Rossi Working to Resolve QuarkX Safety Issues (Update: Outside ‘Specialist’ Brought in)

UPDATE (Sep 25, 2016)

Here’s an update from Andrea Rossi on what’s going on with regard to addressing the problems with overheating that he has reported below

Antonio
September 24, 2016 at 7:17 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I understand from your last comments that you resolved the problems you had days ago with the Quarkx: am I right?

Andrea Rossi
September 24, 2016 at 3:52 PM
Antonio:
I had to improve my knowledge of specific Physics getting the help of a specialist from an important concern of California who came here in Miami and lectured me for 16 hours: I learnt very much. Thanks to his lecturing I think I got the key to resolve the problems I had.
I am working right now and we are going well.
Warm Regards
A.R.

Rossi doesn’t say that he has solved the problem here, but it must have been a pretty significant issue to have warranted finding and flying in a physicist from California to Miami to give private tutoring.

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

There have been some questions and comments in recent days on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding the current status of the E-Cat QuarkX. Andrea Rossi’s responses there indicate that there are still some problems to overcome before it can be ready to use in a commercial product.

Andrea Rossi has said that the QuarkX is “Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous. Working mainly on safety issues now.” When asked about what the nature of the danger was he said that it was “Overheating” and “Peaks of too high temperature”.

Rossi has said in the past that the temperatures that the QuarkX reaches are so high that they have had to create a new material to handle the heat. On September 18th Rossi was asked: “Do you have problems with the materials to resist at the temperatures of the QuarkX? Is this an issue?” Rossi responded: “Yes, it is an issue, because we reach very high temperatures.”

Also this:

Is the current problem with the E-Cat QuarkX related to the software, hardware or both?
Thank you. Best of luck in court.
Bernie Morrissey

Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Bernie Morrissey:
Hardware
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So with problems still to be worked out, I wonder where this leaves the E-Cat project, specifically the industrialization. From the following Q&A today it seems to me like Rossi wants to include the QuarkX into the new industrial plants:

Are you making E-Cat plants without the QuarkX, or do you need to have the QuarkX problems resolved before you can finish the first low temperature plants?

Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Frank Acland:
To make am integration the upgrade is opportune.
Warm Regards
A.R.

A

I’m not sure if he needs the QuarkX in the industrial plants, or if it is something he wants to do, but the QuarkX does seem to be a priority for him now for some reason. It’s possible that we will have to wait until these problems are resolved and the QuarkX ceases to be ‘dangerous’ before industrial E-Cats are deployed.

  • NT

    Andrea

    Sounds like REAL progress has been made…

    September 30, 2016 at 11:22 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Can you describe how will be the model of the QuarkX even approximatively?

    Andrea Rossi

    September 30, 2016 at 4:00 PM

    Andrea:

    Yes, in these last days we made tremendous progress.

    The modules will be real “quarkx”, they will have a power of 20 Watts each.

    The dimensions will be very small and they will be able to be combined without limit of quantities.

    The COP is very high, and the small power/module is necessary for safety reasons.

    They can produce heat, light, electricity, but the main application will be to produce heat and eventually turn it into electricity by Carnot cycle. It is possible also production of light and direct electricity, but the highest efficiency is achieved making heat an eventually use the Carnot cycle for other energy forms.

    We are very close to industrial applications, we are making important measurements and I am very happy of what is going on.

    Ad majora,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R., from the bench of the QuarkX.

  • Rene

    The Quark is an alpha device (in the project stage sense), so it is not surprising it has deficiencies and is not tamed. That also means predicting when it will be ready is a bit of a craps shoot (the game). It is nowhere close to production ready.
    Worrisome to me is the problem of controlling the reaction in all the devices remains forefront, perhaps less of a problem in the warm cats, but that evidence is still shrouded in secrecy.

  • sam

    Andrea Rossi
    September 28, 2016 at 9:22 AM
    John Evans:
    Presently:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- yes
    4- no
    5- yes
    6- no
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    John C Evans
    September 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM
    Mr Rossi
    It’s not my intention to be tedious but please suffer me these follow up questions. Seeing Mr Gerard MkEk’s comments on my last query at e-cat world made me think to be more precise.
    1. Does the thermal peak damage the reactor vessel?
    2. Does the thermal peak damage the reactor fuel?
    3. Are safe operations recoverable after the thermal peak?
    4. Does a thermal peak cause catastrophic failure?
    5. Are you working to anticipate the thermal peaks or react to them?
    6. Can the thermal peaks be controlled or avoided by modulating input power?

