossi: Small E-Cat Prototype Units are 100 W Called ‘Quarks’ (Update#7 — Each QuarkX is ‘Like a Pencil’)

Another day, another detail from Dr. Rossi about the E-Cat X.

Update #7 (March 30, 2016)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the JONP how they were going to sell the E-Cat QuarkXs — he said:

Andrea Rossi
March 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM
Lars Lindberg:
Very small, like a pencil, assembled in combination with “n” others.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #6 (March 27, 2016)

Someone on the JONP posted a question about whether protective glasses are needed around the E-Cat QuarkX. Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
March 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Lisa Rychlicki:
Yes. The light is unsustainable for the eyes if you look straight into it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #5 (March 20, 2016)

Another exchange about the QuarkX from the JONP:

Ron Stringer
March 24, 2016 at 5:04 PM
Making light, heat and electricity with the same device is a pretty good trick! The implication is that you can adjust the energy of the photons emitted by your quarkx. Can you tune the colour of the light? Can you choose to have a quark emit red or blue, for instance?
Hope you can answer this one!
Ron

Andrea Rossi
March 24, 2016 at 5:07 PM
Ron Stringer:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Update #4 (March 20, 2016)

Here’s an interesting Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

Dear Andrea:
Where do you think that the E-Cat QuarkX will be introduced to the public for the first time ?

Andrea Rossi
March 20, 2016 at 7:31 PM
Christel:
In the USA.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi has said that he plans a news conference in June in Sweden, where I presume he will be talking about the E-Cat X/QuarkX (since this is now his latest version of the E-Cat); so if he is going to introduce the E-Cat QuarkX in the USA first, this will mean it will be before the conference in Sweden — so maybe April/May? How he will introduce it is unclear — maybe a press conference here, or perhaps some visitors will be allowed to see it.

Update #3 (March 18, 2016)

Some more information about the Quark from a Q&A between Joseph Fine and Andrea Rossi:

1- Since each Quarkx has its own control processor and there probably are redundant and higher level control (“management”) processors, can all or most of the control system and related instrumentation be operated remotely? AR: yes

2- Or must some of the processors be placed close to the Quarkx modules? AR: not necessarily

3- If so can existing Leonardo Corp’s transfer techniques be used to cool these processors and related instrumentation to safe temperatures, so vital electronics don’t burn out, lose power or operate erratically?

AR: yes, but it is not a good thing make safety devices of a system depend on instrumentation internal of the system itself.

Update #2 (March 17, 2016)

Here are some interesting responses by Andrea to some new questions about the E-Cat X Quarks

Can you tell us about the Quark

1. Are the prototypes as small as you can practically make with existing materials and the present state of your proprietary and confidential knowledge? AR: yes

2. Or could you make a prototype even smaller? AR: maybe

3. Does this technology hold any potential for transforming heat which is not produced from the e-cat operation but comes from another source into electricity? AR: yes

The answer to the last question is especially interesting to me because it implies that the Quark can be used independent of an E-Cat as a thermoelectric device that could use any form of heat to create electricity.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s another comment posted by Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Rossi was asked if they would have “mini-modules” that could be combined for small and large purposes, and he responded:

Andrea Rossi
February 29, 2016 at 9:43 AM
Yes, we are making a prototype that we call “quark” because very tiny and foundamental, with a power of 100 W assemblable up to any power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Some people have referred to these small modules as ‘Lego blocks’, and having them in 100 W sizes could make them suitable for very many purposes, large and small — especially if they can be used to provide electricity only, as Rossi said was possible yesterday (although he said that would mean ‘lower efficiency’ (whatever that means).

It’s fascinating to hear about these E-Cat X developments. So far, except for the confirmation of the E-Cat X’s existence by Fulvio Fabiani, we only have Rossi’s word for these E-Cat advancements. I look forward to when more information is released that confirms what he is reporting.

