E-Cat QuarkX Q&A Compilation (Updated: Safety Measures Will Reduce COP)

Since the short report of the internal R&D testing of the E-Cat QuarkX that was published on ecat.com yesterday there have been a barrage of questions submitted to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about this new E-Cat reactor and I thought it might be useful to try and compile them for an easy reference. I have been selective in the Q&As, trying to pick the relevant ones on technical (not business) points that can give as clear a picture as possible of what Rossi is telling us about the QuarkX. Rossi’s responses are in bold. I may add to the list as time goes on.

UPDATE (Jun 17, 2016)

Andrea Rossi has answered a question on the JONP today that gives more information about the developments that still need to be done with the QuarkX before it can be considered a safe technology, and note that he states the COP will need to be reduced:

Did I read correctly that the Quark X produced 0.1 KWh/h vs 0.0005 KWh/h electrical energy consumed?

Before I answer a disclaimer must be repeated: the tests on the QuarkX E-Cat are still on course and all the results need repetitions and confirmations. The results obtained so far are very promising, but safety problems must be resolved and such safety problems will reduce the COP, independently from other factors. Nevertheless, I am very glad of the work done so far and the numbers you cited are the number we got, but, again, these numbers cannot be considered ¨five sigma¨.
It is also important the strong development we got for what concerns the theoretical bases of the effect, in full rtespect of the Standard Model. I strongly believe I have understood it. Soon will work on it with Prof. Norman Cook.
Nevertheless, again, much work has to be done before getting the five sigma and a solid theoretical interpretation.
Warm Regards,

Does the QuarkX still use hydrogen? Yes

How long have these QuarkX modules operated providing these results consistently? about 100 hours of effective average

You say the photo was taken through a hole in a pipe — are the QuarkXs enclosed in a pipe during normal operation to provide eye protection? to provide protection not just to the eyes

You told us the QuarkX was as big as a pencil, now it turns out to be mm 30 x 1 instead of the expected mm 300 x 10. Why? We decided to make this test with the smaller possible unit, to define a fundamental element.

Are you able to feed the produced electric energy back to the heating and control system of the reactor? No, it is not possible . . . The reasons why we cannot be independent from an external source are mainly connected with safety issues. I cannot give further information.

What was the longest period of self sustain in which the output remained steady or increased with zero input power? zero seconds. Always fed half Wh/h

What is the COP when only accounting for the input power and the 10% electricity being produced?  equivalence principle: the COP is always the same, does not depend on the eventual efficiency

Does the Quark X tested utilize lithium in the charge? yes

Does the Quark X tested utilize nickel in the charge? yes

You have mentioned that the Quark X uses titanium: is this a component in the charge? can’t answer in positive or negative

Did you measure any alpha particles being emitted from the reactor? If so, were their energies consistent with what would result from the proton + lithium reaction? no

The blue light from E-CatQX is the Čerenkov effect? We have understood what the blue halo is and I think we have resolved the theoretical issue. To be checked, obviously, with further study, probably in collaboration with Norman Cook.

QuarkX’s can be switched on and off in seconds? it will

QuarkX’s are very suitable for jets? premature to say

The tested 1x30mm Quarks will work for months on one charge? yes

QuarkX’s cannot be recharged. wrong

QuarkX’s outperform E-cats in many aspects? maybe

QuarkX’s differ so much from E-cats that they can hardly be compared and require new patents?  the work on patents is dynamic, not static

Do you know what the light output was in Lumens? The ratio between Lumens and Watts is not a constant, it is an integral and the value of the derivatives depend not linearly on the amount of Watts. For example: 40 W correspond to about 450 L, 100 W correspond to 1600 L.

How do you collect the electricity from the reactor? The electricity is collected with any classic and well known technology,not necessarily one in particular.

Is the produced electicity AC or DC? We can have either AC or DC.






  • Axil Axil

    “Maybe more problematic is that all SPPs theories of LENR have until now failed to explain why increasing the temperature to more than 1200°C is beneficial to the reaction.”

    It could be the black hole in a box principle


    A bose condinsate can act as a black hole with regards to hawking radiation, A polariton is a superconductor, laser, and Bose condinsate all at the same time


    A EMF Bose condinsate/black hole analog would achieve zero dispersion where all its energy would be radiated as hawking radiation.
    “The key question is how a strong coupling could exist between the pairs (H-)(+) and photons.”

    The strong coupling between the dipole and the photon is achieved through entanglement and is maintained by Bose condensation of the polariton.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor,

    Low ESR is good. The only kind of filter caps to design in if you want long cap life and low cap temps / losses.

  • Engineer48

    In the QuarkX reactor’s direct output battle for control. it seems AC has won.

  • Engineer48

    Here are my thoughts on how to construct a Remote Area / Emergency Power system based on what I currently know about the QuarkX reactor.

    I have not utilised the light output as that is a big unknown at this time. As there is high efficiency lighting available on the market, I decided to utilise those, powered either from the high quality AC output or from the high quality DC outputs.

    Your comments are most welcome.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      I suggest a few complicate heat and radiation to electricity conversion system to provide greater efficiency. The first stage – termoemissionny converter thermal and optical radiation into electric current. The second stage – thermocatalytic decomposition steam mixed with carbon monoxide to produce hydrogen, with subsequent separation of it by using membrane technology. Conversion of hydrogen into electricity in fuel cells. The third stage – the production of electricity in a steam turbine Rankine cycle.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Fedir,

        This is a Remote Area design. Think KISS!!!

        • DrD

          Yes, and with almost free fuel, the ultimate in efficiency isn’t that important.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Fuel is not free. The cost of lithium is growing in the world. Very much of its surprising number of uses in batteries. With the wide use of lithium to power its value will increase continuously. Therefore it is very important to develop reactors company Brillyuena- the possibility generation of deuterium and lack of lithium .of fuel

            • DrD

              NOTE: I said “ALMOST free” In this context it is as good as free. You saw AR’s cost?