    Thank you for all your hard work

    John Evans

  • Gerard McEk

    Is AR heading for a domestic use of the QuarkX or integrated in a jet?

    Yosh
    September 27, 2016 at 9:05 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Have you already chosen the plave wherein to introduce to the public the QuarkX, F8?
    Godspeed,
    Yosh

    Andrea Rossi
    September 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Yosh:
    I think yes, and it could be a surprise. F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Back in the day like-minded folks predicted that we would never get confirmation that scientists were allowed to test the E-Cat nor that any American Partner would surface.

    They were right for awhile too.

  • TVulgaris

    For most of the past two years, every technical difficulty Rossi has mentioned outside of basic operational reliability (turning the reactor on and having it continue running, whether SSM or not), has had to do with addressing fine control for output stability, ramping between output levels, quick startup, and REALLY rapid quenching/shutdown for safety- that’s the enchilada entire, the komplete kielbasa, for a small, intermittent-demand power plant. I’m sure he developed the QuarkX with the individual consumer market in mind, but inventing the eCat was what enabled all of this work.
    250 KW would most likely be much more appropriate for a semi or other medium-heavy freight mover, SMB, or a very small neighborhood than a personal vehicle or even a single-house plant. This would place it outside of the individual consumer market, but small companies and co-ops could certainly take advantage of this immediately. Co-ops aren’t nearly widespread enough in the US, but there’s no shortage of small companies that could immediately transition. Safety certifications would be MUCH easier and faster to get for such installations- in many places, at least some, if not most, businesses only have to bribe a few inspectors to smoothe the way, reducing the most demanding regulatory environment to negligible difficulty.

  • sam

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    September 26, 2016 at 6:42 AM
    T.:
    Thank you. It is true.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Dixie
    September 26, 2016 at 2:49 AM
    Mr Andrea Rossi:
    Are you measuring the spectrometry of the waves inside the QuarkX?
    Godspeed,
    Dixie

    Andrea Rossi
    September 26, 2016 at 6:41 AM
    Dixie:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    James Fly
    September 25, 2016 at 10:03 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Is the COP of the QuarkX comparable to the COP you got by the 1 MW E-Cat during the 1 year test in Doral?
    Cheers,
    James

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    September 26, 2016 at 6:41 AM
    James Fly:
    Moreless, yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Sam Talbert
    September 26, 2016 at 5:56 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Based on your information, what do you think will be the most interesting presentation at the next ICCF?
    Thank you if you can answer,
    Sam

    Andrea Rossi
    September 26, 2016 at 6:40 AM
    Sam Talbert:
    I think the new paper of Prof. Norman Cook is important. His papers are always worth to be studied.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Larry Raju
    September 26, 2016 at 4:14 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    How is behaving the QuarkX now, few days after your “lecture”?
    Thank you,
    Larry

    Andrea Rossi
    September 26, 2016 at 6:40 AM
    Larry Raju:
    We are working very well and approaching the sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • I find the emphasis on 5 sigma interesting.

      Seems like something a third party would insist on and not something Rossi would bother doing if he didn’t have to in order to achieve some specific goal (such as meeting an acceptance criterion for a potential business partner).

      • Ged

        “X” sigma is a manufacturing quality term. You would only talk about it in the context of how often failure rates or defects are expected to crop up during mass production (6 sigma was once a big deal for QA strategies).

        • It’s also a scientific validation threshold. See all the discussion about the Higgs particle for example.

          • Ged

            That is true, particularly in particle physics. Most science only cares about 2 sigma (p less than 0.05 to call something statistically significant; but we don’t call it 2 sigma usually, and instead use % confidence interval or “p value” in most sciences).

        • wpj

          It is used by the CERN people to define the probability that something is fact rather than a spurious observation. 5 sigma means sufficient experimental data to say that it is genuine as for the Highs boson.

          • Ged

            Yep, that is true, but it is a rarely used term outside of particle physics. Most of the time we talk “p value”, and most of the p value thresholds for significance are at the 2 sigma level (0.05). I personally doubt particle physics is being done on the device, and the context was mechanical failure, which seems to imply QA as the reference.

