Rossi: 1 Week E-Cat QuarkX Test to Start at End of May with Potential Cutomer/Partner (Update #3: News About Testing on Monday )

UPDATE #3 (Jun 10, 2016)

It looks like we can expect news about the E-Cat QuarkX on Monday when the current round of testing will be over. Here are a couple of Q&As on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Q: Has the QuarkX testing with your customer ended now — and what happens next?

Andrea Rossi
June 10, 2016 at 8:24 PM
Frank Acland: no, we are working today and tomorrow too.
Monday I will give information about the situation.
Warm Regards,

Q: You confirm that Monday we will have information about the QuarkX ?

Andrea Rossi
June 10, 2016 at 8:21 PM
Yes, good or bad as they might be.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #2 (June 7, 2016)

Here are a couple of rather general comments from Andrea Rossi from today and yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the QuarkX testing that has been going on for about a week now, according to AR:

Q: Without going into specific data (F8), how would you describe the reactions so far of your testing partners to what they are seeing in the E-Cat QuarkX testing? A: Optimistic

Q: Today was an important day in the testing for you, and we all are hoping that things went smoothly. Did the QuarkX(3) perform carefree for you today? A: Still very promising. We are working very hard and very well.

UPDATE #1 (May 31, 2016)

Here are some more questions about the testing (which apparently starts today) from Hank Mills, along with Rossi’s responses:

Hank Mills
May 30, 2016 at 8:55 PM
Dear Andrea,

1) Will there be an ERV or third party involved with the one week test of the Quark? 1- no

2) Are there specific goals or benchmarks that need to be met by this test? If so, what are they? 2- reliability, performance, safety

3) Will there be a comprehensive test report generated either by you, the customer, or the third party (if there is one)? 3- yes, obviously, but it will not be public

4) If a comprehensive test report is produced, when will it be shared with the public? 4- eventually, after an official certification-validation which will be also the “GO” to the manufacturing (F8)

5) How many Quarks will be utilized in the one week test? 5- three

6) Will photographs or videos be taken during the test? If so, will they be shared with the public? 6- no

7) How will the heat produced by the Quarks be measured? 7- putting on the hot surface the finger of somebody and see how loudly he cries ( audiometric measurement, a new patent of mine)

8) How will the electricity produced by the Quarks be measured? 8- same as above ( disconnecting the earth cable)

9) If the test is a complete and total success, what are your next steps forward in the near future? 9- see point 4

10) Will the Quark be ran in self sustain mode during the test for significant periods of time — for example a half hour or longer? 10- yes

Thank you.

Hank Mills

Obviously some humor in there; it seems that there won’t be a third party independent tester, so I would assume that the potential partner will have their own people there to make measurements, as well as Rossi. Which would only make sense if you were checking out the E-Cat and considering making a commitment to use it. I think if the QuarkX can run in self-sustain mode while continuing to produce heat and electricity it would be quite an impressive achievement. Rossi says the QuarkX can run at above 1400 C, and if it can continue to run at those temperatures without any input (let along producing electricity), something unusual must be going on.


Andrea Rossi has stated on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that he planned to do some important testing of the E-Cat QuarkX in June. Yesterday he made another comment about this test on the JONP:

Andrea Rossi
May 28, 2016 at 8:20 PM
As I said, At the end of May we will have a confined test that will close the preliminary R&D of the QuarkX. It will last a further week.
After that, we will prepare consequently.
Warm Regards,

In responses to some follow-up questions Rossi provided a little more detail

Q: Can you clarify what you mean by a “confined test” that will last a week? By this do you mean an enclosed test methodology where the System input energy and output energy are precisely measured with the test run continuously over a week duration?”

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 11:56 AM
Steven N. Karels:
Not at all: I just mean not public, restricted to a Partner and few of us.

Q: You say at the end of May you will start a confined test with the QuarkX that will last a week. Is this the test you mentioned that will take place with a potential partner/customer?

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 11:54 AM
Frank Acland:
Warm Regards,

So according to Rossi the test will start at the end of May — which means if it hasn’t started today it will apparently begin on Monday or Tuesday and run for a week. Rossi has previously said that the potential customer/partner is a group that could help them with production of the QuarkX, which makes me think it could be a Swedish company, since Rossi has said he is planning his first QuarkX production factory in Sweden.