UPDATE: I was curious about whether these Quarks could deliver electricity only, so I asked AR about this:

Dear Andrea,
Can you make a quark that produces electricity only (no heat), with an efficiency of COP >1?

Andrea Rossi
March 1, 2016 at 8:55 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes.
F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • LuFong

    My first post on this website 5 years ago point out that the heat producing E-Cat is a perfect match for the tar sands like oil mining and production.

    Given that most oil is used for transportation purposes I think oil will be around for awhile. Also nuclear plants (and oil as well) will be around a while as well because of the sunk costs. Coal will be the first to go.

    Renewables will lead the way while Rossi tries to find the magic formula and make himself rich.

  • Bob Tivnan

    True, but I wouldn’t want an E-Cat on my lap any time soon. This is why Rossi is targeting industrial applications. Engineering heat transfer is going to be a challenge though.

  • Gerard McEk

    See my reply to Artefact, below.

  • Brent Buckner

    I think $0.05/kWh would be revolutionary. Consider that it could be delivered without a grid, so reliable inexpensive electricity could proliferate in low trust areas. Consider that it could re-arrange geopolitics. Consider that it could be a clean power supply for centuries.

  • Axil Axil

    “If you’re getting such reactions why utilize the photovoltaic approach and instead have the reactions run kinetically?”

    The SunCell would then turn into the Papp engine which is now an open source IP since the 1968 patent has expired.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder why Rossi maintains his view that an integration of all energy sources will be needed. It does not cope with his idea to ‘crush the competition’, what he also wants to do. Low energy cost of his E-cat X or QuarkX will also push those other energy sources of the market and I am sure he is intelligent enough to see that. Would he be pushed to say this?

    • artefact
      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but can LENR be stopped? Within a few years after the introduction the E-cats can be cloned. The technology should not be too difficult. I assume that AR does not want to toutch the car-/aircraft-/ship- markets, because Big Oli is The Boss there and warned him, but others (China, India, small companies) may start to pick that market. You can’t stop this happening!

    • LuFong

      It doesn’t make any sense but it’s a quick way for Rossi to dismiss possible concerns about market acceptance of his technology. And it is almost a certainty that the wealthy and powerful oil & gas industry is watching all competitors, including LENR, very closely. It’s just that there is no real threat now and I suspect with what we get from IH and Rossi about the ERV test, won’t be for quite a while.

      The oil & gas industry has to make significant long term investments that hinge on the supply, demand, cost, and hence price of their commodity. If they make a mistake they pay a huge price. Once E-Cat/LENR technology becomes accepted as real you will see push back. Hopefully the market forces will be allowed to operate and LENR will become just one more significant reason to ween the world off oil & gas.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

    My point was really that now things have become ‘serious’, that for commercial reasons outside observers won’t be kept up to speed with developments, and the actual emergence of product will probably be as much of a surprise to us and to anyone else. Rossi will undoubtedly continue to make claims and drop hints on JoNP, but as he is almost certainly under various constraints I don’t expect much of value to come through this channel.

    As to possible disagreements between IH and LC, I think these must be seen as inevitable, and to be resolved by negotiation. Both parties have made statements that can be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that IH aren’t happy with some of Rossi’s statements, and/or that Rossi feels the need to establish ascendancy over IH by ‘clarifying’ their relationship. Nothing unusual there.

    Like you, I await any further information in June, but as I said, don’t hold out any great hopes of learning much about the ‘ERV’ report in the meantime. I hope I have been able to clarify what I was hoping to convey in my initial post.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Well, that makes the relationship between IH and Rossi crystal clear: IH is nothing more than a licensee of Leonardo and has nothing to do with ongoing E-Cat research. If IH decides to “create” their form of the E-Cat in their 20,000 sq ft lab, the fight is on.