    • Engineer48

      Updated system diagram.

  • Engineer48

    Here we have very detailed images of how Rossi built his Black HotCat reactor, which I suggest just maybe close to how he built the QuarkX reactor.

    Why as no one tried to replicate this design? I mean it is easier to monitor that a bare DogBone reactor and Rossi has provided more than enough details to allow replication.

    I’m amazed.

  • Engineer48

    While I don’t understand Italian, I can read the schematics and system architecture as attached.

    Image 6 (image with the “CCSU” microprocessor) which shows the individual ECat reactor control system, which looks to be what I would expect. It shows the input power is modulated by a relay and not by a triac as some assumed and that there are 2 over pressure sensors at 1.5 & 1.8 barA, which to me indicates the system monitors max boiling water steam pressure and max dry/superheated steam temperature.

    Both the overall system architecture and the individual ECat control system are what I would expect and push my “This Is Real Meter” very close to 100%.

  • Engineer48
  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Apparently Mr. Rossi uses a fairly primitive thermionic converter to generate electricity from high-grade heat. This converter can deliver a constant and alternating current. Independently, in a small laboratory good converter it does not gather. It is necessary to use a cesium vapor and used carbon nanotubes on the surface of the emitter.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Fedir,

      And you know this how? Please share your link and information.

      Rossi has stated the output is ONLY AC at 50Hz or 60Hz and thus needs to be converted to DC.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Hello Engineer48. If I remember correctly initially Rossi spoke about the generation of DC, then said that the quark can produce permanent or alternating current. At such high temperatures, the initial good thermionic converter gives an efficiency of about 30%. Apologies for the spelling, use Google translator.

    • DrD

      Following up on Eng48’s point below. I would question what kind of primitive thermionic converter have you in mind that is capable of 100% heat to electric energy conversion efficiency which is what he claims.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        I think Rossi has never talked about the efficiency of converting heat and radiation into electricity. One can imagine the high-temperature thermionic converter heat into electricity
        production both DC and AC. Rossi said that the way you can use the converter reactor quark heat to generate electricity from an external heat source.

        • DrD

          Yes he has except in the Quark he simply said the Quark outputs 100W in any combination of Heat, light, electric provided the individuals don’t exceed 10W (electric) (50W light), 100W (heat).
          Of course he could be wrong but that’s what he claimed.
          In other words the two relevant combinations in your example are:
          1) 100Wt
          2) 90Wt plus 10We = 100W Total.
          Therefore, if he’s using the method you described then he has a converter unit that’s 100% efficient which I suggest is not possible.
          If you have one, you should put them on sale, I’ll have a few if the price is right.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Let me disagree with you. Rossi said about 10% of the generation of electricity from all energy produced reactor. It might be expected that electricity is the result of beta decay of unstable isotopes of nickel in the nickel isotopic shift to 62 – but it was said that a quark can generate electricity from a third party rather than the heat from the core reactor

            • DrD

              Your wrong and the source is irrelevant.
              He stated it exactly as I illustated, 10% ELECTRIC PLUS 90% HEAT VS 100% heat. It’s very simple arithemetic.

  • Engineer48

    Email sent to Andrea:

    From: Engineer48
    Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:37 PM
    Subject: Purchase of 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors
    To: Andrea Rossi

    Dear Andrea,

    I would like to express my sincere interest to purchase, ASAP, 3 x 10kWt QuarkX reactors.

    I feel I now have enough input and output information to do a basic design of a battery powered remote / disaster QuarkX reactor system.

    Is it possible to know a rough budgetary price for the 3 x 10kWt reactors with 240vac 3 phase 50Hz excitation and direct AC 50Hz output plus if possible a rough idea of potential delivery availability?

    All my best regards

    Time to put “the pedal to the metal” and get product into the market place.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Yeah, fine. No photo, no video, no design, no replication, nothing. Just a virtual black box with fancy name. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure what 1mwt e-cat reactor is working thing, well, probably with multiple glitches, but. And hot cat has been replicated at least 3 times already. But I just do not see the point to discuss totally hidden gem.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mike,

      I will certainly try to be one of the 1st OEMs to integrate a QuarkX reactor into a real world product.

      Andrea knows that, so we engage on his forum as he releases info when I ask the right questions.

      BTW Andrea has always released photos of every product he has ever claimed he has built. He has stated the QuarkX reactors will be available in 2016, so I expect to see photos and a specification data sheet soon.

      • Mike Ivanov

        No problem. I just do not see a point for over hype for completely unknown device…

  • Engineer48

    Some good answers from Andrea:

    June 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    In reference to my earlier questions:

    1) Each QuarkX reactor needs 240vac single phase to operate it and the control system?

    2) Is DC or AC output available directly from the reactor, without needing any type conversion? Ie rectification for AC to obtain DC or inversion for Dc to obtain AC?

    3) If AC is available directly from the reactor, is the output frequency dependent on the input frequency or is it some other frequency?

    4) For either DC or AC output, is the output voltage stable under different loads or will voltage regulation be needed to provide stable direct DC or AC output?

    I have a number of potential remote area QuarkX projects currently under design, including direct water extraction from the atmosphere and water purification, and your news that QuarkX reactors will be commercially available in 2016 is REALLY good and exciting news!

    Is it too soon to publish the spectrum of the light output? I ask as if the spectrum fits, it may be able to assist water purification.

    Andrea Rossi
    June 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM
    1- not necessarily
    2- AC
    3- can’t answer, but we can obtain 50 or 60 Hz
    4- we give stable output
    5- to soon to publish the spectrum
    Disclaimer: even if the preliminar R&D has been completed, more R&D is necessary to verify and confirm the data.
    Warm Regards,

    The direct QuarkX reactor electrical output is AC, at either 50 or 60 Hz and the voltage output is stable.