I don’t think we can expect any kind of formal report to come out of this testing, so it may be a while to get any kind of third-party report about what went on. Rossi has said that details about the QuarkX will be provided after the conclusion of the R&D period — maybe this test will signal the ending of the preliminary testing. So maybe we’ll get some new information in some form or another.

UPDATE: Ross responded to a JONP reader about getting some information about this test:

Andrea Rossi
May 29, 2016 at 2:39 PM
Robert Dorr:
Thank you for your comment.
I agree: I will communcate the results, within the possible limits.
Warm Regards,

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    If it was easy to deliver a radically new technology to the market, as it continually progresses day by day, then the world would be full of amazing new products.

    However it does not work like and even for very big companies, 5 years to market for a totally new product would be quick.

    I do hope to have this design on the market in maybe 2 – 3 years but to do that I need to keep everything but the QuarkX reactor as off the shelf tech as possible so all I need to focus on is getting the reactor to do what I want it to do.

  • cashmemorz

    Knowing this will your current client rethink using LENR? Or are they so close to the front of this market that they will still have sufficient time to continue making betterr money despite LENR that they themsleves will employ before going under.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Cash,

      I seems you have very little time for the companies that own and run all the world’s power plants. You know the guys who invested their money, time and professional careers to generate and distribute the electricity that keeps the lights on and allows others to build the machines we are currently using to engage this conversation.

      No they will not be going under. If they do then we are going back to the cave.

      I fully believe the worst statement Rossi every made was to talk about home power generation. It may one day happen but it will not be in our lifetimes.

      • cashmemorz

        I have nothing against investors or owners or any one having an interset in making money off of electricity, on grid or off. I just want to get a feel for how the proof of how LENR works and any insurance concerns re hazards and when they might be proven one way or another along with other aspects in the market. Maybe I’m being alarmist too soon. As you say it will probably take several years or decades. So I might as well check back every few years into getting a home system when I see it at Home Depot or on Leonardo’s web site

      • GiveADogABone

        I think these folks would say that technology for home electricity generation is already working :-

        A fuel cell is the most efficient way of converting fuel energy into electricity. It doesn’t matter whether the fuel is natural gas or hydrogen. Fuel cells convert fuel and air directly into power and heat in a chemical reaction. This makes the process efficient, reliable and quiet.

        Fuel passes over the anode side and air passes over the cathode. Sandwiched between the anode and cathode is the very thin, electrolyte layer. An external circuit connects the anode to the cathode and provides the mechanism to take power from the fuel cell to power electrical devices.

        A single cell can power a low-energy light bulb. Approximately 100 cells are combined to create a stack. One stack could supply up to 90% of a home’s electricity needs and all of its hot-water.

        The Steel Cell is completely scalable, for example 200 stacks can supply a large office, apartment block or supermarket.

  • giovanniontheweb

    Mr Rossi is not an US product I do not think he is doing this efforth for the aim of the show

  • help_lenr

    Rossi offered IH to cancel the test cancel the licence and return them the 11.5 million dollars. this offer was in the middle of the test, after they offered him a smaller amount at that time. IH refused to Rossi’s offer which means that all they want is to get the license for a small amount of money. IH were not honest.

    • Pweet

      Where does that info come from?
      I don’t suppose it was from Mr Rossi was it?
      If it was I would want to get some confirmation from IH or an independent source.

      • SD

        It was from Rossi.

  • Gerald

    Thinking about the stress about the ih contract Rossi must been in the last half year from the test, your conclusion about safety are premature. And remember his age, a lot of people lose fat when they get old and Rossi didn’t had lots to lose to begin with.

  • Steve Swatman

    “Let us not demonize IH for deciding to break a simple business contract.” hahahahahahaha

  • kdk

    If it were that simple, I don’t think we’d be seeing a lawsuit of any sort but instead Rossi and IH moving on to talk about safety. IIRC, the Ecat has already been safety certified.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    We have confirmation from IH, they are not denying that a nuclear engineer has made report.

  • help_lenr

    I rarely argue with people who are too emotional: they are not rational. Rothwell behaves like this.

    About Peter Gluck. He said on 9 June that he will stop taking part in the war Rossi vs IH, starting 10 June. But he is not able to stop (this time because Rothwell continues argue with him in LENR-FORUM).