  • US_Citizen71

    It all depends on how big the modules are that make up the fuels blocks. It is conceivable to have pre-built 1MW fuel units that are replaced. They would just be the 100W Quarks mounted into a frame with connections for power and cooling. Replacement would be quick and easy, likely less than day maybe even less than an hour once it was cooled, it would depend on the design of the plant and the module. The the whole module would be recycled and turned into a new one. Very similar to the battery swap idea that has been floating around for electric cars.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Svein Henrik April 1, 2016 at 7:04 AM
    Dear Andrea.
    We are earlier informed of a new ECXQ test in Europe and end of R&D period within 2 month.
    1. Will the test start within April, or May?
    2. Will details of ECXQ be presented in May, June or later?
    3. Are answers the above questions depended of IH’s decisions?
    4. Will ECXQs be made available to cooperating OEMs in Europe?
    5. Is the 1 year function period of the ECXQ dependent of the intermittens of use?
    6. May it be an idea to give samples of single units to be tested by universities?
    Thank You for earlier answers and attention.
    Regards: Svein Henrik

    Andrea Rossi April 1, 2016 at 7:51 AM
    Svein Henrik:
    1- from June on, all is not impossible
    2- cristal ball requested
    3- no. Leonardo Corporation is the owner of all the IP related to the E-Cat and we of Leonardo Corporation decide independently our strategy, depending only on the results we achieve with our R&D, that is on course in laboratories independent from all our Licensees. Obviously, we are delighted to listen and hold in due consideration all the suggestion our Licensees give us.
    4- possibly
    5- maybe
    6- yes, when the product will be ready, not in phase of preliminar R&D
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      So if I’m understanding recent statements correctly, in a couple of months or more, a new round of year-long field tests will begin on one or more ecat-X prototypes. Meanwhile the LT system has disappeared into the woodwork, while followers ignore the evasions and continue to hold out some faint hope of seeing a redacted summary of what the ‘ERV’ reported in due course.

      Sadly, this (situation going ‘dark’) is exactly what has been predicted by myself and one or two others, once corporate interests became involved. So now we’ll probably have to make do with more unverifiable ‘Rossi says’ for another 15 months or so, hoping meanwhile that either some other group publicly comes up with a CF breakthrough, or that there are indications somewhere other than JoNP that wheels are turning. And yes, I know that Rossi/IH don’t owe me or anyone else here anything – I’ve said as much on many occasions.

      I think I’ll be spending rather more time gardening and playing with my vintage car in the future, rather than following developments here on a daily basis.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Agaricus, I think we are thinking the same way. Certainty is not foreseeable. If Rossi wanted to convince everyone he would not have to do it in the market place. He could easily construct a couple of glow stick room heaters with and without fuel and run irrefutable demonstrations of active vs control performance. He does not want certainty or he does not have what he claims. Either way, we need to go back to our other endeavors and stop wasting our time waiting for something that may never happen. I’ll stay engaged but only from a distance. Ciao.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          I think it is probably IH that doesn’t want certainty, for strategic reasons, and that Rossi reluctantly complies with this requirement.

          I don’t have any doubt that Rossi has exactly what he claims, and that CF products will become available in an industrial context in due course. but please see my reply to EEStorFanFibb above for the rest.

        • Brent Buckner

          I think he gave folks a chance for relative certainty with the Lugano test; I don’t lay the criticisms of the calorimetry at his feet.

  • DrD

    I agree about the refueling issue for MW or greater. It intrigues me. Otherwise MW units made up from 10k quarks seems ok.
    Perhaps they will be subdivided, say 100kW units or xx.

  • Roland

    What if Rossi’s projected $50/kW cost is based on the Ecat X design in mass production; $5.00 each for 100w continuous for a year or more, then recycle rather than refuel.

    The same price as the Duracell 9V shown below…

  • Frank Acland
    • Stephen Taylor

      A “glowstick heater” is a great concept. If COP is 6 or more the performance would be so obviously superior to an unfueled control that anyone could confirm its usefulness immediately. This, unfortunately, points out that the lack of a convincing product or demonstration prototype is either secrecy or lack of a working reactor. Which is it?