    • Rene

      But be careful as he did not state how it is made stable (external conditioning, etc.). AC yes, but did not say whether this is zero crossing AC or, for that matter, whether the AC is sinusoidal. A DC bias makes matters a little more complicated.
      I am not surprised about being able to control the frequency as the electron surge is probably tied to each excitation event. Do that 60 times a second and between the excitation pulses you get a surge of electrons.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        Yes could easily have a DC offset. But then again if the AC output is synchronised to the mains it may be OK.

        Don’t expect it will be sinusoidal. That would be way too much to expect.

    • DrD

      I’m confused.
      First he was saying *(more than once) the direct output was DC, then he said AC or DC. Now he’s just said it is AC.
      Edit, when he said AC or DC I assumed it ws AC via an inveter but apparently not.

      • Engineer48

        Hi DrD,

        I was also confused, which is why I asked the questions I did. Anyway now we know a lot more.

        Direct electrical output is AC at either 50Hz or 60Hz and is stable.

        We also now know the QuarkX reactor can be fed from 120vac single phase to 416vac 2 phase, 50 or 60Hz.

        So I’m happy to start designing a remote area / emergency QuarkX reactor that is run from a battery & some of the direct electrical energy is used to recharge the battery.

        • DrD

          I wish you success.
          I wonder how long before we can buy one, a bunch of Quarks that is. Which poses the question, what will be the name for a grouping of Quarks?
          I would like to do the same or perhaps I could be one of your first customers and maybe we could set up an ECW fund so that we can fulfill George’s dream?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            Look I’m a realists and expect the 1st delivered units to need maybe some external processing.

            What yet to be determined is how stable is the thermal output and electrical output as load changes (thermal and electrical) occur.

            My approach would be to rectify the prime AC into WELL filtered DC and then to use that to feed an inverter, well maybe several inverters and Dc to Dc converters to generate a range of stable DC and AC outputs at various voltages. Such that variations to the prime output Ac voltage or waveshape will not propagate to the various output voltages.

            The thermal output can then be fed into enclosures, such as warming command posts, communications, medical facilities and water conditioning. If the intense light is of the proper wavelength, it could do the job of sterilization of dirty water, or just use the 1,500C temp to boil any water and turn it into very pure water.

            The various output configuration are exciting to design with and yes this could be crowd funded to get it off the ground. But 1st I need to build a battery powered self looper to eliminate any doubt this is real, which I can do with personal funds.

  • DrD

    Does this answer:

    Richard Wade
    January 2nd, 2016 at 6:53 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you give us some ballpark figures about payback timeframes, costs, business gross value related to your “dream” published here at 00.00.01 of Jan 1st 2016 ?
    Thank you,
    Andrea Rossi
    January 3rd, 2016 at 8:27 AM
    Richard Wade:
    Here are “ballpark” figures, to be worked upon:
    Cost of the E-Cat X/kW: 50 $, payback time 90 days
    Cost of the fuel per year: 10 $, payback time 10 days
    Cost of the water piping to distribute the heat in an urban neighborhood: average 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Cost of the light 10 $/kW, payback time 10 days
    Cost of the cabling to distribute the electric energy 200 $/kW, payback time 1 year
    Total cost of the “network system” : 2 years and 4 months, let’s say 2 years, 6 months with maintainance costs
    Expected lifespan of the system: 15 years
    Potential market, considering to serve 1 billion people: 3 billion kWh/h
    Potential E-Cat market, limited to this sector of employment: 1.5 trillions of $
    Now, let’s wake uo, shake off the dreams and put down to work.
    Warm Regards,

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Actually, that’s what I was hoping to hear. Yeah, it’s too fragile. I still think it’s Li(7) + p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) even though the alphas haven’t been seen.

  • Gerard McEk

    Good question of Frank and interesting answer of Andrea:
    Frank Acland
    June 17, 2016 at 9:45 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You have stated that during the recent QuarkX testing that the reactors did not run in self-sustain mode. Is it possible for them to run in SSM like the e-cats used in the 1MW plant?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    June 18, 2016 at 2:16 AM
    Frank Acland:
    When you consume half Wh/h making 100 Wh/h you are basically in permanent SSM. Better than this is impossible.
    You need anyway a drive.
    Disclaimer: the results need to be verified.
    Warm Regards,

    My conclusion: If you work on the brink of self destruction (meltdown due to an uncontrollable reaction) you need a constant control. SSM is not possible than anymore. Also interesting: With the control the reaction can also be slowed-down/stopped. This is the “safety measure” AR is talking about.

    • Rene

      I was just going to post his statement, that the 100W heat output was a result of being constant in SSM. Hence COP50 is right at the hairy edge (well, he did say he was testing limits). So, that bright blue light was probably coherent too with laser halo. Does it becomes a solid state laser by way of electron-hole-photon exciton-polariton mode (see mats002’s comment below)?

  • sam

    Being 1st against 1700 competitors
    and winning $75000 is impressive.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It’s all crystal clear to me now. Rossion polaritons. http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2548274_orig10.jpg The lithium would be a conductor whether or not it’s a solid. Holes (+) in the valence band of the molten lithium metal pair with hydride, H(-) to form an atomic (or would it be a molecular?) exciton, H(-)(+), a rossion. If this is a boson, perhaps it could form a Bose gas where fusion could take place.

    H(-), hydride + (+), electron-hole > H(-)(+), a rossion

    4 H(-)(+) > 4[H(-)(+)] (Bose gas) > He(4) (helium) + 2 e+ (a positron )

    Perhaps a rossion polaritons could form in microresonators in the nickel lattice.

    Instead of the electron in this video, replace it in your mind with a hydride H(-) and have it pair with a hole, (+) (from the valence band of the molten lithium metal) using the energy of some sort of photon to form a rossion polariton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU

  • Pekka Janhunen

    No, he was just joking.