  • Engineer48

    Hi Sam,

    So you’re OK for tax payers to pay out the asset value of all the working thermal power plants you want forcefully scrapped?

    Should cost around 100 trillion dollars.

    Or maybe let the plant owners update them to QuarkX boilers at NO cost to the tax payer and electricity rate payer & totally eliminate thermal power plant environmental pollution at no cost to the tax payer and electricity rate payer?

    Suggest the best pathway is a no brained.

    • Allan Shura

      We see nuclear power plants all over that were designed for 40 years going on 60.
      We are seeing some politicians saying thing like our goal is 30% non grid by 2030.
      We cannot be overly optimistic nor pessimistic nor deluded to try and predict but
      I believe some novel technology is at the gate and non grid will expand at a much,
      much, faster rate than the politicians predict or think is possible.
      Why on earth would the taxpayer pay out the asset value except if it is a government
      owned asset?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Allan,

        If by gov policy change, existing thermal power plants are no longer allowed to operate to make money, the owners will expect to be compensated for their asset being stranded and for their loss of future income.

        This is happening in Australia, where the dirtier brown coal plants are being forced to shut down, even though their steam turbines and generators are good for many more decades of operation.

        So instead of stranding a good generation asset, maybe just shut down the existing fossil boiler and feed 600C steam from a bank of QuarkX reactors located close to the existing steam turbine?

        That way the plant owner is happy as they can finance the replacement QuarkX boilers from the life time fuel and environmental savings and no one has to compensate them for their plant being forced to shut down when it still has decades of life left and the plant no longer emits any pollution.

        All at no cost the the gov taxpayer nor no cost to the electricity user. In fact electricity prices should decline as the cost of wholesale production has declined.

        So everybody wins, environment, gov, user and plant owner plus the upgrade process creates heaps of new jobs.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          It is my understanding that the superheat portion of most coal-fired plants is significantly above 600C. On the other hand, nuclear plants produce steam at lower temperatures than 600C. What is the technical impact of running the coal plants at 600C? I assume that the coal plants will run at lower thermodynamic efficiency, emitting more waste heat for the same electrical generation, but are there other issues?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Most older thermal plants run with subcritical steam turbine inlet temps at around 550C. Newer supercritical turbines run around 630C steam. As I understand it, nuclear plants run around 300C steam.

            As QuarkX is quoted at over 1,500C, whatever steam temperature is needed should be doable.

            • Thomas Kaminski

              I think the aging nuclear plants are the first likely to be converted. They have few options except de-commissioning since you cannot add a combustion facility (with accompanying emissions) on the same site. Do you think it is possible to run the turbines with higher temperature steam?

              • Engineer48

                Hi Thomas,

                From what I know, nuclear steam turbines are a special design, so expect they will need to be run with steam at their rated design.

                With a lower Carnot efficiency, just means there will need to be more QuarkX reactors generating the turbines steam.

                • Stephen

                  Much as I like the idea of distributed home units I do agree with you Engineer48. I also see that practically its most likely to start this way. Making billions of home units will take time. I guess it will occur eventually but initially to make sure it benefits as many people as possible from the beginning it makes sense to use the current power plants and distribution systems and grid. It also makes sense for initial safety and certification reasons tus use companies that are already strongly experienced in power production and distribution. It’s also in the interest for those power supply companies to play fair I think because home units will also eventually become viable independently and eventually be widely distributed and become increasingly competitive. If they ignore the technology however and do not adapt they will not be able to compete and become left behind. It’s also an opportunity for those companies to cross train and develope the required engineering base to install and maintain and net work future distributed units which I guess they could adapt to in future business.

                  I suppose most of the bulk of the 1MW plant is due to the boilers rather than the reactors them selves. I wonder if it would make sense to use the 1 MW plant to supply slightly super heated steam that can be easily and safely distributed to vicinity of the generators which could then be super heated to the much higher required temperatures by seperate Quark X units in the very near vicinity of the generators.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Stephen,

                  As far as I know, transporting wet steam is very lossy and besides 90% of the energy is used to turn wet steam into dry / superheated steam.

                  That said there is no way the pressure required to run a steam turbine will be circulated inside the QuarkX reactors. I suspect that will be done in the secondary / turbine side of a number of heat exchangers.