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is a tongue in cheek April Fool’s post. The glow stick is not all that different than the heating core of many electric heaters in the market. I use to joke that due to the possible ban of incandescent light-bulbs that I was going to start an import business for 100W incandescent heaters from eastern Europe. Context is everything.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes, I get that. Looking at the picture and reading the caption it’s hard not to think about how easy it would be to prove beyond any doubt the huge difference in performance between a fueled version and an identical non-fueled version running side by side. With a cop of 6 or more the non- fueled version would be acting like a normal 1500 watt space heater. The fueled version would be putting out something like 9 or 10 thousand Watts. One nice and toasty while the other is burning your face off.
          The point is that there is simply no excuse or logical reason why a person in possession of this type of revolutionary advance would be incapable of convincing the most stubborn skeptic in a matter of minutes. I conclude it either doesn’t exist or the person doesn’t want us to know it exists.

          • US_Citizen71

            I vote the latter. If a demonstration device like you outline above was shown it would put many in the energy industry immediately on the defense. Unless you are ready for the ensuing battle with product to deploy you don’t start that war. For me there is enough soft and hard evidence, if you believe the tests from around the world, to believe the effect is real.

            • Eyedoc

              Yes , fortunately AR has learned much of this in his life ( the hard way)

              • DrD

                I think that’s why he says fossil fuels and LENR will co-exist, even long term.I can’t imagine any other reason.

          • DrD

            The official rumour is that COP was over 20. E-Catx is supposed to be better still. And you get electric and/or heat.

  • jimbo92107

    Here is an article about a new Micro Electromechanical System (MEMS) that seems appropriate for Rossi’s e-cat x for controlling the reaction at a microscopic scale. Rather than having a pencil, this might enable form factors incorporated onto self-powered microchips.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-larger-nanoscale.html

    Rossi may not be aware of this research. Could somebody pass it along to him? He might have a lot of fun with it.

  • Warthog

    This time the claims are showing up as you say. My browser often screws up due to all the ads needing Adobe Flash (which should actually be called Adobe Crash, as that is what it really does).

    I don’t know how I can say this more plainly. A single patent in this case means almost nothing. Neither you nor I know what other applications and what aspects he has filed other patents on. THAT is what he means by “vigorously defending his IP”. As I read the Google patent copy, it appears to be a straightforward summation of exactly what has been reported here on E-cat World, so I don’t see what you find so mysterious.

    • Bruce__H

      I don’t think that the device described in the July 2015 patent is a straightforward description of the device discussed on E-cat World. Isn’t there supposed to be a secret additive that Rossi uses when preparing the fuel? And wasn’t nickel supposed to be the consumed part of the fuel instead of a catalyst?

      In fact the Rossi patent application that was denied in January was for a device considerably different from the one described in the successful July patent (the denied application described nickel as a fuel that was used up). So what’s up with that one? Is that the device that he thinks of as an E-cat? It is certainly described as a fusion device in the (unsuccessful) application whereas the device in the (successful) July 2015 is never described as a fusion device.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    In reply to akupaku

    The concept is a standard one in industry. Easier to show you on a video,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDmeDeygRik

    Kind Regards walker

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

      We should get this kid to reverse engineer an E-cat.

      • Omega Z

        Barry, I once took a 9 volt battery apart like that and found my Car keys.

        Yep, Reached into my pocket to get my nail clippers and there they was. 🙂

      • DrD

        Or an Orbo/Ocube.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    The silence from IH is deafening.

    • LarryJ

      There is not much for them to say unless the ERV report is published. They don’t run a blog like Rossi and they might want to remain under the radar until they have product ready to ship.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How about: “We just proved there is an energy source with the potential to replace coal as a fuel!”

        • US_Citizen71

          But unless they are ready to deal with they demand for more information such as the entire test data, tours of the plant, reference samples to be tested by universities etc. such an announcement risks being another Pons and Fleischmann fiasco. All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            It is my opinion, the “demand for more information” is the least of IH concerns. It would be interesting and profitable to know who IH has shared the report with. This is all about strategies to control who makes the most money from this huge new energy source.