  • Gerard McEk

    See always open tread. E48 just answered some of that.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I also saw that comment and wrote a reply – but the comment did not appear here.

    Essentially he was saying in the comment I read, that Rossi was prepared to demonstrate to serious customers and that he would show his partners. I replied the following.

    It would be beyond disingenuous to not show it working to a real customer.

    Has he shown it to you or your stakeholders? Or is the state play currently that he would?

    If the latter, what de we learn by acknowledging that he would do what he would have to do when he had to do it? I have already noted that he must do it eventually.

    It is obvious that the device as claimed would allow the loop to be closed, even if this has not been done – but if it has not been done, then the claims are easy to dismiss and that allows him to ‘fly under the radar’. One could argue that this is a valid approach for a technology that is simple to replicate but is either not protected, ready for or in mass production.

    The nature of the promise of this technology is that you cannot trust anyone – look at those that are rushing to patent aspects before having something to show – and the bigger they are the more capable they are of finding a way round patent claims. I have seen even suppliers and distribution partners of inventors try to directly copy or produce analogues of a technology as they are working with the inventor.

    Unless an inventor becomes immortal, there is no reality that would allow them to reap all the value from an invention, the main prize is to be credited with the invention, Rossi knows this and is why he attacks Piantelli’s patents alone. The second is to be properly rewarded for the invention, but after the first several billions what difference does it make? You can’t eat more, you can sleep in 1000 beds… the technology itself will do more good for all time than any philanthropic act and control of philanthropy dies with the philanthropist to a large degree.

    In addition, inventions don’t happen in isolation, LENR is an intensely complex discipline and no one, not even P&F started at the beginning. Even an inventor may have been provided with education by their state or fed by poor farmers. Perhaps there are people that helped finance a thing through various stages, would the particular invention iteration have occurred without this investment, maybe… maybe not. Even the properties of the elements and materials have required fantastic amounts of human effort over the centuries. Credit where credit due. This is why the patent laws have an end to their protection, the inventor gets a window in which to profit from the inventive step then the invention reverts to global ownership – this is exactly as it should be, its not like any human invented Hydrogen, Nickel, Palladium, Chromium, Platinum, Silver etc.

    On the 2 key rewards of invention.
    1. Rossi says that the current claimed device is protected by his patent, if this is the case, every minute it is not categorically proven and defined presents a risk that he will not be credited with the invention, since if someone else goes public, the public might say Rossi copied the proven claim.
    2. The clock is now ticking for Rossi to make money from the invention, that includes any investing party whose shareholders would want to look at the amortized reward over the lifetime of the patent. Having it proven beyond doubt so early in the life of the patent would allow him to open the bidding – there is no doubt of the value of the claimed device.

    For the above two reasons, it would benefit Rossi to demonstrate as widely as possible the validity of the tech and closing the loop would do this more than anything else.

    In contrast, every “customer” that he shows the product to without full disclosure, however they present themselves, is another party that will be driven by greed or virtue to fill in the gaps and deliver it themselves if it is not shown in full. This has seemingly happened in the case of two partners (DGT & IH), in both cases, the pursuit of developing the tech was done against the background that Rossi had no Patent protection. The situation now is very different, he has and this should afford him a different strategy.

    One strategy is to update his patent to make it ridiculously easy to copy the device, then he’d never have to stress about the manufacturing – it would happen and massively. So what if non-controlled persons make it. He will not even have to fight the legal claims, I’ll explain.

    There is this guy in the UK, for near 30 years he invented stuff and patented them, his wife got so tired of poverty and constantly telling him to go and get a “proper job” that they divorced. A few years later, he sold a patent to a patent litigation agency for tens of millions of dollars. The infringer was Apple.

    With an updated and clear patent, full disclosure and closing the loop, Rossi would be credited with the invention and rewarded beyond all imagining without having to worry about manufacturing. Of course, he could, if he wanted to.

    • Rene

      As important is the basic LENR+ means and methods patent, he needs to file his “Means and methods to control and maximize a LENR effect” patent. That control patent, with its teaching of the mechanism to tame otherwise exponential reactions both protects his work and provides definitive proof the e-cat is not a science project.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bob,

      What I said was during my discussions with Rossi, never did he ask for anything that was not what one would expect when dealing with costly high tech power generating equipment.

      My potential client needed to pass Leonardo due diligence, which it seemed they did.

      Next Rossi said we needed to work on a mutually acceptable MOU, which laid down due diligence questions from our side, that once resolved in the affirmative, would quickly lead to a sales contract being signed and money placed into escrow. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

      As part of our sides due diligence, our team of seriously experienced high energy steam engineers could visit a working 1MW reactor and do their inspections and testing. Again nothing out of the ordinary here.

      From this experience, nothing occurred that suggested to my engineer’s gut that Rossi could not deliver. He also knew and realised he was potentially dealing with a owner and operator of a large number of thermal power plants and part of a larger owner group. So a bad due diligence report would not be what Rossi would want to go forward to a large part of the worldwide thermal power plant business.

      I must add that Rossi said straight out that he could not deliver 600C steam for some time, which for my potential clients was ok as this purchase was to get their toe wet, so to speak, in the reality of using a LENR reactor to heat steam. No way was this test plant going online and driving a steam turbine as it was both too low a steam temp and the reliability was totally unknown.

      I did get an understand that the fossil fuel plant owners and operators have been watching the LENR space for some time now and realise, assuming the reactors are reliable, replacing their existing coal / gas burners can easily be paid for by fuel savings over the life of the plant, plus no more carbon and other not nice emissions, nor any cost to pay for them. So doing this is a no brainer, easy for them to finance, again assuming they are happy with the plant retrofit cost, fuel cost and reliability.

      So there is a low hanging fruit that is just waiting for LENR 600C boilers that can cost effectively replace their fossil boilers.