                • Stephen

                  Yup Engineer48, After following your posts I understand about wet and dry steam, but I understand the 1MW plant also supplies superheated steam but at close to normal pressure and temperature between 103 deg C and about 130 degC. I think I understand the points about using heat exchangers to handle the fluids under higher temperatures from the Quark X and also high pressures fluids needed for the turbines but I suppose these could be more local to the generator. I was just wondering if it could be more efficient to have a system based on both types of ecat rather than just the Quark model, but perhaps in a well designed system that efficiently uses the available heat from th quarks that’s not necessary. I really hope you and your contacts are able to get this project to work. Will be great I think. Looking forward to hearing about it working some day.

          • GiveADogABone

            The theoretical basis for all these questions is the Rankine Cycle. Plenty of data, charts and explanations via a search engine.

            The temperature/entropy chart for a steam power turbine shows the cycle as a line that forms a continuous path through the various stages of pumping water, pre-heating , boiling, superheating, reheating and condensation back to water.

            BWR and PWR power stations are limited by the critical temperature of water at about 350C. The AGR reactors in the UK use exactly the same turbines as the coal-fired stations with inlet temperatures to the HP turbine of 540C and reheating to the same temperature. BWR and PWR turbines use wet steam (no superheat or reheat). AGR thermal efficiency is about 40% and PWRs below about 30%.

        • cashmemorz

          In using Lenr the future worth of a power plant starts to go down faster than the normally expected worth. In adapting the plant to a low cost prime mover the owner or investor is looking at rapidly declining return on investment despite immediate apparent higher profit and apparent near term happy low paying customer. Then the happy customer gets greedy by using LENR domestically. By using LENR successfully any user promotes their own demise. Using traditional fuel a powerplant may have 30+ years of expected life. With LENR it will promote others to try it and not have to use the grid plant’s power. Thereby an on grid plant will expect a shorter life mayby half.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Cash,

            I’m a realists.

            While I ordered 3 x 10kW home units in the 1st days it was available, I do NOT expect to EVER see delivery.

            This is a NUCLEAR REACTOR. You really want one in your home if the grid price of electricity drops and power plant pollution drops to ZERO? What do you think your insurance company will think if you have a NUCLEAR REACTOR in your home?

            • cashmemorz

              The insurance issue is one I long time ago mentioned as a way would probably be used to slow down use of LENR. The exact method I see that the insurance issue to be applied, is by the mainline scientific community using their input to the actuarial data for emphasising the dangers of possible radiation in a leNr device. However there are many other devices that have ongoing safety issues such as CO emmisions from kerosene space heaters, If that is a concern that is not 100% prevented whether by mandated design improvements or altogether banning such devices than at what level or under what conditions does the government have a say to prevent domestic use of a device before any danger is expected. Lenr has had recorde neutron and other nuclear emmisionsis true. But at such rarety and intensity as to make the CO emmisions loom large in comparison. Whether LENR will be allowed or prevented for domestic use may depend on exact definition in practical terms the particular dangersof LENR. Will the dangers be spelled out in a way to simply to slow down its acceptance or because of real dangers.

              • cashmemorz

                I do want a LENR device in my home for economic reasons. If the safety issues are minimal then all the more reason to have it at home. I suppose we will have to wait for a robust design that covers the safety aspect. That may have to be proven as much as the basic theory of how it works. The time frame for these two issues is anybodies guess given the state of knowledge about what may be happening in the nuclear region when such a device is working. There are so many theories and none has been tested experimentally to the point of being definitively proven. Whether I actually pay for one will depend on the results of those experiments.

                As another issue related I see the results in this area to be as important as the what has developed so far vis-a-vis E-Cat and similar devices.

            • cashmemorz

              There are currently two points under which Rossi’s E-Cat is “unsubstantiated”. One is the lack of a working, robust theory of how it works on the at the nuclear level, yet. Two, there is no way to know how dependable it is re the control via battery power versus mains power. Recirculating the power via battery which might malfunction tied into the same system as the E-Cat could lead to runaway power, meltdown or explosion even with highly dependable dead man switches et al. So, yes, one may have to wait for these two issues, at least , to be resolved before one would want to take a chance with something that at the present time is not known if it will work in the long term as one would want.

      • Omega Z

        Allan, The consumer/tax payer always pays these costs and justifiably so. It is a part of the cost of the consumer product. For me, the real question is was it properly allowed for. They should be applied from the beginning. Asking the consumer to pay this cost at a later date makes them feel like they’ve been misled.