            • wpj

              I think that he was just saying that as an alternative to being absolutely confident in the device

  • Mark Underwood

    I hear California and I think computers. Maybe the guy Rossi flew in is a specialist in CPU cooling. The QuarkX would be hotter and somewhat larger than a CPU but one would think the principles of cooling would be the same.

  • Rossi Fan

    The keyword here is “I”. “I had to improve my knowledge of …”.

    If LENR is real then for years the world has to suffer with high priced fossil fuels which quite possibly cause global warming and destroys nature just so this one man “I” can have his way. I started following this story in 2011. It was “I” back then. It is now 2016 and it is still “I”.

    • TVulgaris

      In other words, everyone else in the field who verified LENR’s reality since F & P, but especially since the late ’90’s (before Rossi had even entered the field beyond reading) had nothing and can be ignored. Or else “they” should have given ALL of their work away regardless of its state of usefulness as you are insisting Rossi should do…because that’ll obviously solve the problem.s

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This is reminiscent of the space program.“..made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented…” (at 15:14 min. in this video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw

    • TVulgaris

      “Inventing” a new alloy happens when you vary one or more of the constituents just outside the range of documented alloy specifications, and while there are thousands of documented specs, there are trillions of possibilities just of existing known alloy systems. Engineering your alloy for specific characteristics is the hard part…

  • Pekka Janhunen

    speculation: maybe the problem is/was whiskers.

    • sam

      Makes you wonder if he had a few more specialists
      from California or elsewhere working with him how
      he could advance.
      Take the technology to the next level.
      How do you find these specialist for a day?

      • I had the same thoughts.

        It’s also interesting from the real deal versus scam angle.

        Clearly the specialist would have to be paid to come out from California to Miami. Probably over a couple of thousand bucks considering consulting fees for 16 hours and travel expenses.

        That the specialist came from so far away indicates a very specialized field, otherwise an expert from Florida or nearby would have been available. Or perhaps it indicates an existing relationship with a California entity.

        In the real deal scenario, none of this is troubling. Rossi ran into some confusing results and needed a specialist to help figure it out. Real device, real engineering, real expense incurred on an important problem, real need for a specialist in some very narrow field. Perhaps a California entity in the fold.

        In the scam scenario none of this makes sense. Nobody would be in the fold beyond the conspiratorial core. There would be no real engineering problems to solve. Spending thousands of dollars to solve such an imaginary problem when — if the point is deception — a local expert on something-or-other could have been brought in from U of Miami for much less money would show (once again) that the point of the scam is no longer money if it ever was.

        If such a marathon consulting visit by a California scientist/expert is ever confirmed, chalk up another notch on the E-Cat Works side of the ledger.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, that makes sense. Obviously, it is still AR says…..

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, but there is this new thing that really is a “fad”, it called the internet. There is a thing called skype. Not sure why a meeting in person is required. However, it possible that the exchange went both ways. There is a “buzz” in silicon valley starting to occur over LENR – if any company gets commercial LENR working, then huge opportunities exist – likely such opportunities are equal to the fortunes that many a computer start-ups made in the valley.
          So, to be fair, Rossi does at least show he is working on problems – that’s a good thing.
          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

          • Jarea

            I can think on some reasons to have a meeting in person. Security of skype is one of them. NDA, secrecy, need to show the materials with problems and gain of trust for future consultation. I think most of the companies pay travels to his workers to do meetings with clients that could be done with e.g. Skype. However, there are still many reasons that advocate for the face2face meeting.

            • wpj

              I think that it was probably that he needed to see the device in operation in order to understand more the problems.

              Had the same problem myself with a chemical process; had to stand there for 4 days to see what they were doing and on the fifth I saw what they were doing wrong………….

            • Albert D. Kallal

              Yes, I most certainly agree. There nothing better than one on one.

              Security, and ease of communication cannot be beat by one on one. Me being in technology (software) development, then I find one on one MUCH better. However, remote does work well – especially skype with video.

              The reason I suggested and brought up the issue of the “buzz” going on in Silicon Valley is much why someone would want to meet in person over LENR.

              I suspect the “interested” party is looking not only to help or transfer some knowledge to Rossi, but also such meetings are mutually beneficial.