      • Rene

        I am curious what would be the ratio of energy required to generate steam at 101C from water versus superheating that steam to 600C. In other words, how much would introducing an e-cat preheater/low temp steam generator save in the overall 600C generation of steam?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Rene,

          I’m not a steam engineer but as I understand it going sub or supercritical at the steam temp and pressures required for efficient turbine operation is a big step above generating superheated steam at 105C.



          Large Subcritical thermal power plants with 170 bar and 540 / 540 ° C (SH / RH) operate at an efficiency of 38 %.

          Supercritical units operating at 250 bar and 600 / 615 ° C can have efficiencies in the range of 42 %.

          Ultra supercritical units at 300 bar and 615 / 630 °C will still increase the efficiency up to 44 %

        • Oystein Lande

          To heat steam from 100 degC to 600 degC will take 1000 KJ/kg steam. While it will take 2259 KJ/kg to boil water to steam, ie twice the energy of steam heating.

          A few data that is easy to use for calculating power requirements for water and steam heating:

          Heat of vaporization = 2259 KJ/kg
          specific heat capacity for liquid water = 4.184 KJ/kgKelvin
          specific heat capacity for gaseous water (steam) = 2.02 KJ/kgKelvin

          So evidently it takes 13.5 times more energy to boil water to steam than to heat same amount of liquid water 40 degC (60 to 100 degC)

          And it takes Twice the amount of energy to heat 1kg of liquid water compared to heat 1kg steam for equal delta temperatures.

      • Bob Greenyer

        So, you are at the “waiting for a 1MW reactor to visit” stage?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bob,

          Bit before that stage.

          My potential client & Leonadro need to agree on a MOU & then execute it. It is basically a precursor Sales Contract that defines the due diligence issues that Leonardo needs to show compliance with, which cover a lot more than just doing a few tests, such as meeting QA standards, manuals, training, backup, spares, installation & commissioning, warranty, MTBF, etc. Understand my potential client is basically an engineering firm that ownes & operates many large and varied fuel sourced thermal power plants. To them this is like buying a new boiler, or turbine or generator or control system from a major established industry player. Massive compliance paper work issues without ever going close to the elephant in the room that this is a NUCLEAR REACTOR with an unknown fuel cycle, with no accepted theory as to what radiation is produced & how it is prevented from escaping the reactor under ALL nirmal & fault conditions.

          It is still not clear if http://www.arpansa.gov.au and http://www.ansto.gov.au will allow the reactors to be imported into Australia and if so, if they can be installed & commissioned.

          I believe the existing 1MW ECat safety certification is for a boiler and not a nuclear boiler.

          • Bob Greenyer

            given the few long term installations – understanding of the MTBF would be limited.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Bob: This Supreme Court decision should help.


      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Bernie, so even more reason to put it all out there.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Amos June 17, 2016 at 7:35 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    Did I read correctly that the Quark X produced 0.1 KWh/h vs 0.0005 KWh/h electrical energy consumed?

    Andrea Rossi June 17, 2016 at 8:37 AM
    Bob K:
    I am in the USA, but the negotiations are proceeding because we are
    going to do it. The decision has been taken. We will have two poles of
    manufacturing: one in the USA and one in Sweden.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Charles

    For whatever reason, Rossi continues to dabble rather than saying: “all right, with this version right here, we are going public with mass production. Prep it gang.” There may be a huge overriding technical reason that has him fearful or reluctant.

    The Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”. This time without the secrecy. By bringing the huge scientific community of physicists and engineer together, astonishing things may happen.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      At least he said he strives to improve the electric fraction from 10 to 20 percent. You are right, it’s hard to stop the R&D phase and go to the production one. Except that AR says he’s doing it with the 1MW plant tech already. If that rolls out, some delay with X is probably not so bad if it cuts the waste heat in electricity production applications by factor of two.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        The existing ECat reactor technology is fine for a low temp steam client who will enjoy their heat bill reduction by at least 20 times from the plants COP > 50.

        Plenty of potential customers all over the planet, who do not need electricity or light generation that would be very happy with the existing plant.

    • Gerard McEk

      He also said that there is still much to be done. Obviously the tests didn’t went as smooth as hoped for. The results were prommissing, but perhaps the reliability suffered, is my gut feeling anyway. Maybe another test with the Partner is needed in the future?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Or maybe there is a lot of work to do to convert this 1st prototype QuarkX reactor into a commercial product that can be mass produced?

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has committed to the low temp 1MW system. There are several ordered and some in process of being built.

      That said, It will take a while. All the problematic issues of the 1MW used in the test have to be addressed. Changes to be made etc and these will be hand built, not mass producded. Mass production can only happen once all the issues are answered.

      This is likely about 2 years away as 1st, these plants need built and put into operation and will be another drawn out year before mass production could even begin. That, Barring the discovery of other major issues of this redesigned generation of E-cat plants.

      • akupaku

        Fixing problems in prototypes is an iterative process. If there were say 100 problems in the first prototype, then the second one which corrects those might still have 10 problems left and the third prototype might still have one serious problem left. And once customers start using the plants some new unforeseen problems will appear, that is for sure.

        It takes several iterations to make a really reliable problem free product of this complexity. This phenomenon is seen in the development of complex mechanical systems like engines and even more so in computer software which is probably the most complex technical achievement of mankind. I have made my career in software engineering and no matter how many software bugs (errors) you fix there is always one more bug left.

        Take for example a modern car which is just a moderately complex system. I see news almost monthly of a car producer calling thousands of cars back to fix some serious problem. The same will happen to Rossi & Co and to whatever products he puts out to market.

        • Omega Z

          You left out one important aspect. When all the problems are eliminated to a reasonable degree,

          BAM-> A totally new model arrives and it starts all over.