        U.S. Nuclear power plants have a surcharge added to the energy price that is placed in a trust. This is to pay for the eventual disposal of the power plant at end of life. The cost of coal includes the recovery/reclaim of strip mined land to bring it back to or better then it’s previous state.

        As to life cycles being extended, That’s due to a skilled labor shortage. There’s a 10 year list of over 1000 power plants waiting to be built because the skilled labor to build them isn’t available. This will get worse. Over 50% of all skilled labor is 59 years old or older.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am totally tried of hearing about IH and the stupid lawsuit. It means nothing. IH created nothing and will never create anything. IH is nothing but a bunch of Wall Street types trying to make a fast buck, and/or running interference for much larger client. It was a “License” agreement, now canceled for IH failure to make payments. We now know there is a 50 COP E-cat in existence certified by a nuclear engineer. Get those reactors out to customers as fast as possible so they can start making profit from their use. This is the ONLY way to quiet the Naysayers, preserve the Rossi IP and get this critical new energy source out there replacing fossil fuels.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bernie,

      As far as I know, that is happening.

      Rossi stated full speed ahead now that the IH agreement is terminated.

      What Rossi has behind him now is 1 year of very practice hands on experience living with and fixing an operational 1MW ECat reactor. As an engineer with product design & development experience, what Rossi did was to gain so much experience that his next reactor design will just about work 100% straight from the 1st prototype.

      In other words Rossi sacrificed 1 year of his life to, as rapidly as possible, propel his reactors into the market place. For that we should be grateful and appreciative of what he did & why.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Could this be why we are seeing delay, delay tactics?

  • Leonardo has revoked the license on the grounds stated in their court case (non payment). If Rossi wins, that would end any hope they might have of reinstating it. Even if they won, they would have no way to force Leonardo to supply reactors.

    Unless one of their ‘stable’ of inventors comes up with a viable system Cherokee is out of the LENR game, and even then they would face IP infringement claims from Leonardo.

    • kdk

      Yes, so IH can either do an about face and stake claim to the IP, thereby showing that they actually believe in the Ecat, significantly weakening their case, or they can let the IP slip away from them. Either way, Rossi and the world wins.

      • You have to ask how a wily operator like Darden managed to so mismanage things that his (paper) company ended up in the current situation. It’s pretty much a given that things aren’t everything they seem, but it looks pretty certain that IH will be the loser, come what may

        To me it reeks of outside intervention by interests that Darden couldn’t ignore, and that IH has been shoved under a bus to suit the purposes of others. Darden/Cherokee will no doubt be compensated via some other channel.

        • kdk

          I would agree, though honestly I’ve been starting to wonder if Cherokee has been a lip service green company all along. I start to wonder if anything will come of Brillouin now that they’re involved with IH, if it’s true that they were involved.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Kdk,

            Brillouin’s advantage is they are a 100% Yankee company that has presented their HHT reactor to the US Congress. Yanks like home town boys.

            Will be interesting to see if Leonardo file suit against Brillouin if they ever present their HHT reactor for commercial sale as Rossi has claimed IH shared his IP with them.

          • Whether they are successful or not in producing a viable reactor design, the net effect is that they will have ‘gone dark’, in that it’s unlikely that there will be further news from them for some time (if at all).

            IH’s activities look like deliberate harvesting of as many hopeful start-ups as they could identify. Whether this has been for commercial reasons or the geopolitical purposes of others remains to be seen. I suspect the latter.

  • kenko1

    Probably because they’ve been told over and over that the next ‘big breakthrough’ is right around the corner, for the last 40+ years. So they’re building what they DO know in order to keep up with demand and replace worn out facilities.

  • cashmemorz

    Fission Nukes are along standing known for sure technology, as against the relatively, very new LENR tech. Old tech has built in inertia via lobby groups, suppliers, investors, belief by masses, establishment scientists and many others. A powerful bunch that keeps the inertia of the big ship nuclear fission going in the same direction as for years, no decades. LENR is a few years barely known and minimally “substantiated” so far. New guy on the block has to do a lot of proving and keeping nose clean and even then prejudice will keep it down, as in who does this guy think he is. Little power against established confidence of old tech.