          • psi2u2

            “All ducks need to be in a row before making such a claim, Darden in essence has said so himself.”

            Exactly.

        • LarryJ

          Just more hearsay without publication of the ERV report.

  • LilyLover

    When the n X 100 W format is adopted, everything in a household becomes a cordless stand alone gadget. From TV to washing machine. Noting inside a home needs cord, so Rossi is cutting the cord at appliance-towall scenario rather than at the electric company level. Slow and steady adoption of things – more business to Rossi to interact with all types of manufacturers!

    • Rene

      I disagree. That format of the ecat-q is the reactor. There is a lot of support stuff around it: heat dissipaters, inverters, the control logic, and required just-in-case shielding. And, so far, no mention has been made that the unit is self-powered.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Many appliances can work with DC so no need for inverter, usually. [Battery+Ecat]->DC->device.

  • Omega Z

    I think the 100 W enable power control as to ramping up and down according to needs at the moment. Otherwise, you may be producing 10KW when all you need is watts. This is when cheap energy becomes expensive.

  • Warthog

    “a” patent has been turned down. The question is “which one”. Note that he has previously said there are MANY patents being filed on different aspects of the systems.
    It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.

    • Bruce__H

      The question isn’t which patent has been turned down, it is which one has been accepted. Only on that patented device does Rossi have any IP protection. And I don’t think that that particular patented device is an ecat.

      http://www.google.com/patents/US9115913

      It sounds to me like an ordinary chemical reaction is involved — the breakdown of lithium aluminum hydroxide — which is known to be exothermic.

      https://books.google.ca/books?id=3UArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=exothermic+lithium+aluminum+hydride&source=bl&ots=4P_UoiE3Ms&sig=QMfKWqHSZHWc8sAo3gEsUvrLH7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWydu9rOvLAhVnmoMKHYqiDw4Q6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=exothermic%20lithium%20aluminum%20hydride&f=false

      This is why I am wondering if anyone has tried to build the device Rossi describes in the patent that was accepted. If they build it and it yields energy beyond what a chemical reaction produces then that is proof that Rossi’s claims are real. In the patent, Rossi never actually says how much power this device produces but if you read the patent carefully no more than 6 kwh is ever suggested. This would power a residential house for about 4 hours.

      “It is quite possible to take a piece of public-domain tech, modify it in a “unique and non-obvious” way and have a patented device.”

      I’m not sure what you have in mind here. But if Rossi can’t patent the device he calls an ecat, then it is public domain. So I don’t see how he can talk about mass producing it and at the same time aggressively protecting IP. The only way he can protect it is to keep it secret, i.e., not sell it publicly.

      • Warthog

        There are many possible modifications that can be made to a “public-domain” pseudo-E-cat to develop a patented version.

        These can be either differences in design, or differences tn “composition of matter .

        Unfortunately, your Google link fails to give THE most critical part(s) of the patent, which are the “Claims”. All that you have posted is the explanatory/background material. The “Claims” are what the inventor says is DIFFERENT from all other “known art”, and what he says is therefore patentable (i.e. “unique and non-obvious) over and above the “known art”.

        Even if the art “is” in the public domain, that doesn’t keep Rossi from mass-producing and selling it…..all that means is that others aside from Rossi can also mass-produce and sell it. And trade secret information is mass-produced and sold publicly all the time. The company selling it thinks that it is sufficiently difficult for competitors to analyze and discover the info that it is safe to sell.

      • Omega Z

        Read it more closely,

        http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=09115913&SectionNum=4&IDKey=F26FEF275AA7&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=9115913.PN.%2526OS=PN/9115913%2526RS=PN/9115913

        Claims-Page 8, In section 3, What it says is, It has been found that after the reaction has generated approximately 6KW hours of energy, it may be desirable to apply approximately 1KW hour of electrical energy to reinvigorate the reaction sequence.