          • akupaku

            Yes, of course, it’s just a question of terminology. A “new model” is the same as a “prototype” in the above algorithm. So a new revolutionary model starts as first prototype, just an evolutional new model might start at the level of second or even third prototype depending on how many changes and improvements were made compared to the older model. ;o)

        • cashmemorz

          I see two problems that have to fixed right off the bat. The actual theory of how it works. When this is in place many potential problems are immediately eliminated. There will be far fewer problems to fix because of ad hoc approach to LENR which is the present situation. The second very crucial problem to cover is control and reliability where certification is concerned. Other problems will be secondary.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      But you can’t have this both ways. People complain when Rossi talks about starting manufacturing, and then complain when Rossi does not?

      Rossi did a public demo of the 1MW plant. And he took orders for such plants. However, IH came
      along and made a better offer. So with a yearlong test and 90 million (which
      would seed more development and manufacturing), then Rossi course of action changed. After all, Rossi can’t go it alone, can he?

      And the new plant looks and runs a GAZILLION times better than the older original plant.

      So Rossi has several times stated he is preparing for manufacturing and selling of LENR
      systems. So you sounding like Rossi in saying “prep it gang” and yet such claims are a source of many complaints about Rossi. In other words, running ahead too fast and putting the cart before the horse seems to be a major source of Rossi troubles.

      So Rossi is stated that manufacturing plants are being setup in Sweden and also the USA. What more do you want?

      Defense Secretary, when he comes through with his report, if it is feasible and
      reasonable, should suggest another “Manhattan project”.

      NEVER going to happen.

      The government will kick and scram against LENR all the way. (they have in the past). Only with the rise of the internet and people pointing fingers at the government is forcing
      them to pay lip service to LENR. Why you think the USA military puts out an endless stream of global warming articles? Such articles only fuel the environmentalists to oppose pipelines and domestic energy and oil production. As a result you need a huge military that justifies its existence to police the middle east and other hot spots to keep the oil flowing.

      While the military would love what LENR can do for battle field deployment, with LENR you hardly need that military to keep the world’s oil and energy supplies flowing – do you?

      And today most governments use energy as a form of taxation. (just look at the push for taxing harmless CO2. This explains the billions pledged at the last Paris climate summit. You
      think if global warming was the greatest challenge of our time, then a few billions would be tossed into LENR which CLEARY shows the most promise to solve CO2 emissions. Yet nothing at the Paris climate summit in terms of funding LENR.

      So the announcement of the house armed committee to look into LENR is ONLY due to the rise of the internet and the public realizing how far we been sold out by governments.

      With LENR, then the whole global warming movement (with the 20+ billion funding per year) will dry up. It is HARD to phantom, but 50,000 people attended the Paris climate summit.

      50,000 people! (please stop and think about this MASSIVE number!).
      All these people wined and dined on French food and stayed in nice hotels on YOUR tax
      dime. The idea that governments want to give up the CO2 tax scam is laughable!

      No more laughable then then attempting to find a government employee running up and down the halls of government saying we need less government, less government jobs and less taxes. It not going to happen with the current crowd running governments. In Alberta they just passed a CO2 tax – cost about $1000 per household per year – and that’s just the beginning.

      With LENR such tax grabs and control of industry will be eliminated. This removes the ability of governments to fleece more money from your wallets.

      When the BC government proposed a big tax hike on gas, people were on the legislative grounds with pitch forks. So they said we do a green tax to save the environment and reduce

      The people said ok SURE! They then bent over and opened up their wallets between their legs with little protest! So a green tax, or CO2 tax is simply a means for governments to
      guilt you into opening your wallet further. You remove the global warming guilt trip, you remove the government’s ability to guilt you into opening your wallet FURTHER then what the public currently is willing to give to their governments.

      People are already overtaxed and governments have FEW means to increase taxes –
      but the CO2 tax guilt and you telling you that you are destroying the world with CO2 is a perfect means for governments to tax YOU MORE!

      Any initiative by the government to look into LENR is simply lip service – governments have
      nearly EVERYTHING to lose to increase their tax based by supporting LENR. Supporting LENR means they lose the big hammer of guilt trip in regards to the global warming scam. With LENR, there no CO2 emissions and thus no guilt trip to expand the tax base beyond the current public resistance of current tax levels.

      Governments will fight LENR tooth and nail – they have nearly everything to lose with LENR.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Engineer48

        Hi Albert,

        The fossil thermal plant owners will be on Rossi’s side as his reactors can lower their generation cost, eliminate CO2 and other nasty emissions costs and maintenance cost (coal is a very dirty fuel!).

        So maybe not good for the gov to bite the hand that generates their electricity?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, there always parts of industry that stand to gain much with this new technology.

          Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

          So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant. In fact this is Brilioum’s business model for their LENR devices. I mean what faster way to make money then purchasing coal plants that no one wants and swopping them over to LENR?

          The problem however is often existing companies can’t see the forest for the trees. The French government (heavy nuclear – over 70% of energy in France is nuclear) had a LENR program around the year 2000. And in fact they were producing positive results. However, all these people looked at each other and said why are we working on a technology that will slaughter most of our jobs? As a result, they canned their LENR program. I think the better road would have been for the French government to regulate LENR and control the technology. And thus they could have moved forward with a LENR vision. However this is often hard to do.

          Nearly every city used to have some nice offices for Sperry, Burroughs and Digital computers (Dec). They leased out computers with rather lucrative contracts that included leasing and expensive maintains contracts. Such companies saw the personal computer as a threat. These companies were short sighted. If they changed their business model, then one of those companies could have become the next Dell. However, such a leap and change is VERY hard.

          I should point out that Dell is valued at over 20 billion, and at one time far more! So all those nice offices and those computer vendors are long gone – gone because they could not see the industry they were sitting on, and their self-interests keep them thinking in their old way of thinking and business models. Digital or Sperry should have been the next Dell. And if they have moved on this PC revolution, they would have been.