              That person gets to go back to the valley and state they spent a day with Rossi. I suspect both learned a lot in those meetings.

              How many engineers or people can say they spent a day with Rossi? So there is much value here.

              Would not anyone of high knowledge in LENR or physics not jump at the chance to spend a day with Rossi? Such a person is going to walk away either impressed or not.

              And better one can walk away with a better grasp of what Rossi has, or has not. This type of one on one is thus most valuable when dealing with such complex issues as opposed to say a general business type of meeting. For a presentation, then on-line is fine. However, for a technology exchange and discussion then I much agree that one on one is the best approach.

              Regards,
              Albert D. Kallal
              Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Omega Z

        ->”How do you find these specialist for a day?”

        $$$$$
        Would you like a 2 day paid vacation to Disney World.

        Actually, it is not that hard. Corporations bring in specialists all the time. A day or month does not matter. A company I worked for brought in a specialist for 1 hour. Well, they were paid for 2 days but was finished in 1 hour.

    • Stephen

      We are talking about cats 😉

    • Gerald

      whiskers on it self is a very strange fenomena. They have studied it a long time. Maybe your speculation is a very well guessed one.

  • sam

    Antonio
    September 24, 2016 at 7:17 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I understand from your last comments that you resolved the problems you had days ago with the Quarkx: am I right?

    Andrea Rossi
    September 24, 2016 at 3:52 PM
    Antonio:
    I had to improve my knowledge of specific Physics getting the help of a specialist from an important concern of California who came here in Miami and lectured me for 16 hours: I learnt very much. Thanks to his lecturing I think I got the key to resolve the problems I had.
    I am working right now and we are going well.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • sam

    Burt
    September 23, 2016 at 3:01 PM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you explain better the work on the Quarkx that appears from your words to be critical in this period?

    Andrea Rossi
    September 23, 2016 at 9:19 PM
    Burt:
    I think we are close to sigma five.
    But still I must add F8.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

  • sam

    33
    September 23, 2016 at 7:18 AM
    Dr Rossi:
    Did you with your team resolve the problems with the temperature of the QuarkX?

    Andrea Rossi
    September 23, 2016 at 12:45 PM
    33:
    We are making an enormous, enormous work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    John C Evans
    September 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
    Mr Rossi

    I’m happy to hear that the thermal peak problem is not a reactor fuel issue. If this is just an issue of materials, design and control I have no doubt you and your team can overcome all barriers to success.

    John Evans

    Andrea Rossi
    September 23, 2016 at 12:44 PM
    John C. Evans:
    Probably.
    Thanks for your sustain,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Today I asked AR if this problem was one of the reasons to change from E-catX (10-20 kW output) design to QuarkX design (100 W output) and he said ‘yes’. This means that it is possibly a problem that is related to the atomic process happening. For instance, maybe the changing isotopes or even a shift in the used materials (transmutation) in the fuel (e.g. Ni->Cu) or even of the reactor wall may cause varying temperatures and reaction efficiencies. If that is the case, then Andrea faces extremely difficult problems.

    • Gerard McEk

      How to interpret the following:

      John C Evans
      September 22, 2016 at 8:54 AM
      Mr Rossi
      Are the damaging effects of the thermal peaks on the reactor fuel and not the vessel?
      Answer AR: ‘No’

      There are three possibilities so there are either:
      1. Damaging effects on the fuel & damaging on the vessel
      2. No damaging effects on the fuel & damaging effects the vessel
      3. No damaging effects on the fuel & no damaging effects for the vessel

      Andrea loves to answer these type of questions in this way.
      Probably 2. is the case, but 1. is also possible. 😉

      • sam

        John C Evans
        September 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
        Mr Rossi

        I’m happy to hear that the thermal peak problem is not a reactor fuel issue. If this is just an issue of materials, design and control I have no doubt you and your team can overcome all barriers to success.

  • Jarea

    Again, excuses.
    Rossi should be commited to his promise of a massive production of low ecat factories in 2016. The low temperature ECAT has nothing to do with the ECATX and he should not mix or delay the first one due to the second one. If he tries to buy some time, then it is a very bad indication.

    I am disappointed and i really want the technology on the market. I thought Rossi would be the first but i think now that Brillouin or even others are leading.

    • enantiomer2000

      lol.. you believe him? Rossi won’t ever have tech out. I think probably Brilliant Light Power will crush all competition in 2017.