        This is actually simplified, because the timing of SSM is random and may be power 1 second on with SSM of 6 seconds. Or replace seconds by minutes. Anyway, Rinse repeat as it will average 1KW input to 6KW output 24/7.

        This patent wasn’t published(Kept in the dark) until just before it was granted. Rossi may have others that also are in the dark.

        An additional published patent-
        Patent # US20140326711A1
        Applicant : Industrial Heat
        Inventors: Andrea Rossi
        Assignee: Leonardo Corporation
        http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711

        Click Classification takes you to bottom of page find this number-> G21B 3/00 then click takes you to this page-
        http://web2.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ipcpub/#refresh=page&notion=scheme&version=20130101&symbol=G21B0003000000

        You’ll find
        Low-temperature nuclear fusion reactors, e.g. alleged cold fusion reactors [2006.01]
        ———————————————————————
        Note:
        You can’t Patent LENR. Only Devices and Processes that achieve Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR).
        You can’t Patent Nickel, Lithium, Aluminum. or (LiAlH4)
        YOU May be able to Copyright a very specific fuel mix or hydride recipe.

        Copyright’s vary by country, but I believe this applies to U.S. copyright.
        “Jan 3, 2016 – 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.”

        • Bruce__H

          Thanks for the directions to the previous patent. I’ll take a look

          I did read the July 2015 patent as closely as I could (not being an expert in patents) and noticed the passage you quote about reinvigorating the reaction after 6 kW hours of operation. This doesn’t tell you, however, about the rate of energy production or how many times the reaction can be reinvigorated. Perhaps it is only once.

  • DrD

    We search primarily on subject or content, I can’t think of an occasion where we had need to search on assignee(company) but there are instances where you would want to. The point is, you can’t “hide” it by that means.
    The last I heard the US Patent office is still rejecting anything that has any mention of LENR or cold fusion.
    Shame on them, how long before they’re taken to task.

    • Rene

      “We search primarily on subject or content,…” so did we when I participated in patent minefield detection, which is why the titles of many software patents are so ‘elusive’. Similar motivations happen in hardware or process related patents. In the end the search has to be of claims and methods, which too can be ‘steganogrified’. What I expect to see (if it is not already there), is the method of barely LENR, something that works but barely. Then later a set of linking patents that describes means and methods of controlling those reactions to achieve high energy output. That last one is the golden egg.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    As I pointed out elsewhere. Working LENR allows us to move into space at which point ICBM’s become as antique as a stone axe.

    As to mass destruction, why when you can use an LENR micro drone to put your opponent to sleep or otherwise incapacitate them, then transport them to a place of incarceration awaiting trial. Or heck. Why even bother with incarceration just have your drone escort them around and give them a slap when they are naughty.

    People seem to still fall for the idea that new weapons get used in the same way as old weapons.

    I worked in this field. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

  • DrD

    Not a “fleet” though or at least not what I meant by it. I was trying to describe 100’s of them, meaning that with the simplicity of LENR they could be made cheap and small with a very small crew and lots of them.
    Better shut before some one gets ideas, not that they won’t anyway.

  • Bruce__H

    You are probably correct that the names used to describe the processes here don’t matter. What does matter however is whether Rossi has fully disclosed the process for building his ecat machinery. If he has left something out, a secret additive for instance, then the whole process is left unprotected by the patent he holds and there is no possibility of his being able to aggressively protect IP.

    Has anyone tried to build a device following the specifications in the US patent that was approved for Rossi last summer?

    • Omega Z

      Everyone deviates when attempting to replicate.

  • DrD

    AR recently said a 1 MW E-catx made of quarks would be smaller than 1 meter cube.
    He implied if not actually stated that any size is possible (n x 100W).
    With a fleet of LENR powered submarines hiding for months on end you might worry about swarms of nuke cruise missiles or torpedoes with very short times to target.
    It’s a nasty line of thought.