          And same occurred with Sony. They owned the music business, had just purchased MGM and their music rights. So they saw the rise of mp3 players as a threat to their existing business model. Apple saw the rise of digital music as an opportunity and they executed brilliantly. The result was now Apple ate Sony’s bacon and Apple now owns the music business (they are by far the world’s largest distributer of music and they dwarf Sony).

          So traditional energy producers, and even the French nuclear industry “can” make the jump and become LENR powerhouses in this industry. However, they have to take off their blinders and change how they think.

          My only point about governments is since the time of Pons and Fleeshman they see and view LENR as a threat to their tax base. And with the hoopla of CO2 and global warming being used as a means to raise taxes, then even more resistance exists to LENR in government circles.

          When you have oil, the financial industry (that wants to trade CO2 credits – Obama gave government O2 trading to Goldman Sachs), and governments all seeing LENR as a threat, then you have some rather powerful interests that really don’t want LENR. I mean opposing from just one sector of the economy is not a big deal, but combine the military, the government, the financial industry all seeing LENR as a threat to their “current” way of doing business, then their position is not any different than Digital computers seeing the rise of the PC as threat to their current way of doing business.

          Because LENR is small, then the LENR revolution can occur much like the computer industry – it can occur DESPITE major existing players not wanting LENR. It is the small, low cost and relative ease of manufacturing computers or in this case LENR devices that will win the day.

          So while the governments will be against LENR and kicking and screaming all the way, or how governments now kick and scream against the internet and the free flow of information, LENR will also win the day and is un-stoppable.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Engineer48

            Albert wrote:

            Even energy companies can gain by adopting LENR. I mean, energy companies are MORE in the business of distributing and delivering energy then they are then extracting the energy (the exploration and extracting part is really only a necessary evil – not their end goal).

            So an energy company could dump coal, and replace the energy in the coal plant with LENR. Such a swap out would be a huge gain for a company generating electricity with a coal plant

            Yup and they are just waiting to be able to test someone’s LENR technology in a moderate way (10 x 1MW ECat plants is VERY small to these guys).

            A 750MWe subcritical plant would need around 2.25GWt or 2,250 x 1MW 600C steam QuarkX reactors to power the plant.

            For just ONE plant that is over $2.5 BILLION in sales to the 600C steam LENR reactor provider. Well maybe just a little less with a volume discount.

            So lets say $2 billion in reactors per average thermal plant times say 10,000 plants or $20 TRILLION dollars in sales!!!!!

            I suggest every major thermal power plant builder / boiler supplier on the planet will be fighting for market share in a $20 TRILLION dollar, end of CO2 and other nasty emissions, forever market.

            And some think govs will be able to stop or control this business?

            Who can stop a $20 TRILLION dollar market?

            • Albert D. Kallal

              No more so then those opposing the personal computer industry. Like the rise of the computer industry, there will be MANY winners. From local computer stores, or now local LENR stores selling re-fill cartages for your beast Master 2000 LENR barbeque gill, a WHOLE industry will spring up around LENR. So be it re-fill LENR cartridges for your gill your fridge, we also see large scale electrical producers jumping on this bandwagon.

              While I believe that the government is paying lip service to LENR, let’s wait and see what the report from the house armed committee comes up – the report is due in September

              Albert D. Kallal
              Edmonton, Alberta Canada

              • Thomas Kaminski

                I don’t think the personal computer industry was opposed by those in the “big iron” game. They thought it would never amount to anything compared to their machines and markets. I have heard that many computer managers said “Who would want to lose control of the computing by giving everyone their own desk computer?”

                It is interesting to note that the trend is now back to central servers, though we now call them “cloud computing”. I have friends who are abandoning their laptops and desk computers for their phones and tablets.

            • Engineer48

              Some data to back that up:

              Installed capacity approx 6,800,000MWe which would need say 20,400,000MWt of steam and at $1m per 1MWt that equals $20 trillion in sales.

          • Thomas Kaminski


            Much of what you say rings true, but I think you underestimate the competitive forces in the face of new technology for the energy generation industry. As an analogous industry, the HVAC industry was all against non-ozone-depleting refrigerants until they realized how much money they could make changing out all of the old equipment. They became big fans of legislation practically overnight.

            I think that the energy generation industry will ignore LENR until one company realizes that they can get a competitive advantage and all of the rest will clammer to jump on board.

            • Omega Z

              Actually, HVAC’s biggest issues were that the new refrigerants weren’t any better and sometimes worse then what they were replacing. They actually saw what it was really about. Patents were expiring. Dow Chemical, Du Pont and a couple other Western chemical companies made a killing. Russia, China and I believe it was Brazil’s chemical companies took a beating. Dow among others got their replacement refrigerants approved according to TPTB plan.

              Patents are once again expiring and change has been mandated again. Precisely because the refrigerants in use today hurt the Ozone. The new chemical refrigerants are slightly to highly flammable. That’s what you get when you use butane, methane etc etc mixtures and combinations. Some of these had been tried in the previous change over, but the flammability issue came up putting a stop to it. There OK now??? Anyway, some type of GW tax will likely come into play. Methane is worse then CO2 for GW….

              In 20/25 years, yes, it will be time again…

              • Thomas Kaminski

                Okay! You win! That is a much more believable reason refrigerants were phased out than I can come up with..

                As for flammability and hazards, I spent many hours as a young boy pondering how that flame under my family’s Serval refrigerator could cool thing inside. Turns out, ammonia gas was used as the refrigerant. It is still in use today for commercial refrigeration. Hazardous? You bet! But so is that 20 gallon tank of gasoline parked in your garage, or the contents of that gas pipe running your furnace.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Volume of the cylinder = 2.356 * 10^-8 m^3.
    Burning the same volume of gasoline would yield about 0.2 Wh (8760 kWh/m^3).