  • Frank Acland

    No, I would prefer that the sides settle and the E-Cat is allowed to emerge in the public arena where it deserves to be.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      The lawsuit is not preventing the 50 COP E-Cat from being sold! Get it out there, as fast possible, to a customer able and willing to show its economic value!

      • Pweet

        He’s got orders for three more 1MW plants apparently, to the same customer who bought the energy from the original test plant, so he could get on with the urgent production to fill that order.
        Also there are another ten orders hanging in the balance waiting for an outcome of the present court case. He would do well to finalize the litigation and get on with production before it all flies out the window. These opportunities don’t wait around forever.
        At 1.5 million per plant that would be 20 million dollars waiting to be picked up, and that would be just the beginning.
        With all those happy customers out there singing praise of the ecat it would have to be the start of something really big, one might think.
        So this time next year,.. ?

        • Brokeeper

          What a better way to prove IH wrong than to have three identical plants operating for the same company. Poof! Rossi either gets his 98M or sole ownership of IP.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          He does not have to “finalize the litigation” let IH go swing in the wind. Make 50 COP reactors, get them out creating profit for their owners that is the ONLY way to quiet the nay Sayers.

          • Pweet

            Engineer48 says he has a client who is looking at buying 10 X 1MW plants but is holding off waiting for the results of the litigation. The delay is not due to a legal thing. It’s probably just that they don’t want to place an order and then find the whole show has been shut down.
            They might also be hoping for some confirmation as to the veracity of the performance claims. It sounds like a reasonable approach.

            • Pweet

              I should also have mentioned I agree entirely with your statement ;-
              “Make 50 COP reactors, get them out creating profit for their owners that is the ONLY way to quiet the nay Sayers.”
              I would also add, that should have been done years ago. If it had been, we would now be three years ahead of where we are now.
              But where are we now? Well, about where we were three years ago, and that is, on the lookout for a new powerful partner.

      • Jimr

        Bernie, The 1 meg plant had 170 problems in the first 240 days, and per Rossi was not much better in the remaining months. After the test was completed Rossi said he had 2 people working on improvements. Would you want to purchase a unit with that reliability?

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          YES!!!! If it had a 50 COP and could eventually change our dependency on fossil fuels. Someone decided to buy the first airplane, cloth, strings and held together with thread.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jim,

          Very interesting information.

          What is the source?

          • Jimr

            Both are from JNOP blog, Rossi stated the 170 failures after 8 months, toward the end ot the year someone ( Idon’t recall the name) wrote that the ecat seemed to be operating more reliably, Rossi replied “thank you but you would be wrong”.

            • Roland

              If you parse that a little more closely it soon emerges that these were operational problems that are common to any new technology until all the engineering issues are resolved, and not as you state ‘failures’, and that a very small percentage of these problems were actually related to the reactors themselves.

              The vast majority of these problems centered around plumbing leakages; there’s a list in a post here at ECW where Rossi enumerated all the problems by category.

              The reactors themselves are very robust compared to the subsystems serving them.

          • Omega Z

            There was a large number of issues. Issues that included multiple episodes of springing leaks as well as corroded bolts that were of poor plating quality.

        • Jimr

          Forgot, Rossi also stated in there were two people assigned to the1meg cat after shortly after the test

          • help_lenr

            Maybe he hired again Fabiani (?) and his friend (his name is West if I remember).

            Looks like they are available for work now

            • wpj

              DW says that West is spending his time fishing in NC and has lots of stories to tell about his time in Miami. This assumes that anything DW says can be trusted!

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    I disagree, if he does he would lose millions of dollars. No way that could happe

  • roseland67

    I was under the impression that Ecat was going to be used for local distributed generation thus reducing/eliminating the need for central utilities?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    A QuarkX boiler can be fitted just as easily to a nuclear plant as it can be fitted to a fossil plant. Both use superheated steam driven turbines.

    • The problem with the possibility of ‘retro-fitting’ nuclear power stations is that it takes from a couple of decades (where the reactor can be physically removed for burial) to a century to decommission these plants. All of the current generation of UK reactors will require decommissioning in situ, and the tightly integrated designs mean that its unlikely that any of the currently operating nuclear reactor sites can be ‘retro-fitted’ for cold fusion.