      • US_Citizen71

        It would be nice if it turns out you are right, but the parable of the boy who cried wolf comes into mind everytime I hear anything about BLP now. Mills has never made a deadline, self imposed or otherwise. Don’t hold your breath.

  • Stephen Taylor

    I was an early supporter. My friends and family were subjected to my enthusiasm for this guy. I am ashamed now.
    Maybe there is hope somewhere in the field. The Navy research with co-deposition, 100% reproducibility, the Japanese and Italian and Indian researchers as well as many other heroic efforts, MFMP, Holmlid, ICCF 20….
    So we wait. Is there anything useful here?? We need serious funding to find out once and for all. There is plenty of evidence (smoke) but still there is nothing useful (fire).
    “May I have my cup of tea?” remains the thrown gauntlet.
    It is inconceivable that Rossi had nothing, but it is more and more obvious to me that he is not the master of “the new fire”. Does this energy source exist???? We really need to know.

    • Warthog

      You’ve answered your own question…..”we need serious funding to find out once and for all”. The former physicists in charge of the money handles in energy research have successfully stifled the needed funding.

      The only reason the other efforts appear “heroic” is that they were done successfully with tiny amounts of funding, under much less than ideal lab conditions because of the limited funding.

    • Miles

      I would think the court case will flesh out any evidence if this is a scam or not.

    • georgehants

      Stephen, one phone call or E-mail from Rossi to MFMP allowing them to openly confirm his most basic Cold Fusion technology (if genuine), showing a COP above 1, would I think start the unending avalanche of funding that would bring Cold Fusion to the World.
      One simply has to decide if one cares about the World or in Mr. Rossi’s case, what drives his continued silence.
      Surely it is not possible that it could be just money, how would anybody’s conscience allow that?

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Who’s says the UN need to pony up a few billion?

        They could purchase LENR from Rossi for 100 million – exactly what IH had offered to Rossi.

        Why not have the UN cough up a few million for LENR test? No need for billions or even 100 million.

        Governments coughed up many millions for a WHOPPING 50,000 people to whoop it up and party in Paris for a week on the taxpayer’s dime. So that Paris party on global warming was obviously more important than LENR?

        So 50,000 people to party for a week as opposed to coughing up a few million and an offer to test and promote one of Rossi’s reactor seems rather silly and self-serving, don’t
        you think?

        But hey, who wants to give up a week of partying in Paris and THEN have the gall to ask western nations to pony up billions for global warming. Worse, what are they going to do with that money? Of course the demand is based on supposedly the western nations caused all that global warming and thus we have to pay for our sins.

        The pledges in that December global warming conference are in the range of 200 billion (you read that correct!).

        I mean, really? How about those 50,000 people (a MASSIVE number) give up the week of partying in Paris. When you add up air flights (all that CO2 pollution), hotel bills, and
        food bills? We taking 200+ million for that party.

        So the UN don’t need a billion or two – but surely a tiny few millions to fund a test of LENR would make sense. This is ESPECIALLY so since all those people are partying in
        Paris based on telling everyone the end of the world is near due to our CO2
        output. So if man’s CO2 output is the greatest threat to mankind, then why none
        of those 50,000 people are willing to suggest a test and some funding of Rossi
        and give up their big party?

        After all, these people are all about caring and sharing and saving the planet, right? (but they never heard of the internet or Skype?).

        So they don’t have to offer Rossi billions, but the insane rate of money they are flushing down the toilet boggles the mind. You have any idea how much it cost to fly 50,000
        people to Paris to fight global warming? A conservative estimate of air flights for
        that many people would be $1500 round trip. That amounts to a whopping
        $75,000,000. And that number is BEFORE hotel and food bills!

        Have these people not heard of skype?

        Really, 5, or 10 million dollars for a test of Rossi reactor is chump change – the food bill for 7 days of party in Paris is easily 500 per day per person (hotels, wine,
        lobster and even endangered species where fed to the participants. Do the math,
        we get 175 million dollars just for food and hotels (and I likely low balling
        that number). There was a shortage of Limousines – they imported from surrounding countries to keep up with the party goers needs!

        So it really begs the question here is who’s being selfish?

        Remember, all that money spent at the Paris party is being taken by FORCE from working people.