    Energy gain of the QuarkX (as reported) = 99.5 W * 100 h = 9.95 kWh.
    9.95 kWh / 0.2 Wh = 49700.

    • Observer

      If the Quark X lasts a year, that would be 871.62 kWh.

  • Jas

    There has been some duscussion on here recently about whether lenr can be used as a weapon. Take a look at the Quark and its size and output. It could be used as a projectile. As a bullet. Fired from a railgun possibly? It gives light so can be used as tracer bullets. It gives electricity so could deliver shock to its target. It also provides heat so could ignite its targets. I havent done the math so this might be impossible. When the Secretary of Defense provides his briefing I wonder if this will be part of it?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Words can be weapons too.

      • Jas

        I’m not fascinated by guns and war machines. I would rather the Quark not be used to kill people but its a possibility given the size of the device. It just popped into my mind this morning on the way to work. I wonder if its possible?

        • US_Citizen71

          Sure why not anything can be a weapon. You could accelerate a Styrofoam BB to Mach 12 for a short ranged lethal projectile that doesn’t mean it would be an effective weapon over all.

          • Jas

            A Styrofoam pellet can not electrocute or ignite a person. A rifle bulllet reaches the temperature of 250-300C in flight. The Quark would be much much hotter. I’m not trying to advocate the use of Quarks as projectiles. Just guessing that the military would be interested.

            • Omega Z

              It brings backpack laser’s that much closer to reality.
              Drones that can remain airborne until it’s conventional weapons are exhausted.
              Laser mounted drones who’s weapon last a year.

              What you describe wouldn’t likely even be considered. As to firing a quark with a rail gun, just use a small tungsten bolt that would do far more damage much cheaper.

              As to military applications, possibly they will find uses that in turn will be of great benefit to society that wouldn’t have evolved otherwise or pave a fast track path to the consumer of other products.

              The U.S. military need for heavy bombers in WW II did what would be many decades of civilian development in just a couple years. Thus civilian air travel and cargo transport was fast tracked by decades due to the military need. The list of such benefits is very long.

      • akupaku

        What are those deadly words? Oh no, please don’t say them, lol! ;o)

        Seriously speaking, I have been married once, I know what you are talking about!

        • Bob Greenyer

          sad eh… a world of plenty would end oil and water wars and alleviate the march of global climate change but probably increase the divorce rate as selfishness would become a strongly exhibited trait.

    • Observer

      Great Idea! Lets use an energy source that lasts months and use it for a fraction of a second! A block of metal traveling 5000 mph in air does not need an internal heat source. It would make more sense to power the rail gun with Quarks than use them as a projectiles. So that would make the Quark no more a weapon than a diesel generator.

    • Rene

      Everything you mentioned is currently done quite effectively chemically and at a fraction of the cost.
      Thinking on this some more, I believe similar results could be obtained shooting slightly modified discarded mobile phones. 🙂

    • akupaku

      Armor piercing projectiles and bullets too usually use their kinetic energy produced by their mass and speed to get through the target. I doubt Quark’s heat or other attributes are especially usable in such weapons other than as an energy source in weapons with own propulsion. But I might be wrong, I am not a weapons engineer. Human kind is using enormous resources and ingenuity to develop weapons to kill each other. As Stanton Friedman likes to say “mankind’s favorite pastime is tribal warfare”.

  • pg

    Not much noise between Rossi and IH. Are they reaching a deal?

    • Roland

      IH is, temporarily, shell-shocked, with worse to come, and their proxies are in disarray.

      The deal with IH is burnt toast as those who relied on IH, to undertake certain tasks, are in the process of discovering.

    • Rene

      Motion to Dismiss (MTD) has a response due date of 6/20/2016, so it will be quiet until then.

  • Rene

    This age related issue is silly. It’s best dropped.

  • Rene

    I am. How about you? Gordon, you don’t have to be a defender. He can handle his own quite well. But, when contradictions arise, it is good to clear them up.

    • Rene

      and he’s typing right now,

  • bachcole

    I find Rossi’s statement about having a secretary to be significant. People who have secretaries are not scrabbling for funds. This is good.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Sorry, I don’t get what you mean. He was joking with a reader LookMoo about a new secretary some time ago. Are you referring to that?

      • sam

        A good secretary helps to keep the operation running smoothly.
        A.R should not joke about the secretary.

  • sam

    Here is some competition for the Quark X.


    • Brokeeper

      The kind of competiton I want to hear about. Thanks Sam.

  • cashmemorz

    Also a firm substantiated theory and failsafe operation.

  • Pweet

    I guess that must be the reason he has never published photos of the original ecat which he has submitted to the regulatory authorities to get it certified for home use. You can never tell what secrets might be given away by the publication of pictures of a box with pipes going in and out.
    I’m surprised he even allowed an artist 3D impression of what one might look like.

  • Roland

    Yes you did miss it, and it occurred sometime ago. Frank has helpfully provided links to the relevant experiments and reports up at the top of the page.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    500 kg? That is a lot of money’r worth of silver.

    Looks like a thermite reaction to me…

    • Roland

      Exactly where does the reference to 500kg of Ag in a single SunCell occur?

      Hi Tomas, if you follow the bread crumbs from the head of the trail this is not a thermite reaction whatever the visual similarities might suggest, there are third party validations of the described Hydrino reactions with an earlier apparatus at this link:


      • Thomas Kaminski

        OptionGeek quoted the 500kg. I have no ides where it came from. It was probably supposed to be 500g or 500mg.

        I said it “looks like” a thermite reaction. I know that they are used to field weld things. In particular, it is used to weld copper cable to copper ground rods for lightning protection on communication towers. Copper is hard to weld due to thermal connectivity. I have seen thermite reactions to weld copper connections between steel rails used in railway signaling conductivity.

        I have not investigated the technology. It is likely not thermite. However, the similarities are there. Probably due to the metal “burning” or whatever happens in the thermite reaction.