      In the now unlikely event that Hinkley Point C construction ever begins, there will be a ‘window’ before fuelling in which conversion might remain possible, but as the hidden purpose of the ‘new nukes’ is to convert to MOX (uranium-plutonium) fuel after a few cycles to reduce the piles of plutonium stored at Sellafield), it’s unlikely the UK government would halt the build no matter how attractive the CF option becomes. Possibly other countries would be more rational, but as building ‘new nukes’ is a marker of irrationality, that is unlikely.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Agaricus,

        Simple to install a LENR steam generator next to the steam turbine to drive the turbine while the fission reactor is decommissioned.

        A nuclear plants steam turbines will work fine being driven by LENR generated steam.

        • cashmemorz

          Sure, if the environment gets so bad that desperate measures have to be taken. In the normal process, old plants are decommissioned, demolished and all the rest of it. Then new plants are designed with the new tech from the ground up. It all takes time. However, I can understand the wish for speed in introducing LENR

          • Engineer48

            Hi Cash,

            Issue is very simple for the thermal power plant owners.

            Is QuarkX retrofit cost plus future QuarkX fuel costs plus future QuarkX maintenance costs less than future fossil / nuclear fuel costs plus environmental compliance costs plus future fossile / nuclear maintenance costs?

            Simple business decision based on which pathway generates the highest profit.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          It is my understanding that superheated steam can be piped long distances without too much loss. This would allow a parallel facility to generate LENR steam and pipe it to the turbines. Most of the rest of the system (cooling towers/heat exchanges, water conditioning, etc) could remain the same. In many plants (example: Pressurized Water Reactors), a separate steam generator unit exists inside the containment vessel. It should be simple to re-plumb the steam pipes.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Yes that is the advantage of superheated steam, small transit losses.

            For the fossil thermal power plant I was working on, the plan was to do just that, place enough QuarkX reactors close enough to the steam turbine to bypass the old steam piping from the fossil boilers. No need to decommission the old boilers and flue tower as such, just close off the steam pathway from them and provide a new steam pathway from the QuarkX based steam generation plant to the steam turbines.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        In addition to E48’s comment below, LENR could be used to „neutralize“ the radioactive waste that is left by the plants. It might sound so far like science fiction, but if this technology worked and could be applied on an industrial scale it would be as valuable as cheap energy production, I think. See, for example:

    • roseland67

      So, you think Sweden is going to build nuclear reactors with Quark X as the power supply?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Roselands,

        Electricity is normally produced by spinning generators, spun by steam turbines.

        The steam can be produced by:
        Fission reactor
        Fusion reactor
        Solar energy
        Geothermal energy
        Fossil fuels

        LENR reactors could be used to replace all the above for existing plants & new plants.

        Will probably take around 5 years for the thermal power plant owners to trust LENR boilers to replace their existing boilers.

        • If your coal-fired plants are being shut down by government edict, you might be keener than others to give conversion to CF a try – especially if that could be arranged on a trial leasing basis initially.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Roselands,

        I believe all existing, being built & in planning thermal power plants, with any existing tech boilers, will eventually be converted over to 600C QuarkX boilers as the plant life fuel cost differential is so massive. The fuel costs savings alone could easily pay for the conversion.

  • Mats002

    Obviously if the Swedish politicians heard of E-Cat as the first usable LENR/CF device they don’t see a future with it, at least not now. Maybe sometime in the future.

    E-Cat is still not reproducable, not even at lab scale is it’s claimed COP reproducable.

    I wouldn’t advice any government to make E-Cat part of their energy policy today. But would advice them to explore LENR/CF in the science field if I had such a position.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats002,

      Strong statement.

      Based on what information?

    • Roland

      Bizarrely enough ELFORESK scientists are held in high regard in Sweden and, unlike in other jurisdictions, Swedish politicians actually pay attention when the nation’s foremost physicists and power engineers suggest that they take note of an important emerging technology that was successfully tested using ELFORESK funding.

      The only possible reason for your statement that ‘E-Cat is still not reproducable, not even at lab scale is it’s claimed COP reproducable (sp).’ is that you are of the opinion that all the events of the last 3 years of E-cat evolution are totally fabricated.

      Your dubious theory is increasingly unlikely and the evidence against it is growing by the day.

      Soon enough events will render your position absurd.

    • roseland67


  • LuFong

    Interesting time stamps on the Update #3’s. Had Monday come up earlier?

    Let’s hope we hear something definitive and not just another round of waiting.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Well done.