  • Gerard McEk

    #7: E-cat X has a power level of 20.000 W and the size of a sigarette package.
    The QuarkX has a power of 100 W and is pencil sized.
    This means that these 200 pencil sized QuarkX’s units either consist of very small pencils QuarkX’s or that a 20 kW QuarkX’s unit is considerably bigger in size.

    • US_Citizen71

      As Rossi likely has never been a smoker he might not understand the difference between the words pack and carton in English. 200 pencils and a carton of cigarettes is about right.

      • artefact

        Or the new description is with cooling plates etc. and the 20kW description not…

    • Omega Z

      E-cat X about the size of a cigarette with 20KW(20 E-cat X’s) being the size of a cigarette pack. Rossi hasn’t really said what size the Quark is. He always says this will be revealed after the test in process.

  • Observer

    So…

    Is it a magic wand or a hot rod?

  • Michael W Wolf

    As far as I know he has a patent in hand.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    Watch from 24:40
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjl8ka3F6QU

    🙂

    Kind Regards walker

    • MLWerner

      Watch What? Did you misplace a link?

      • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

        Hi all

        In reply to MLWerner

        Yes but it is edited and back up now

        🙂

        Kind Regards walker

    • Gerald

      🙂 Obamian…

    • Brokeeper

      Interesting, he discribed a fictitious element named after him “Obamium” to have the characteristics of LENR: “stable and not too hot and not too cold”. (Starting aroud 31:00)

    • psi2u2

      Yes, very interesting mention of alternatives to traditional rocket fuels.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    There is a certain confidence and swagger detectable in Andrea Rossi’s resent answers.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Frank Acland

    March 30, 2016 at 4:25 AM

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I am sure that you will breath a momentary sigh of relief with the results in your hand. I am curious to what will you be producing in the factory that you are building. Will you be building a specific building block and then letting other companies use those blocks to make their own products or will you be producing specific products yourself.

    Andrea Rossi

    March 30, 2016 at 10:13 AM

    Manuel Cilia:

    We will build our products in our factory.

    By the way, I just finished the meeting with ABB and defined the scheduling of the work, the robot lone configuration, the functions to be implemented. I am very satisfied. It was time to pass from the desiging of laboratories to the desogn of factories: I miss so much a good, solid and effective industry. I am in essence a factory man and I couldn’t wait to start this stage of my work with the E-Cats. Our mission in a nutshell: make jobs, make good products, kill the competition with intrinsic competitivity and with a ferocious defense of our Intellectual Property, allow our Customers to make money with our products.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    LikeShow more reactionsComment

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    The similarity to AA size of 3 batteries in line is interesting. Being able to bundle them for increased heat or light or electricity output makes for a very adaptable package.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Bob Tivnan

      I also thought of AA batteries to imagine the form factor of the Quark-X. Besides the obvious difference in function, I don’t think the Quark-X in its present state could work as a portable energy source like a battery because it may require input to trigger and sustain the reaction. Although SSM may be possible, Rossi has indicated that it presents a serious control problem. If intermittent (or continuous) energy pulses are required, then the Quark may be better suited to stationary applications. This is another reason why industry is being targeted first. Domestic applications are inherently more mobile and prone to safety concerns, especially transportation. I predict these will only become feasible in later generations of the Quark-x. I want an E-Cat powered lawn-mower as much as the next guy, but we are long way from that day. Of course, that won’t stop a lot of yahoos from trying.

  • DrD

    Frank, the answer to question 3 in FAQ might need revising?

    • Frank Acland

      That’s fine — what would you suggest?

      • DrD

        I honestly don’t know. I suppose when it was composed it was unlikely that what AR is now describing could be forseen. I mean 100W from a “pencil” and even NO heat, just electric.

        • DrD

          Maybe it’s a bit premature until we actually see one.

          • roseland67

            No,
            That’s crazy talk DrD