        Rossi not asking you to take money out of your pocket for 50,000 people to party in Paris for a week.

        So really, who’s selling out the people here?

        And the real SMACK down is that party was ALL ABOUT energy consuming and our “evil” output of the harmless gas called CO2 (the same gas you exhale out when you breath).

        So if the UN can piss down the toilet a quarter of a billion dollars on a weeklong party in Paris, you think they could spare a few million on LENR?

        Now of course, if they funded LENR, then they would not need that party, would they?

        Rossi not taking your money by force, but any payments to the UN are in fact by force, at
        gunpoint and penalty of jail if you fail to pay your taxes. It is working people’s
        taxes that funds the UN.

        You think the UN would have at least SOME concerning for mankind, and pony up a few million to test a LENR device? Such a device would not only help the million that the UN says are suffering, but it would also instantly eliminate the global warming and co2 problem they are currently fixated on right now.

        It not Rossi’s mandate to save mankind, but it most certainly is the stated goal of the UN –
        so why are they dodging their responsibility here?

        Rossi not asking you for your money nor is he taking it by force. And Rossi not claiming like the UN that they are taking such money to save the world but the UN is telling
        everyone their story of caring and sharing. Nothing could be farther from the
        UN story.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • sam

          This bunch party on the cheap.
          http://youtu.be/CawCM9-PrEs

        • MorganMck

          By all means, if you really want LENR to die a slow death, get the UN involved. I can’t think of a worse idea.

        • TVulgaris

          Sorry, Albert, you vitiated your entire diatribe and any point to reading the rest of the post with the utterly stupid repetition of the “CO2 is harmless” meme. It’s toxic in any more than minor concentrations, THAT’S WHY YOU EXHALE IT!
          “Feces are perfectly natural and safe, they come from the human body…”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, you can drown in water, but you would not based on logic suggest that that water is a pollution, would you?
            And if your body has too high of a water content, it will expel that water.

            CO2 is a life giving gas and is an important part of the ECO system. Body waste filled with bacteria that can make you sick if consumed.
            CO2 is a naturally occurring chemical compound like water. You can drown in water, but that does not make water a pollutant.

            I mean, plants consume water, and CO2 – does that mean plants are consuming pollution? This is significantly different then bacteria that can break down body waste. Too much of something like being under a pool of water does not make H2O a pollution by any reasoned view.

            CO2 is a essential gas and part of the cycle that creates food for humans. Nature could function fine without our body waste, but it can’t function without that CO2 gas.
            So too much of many things can harm the human body, but such a definition would not of its own constitute that CO2 is a pollution. Lead in the air, or dioxins in water is a pollution and harmful to humans.
            However the CO2 gas absorbed in water certainty does not make that water harmful or toxic for humans to drink. Perhaps we don’t see eye to eye on what we consider pollution, but CO2 is not a pollution any more then is water – both exist naturally in nature and do so without humans.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Steve Savage

    I would be interested to know if layering of fuel components or fuel container components is considered a potential solution to these peak overheating events / safety issues?

  • Miles

    How does the QuarkX differ from the ecat domestic product?

  • Stephen

    I wonder if the device it self is robust to these high peaks in temperature and if so if the problem more with the supporting apparatus handling the temperament of the device safely or is it the external usage safety that is the issue.

    I hope by characterising it he is able to solve this and I wish him all the best with resolving this issue

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    September 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you explain more about certification for the QuarkX? What kind of certification is required for its industrial use, and how does one obtain it?

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    September 9, 2016 at 4:37 PM
    Frank Acland:
    The certification we re obtaining for the QuarkX is related to the safety.
    To obtain it you have to hire a certification third party, certified and authorized to make safety certifications in the specific sector.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Norman
    September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    Update of the work on the QuarkX?
    Cheers,
    Norman

    Andrea Rossi
    September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
    Norman:
    Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous. Working mainly on safety issues now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      1. Daniel G. Zavela
September 21, 2016 at 12:16 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Is the E-Cat QuarkX experiencing hot spots that burn through the cell or sudden excess heating causing cell failure or both? 
Dr. Patterson had problems with hot spots with his thin film disc-shaped cell and excess heating with his rod shaped cell. 
Would a hollow shaped cell help dissipate the excess heat, do you think?
Best of luck with you cell control challenges. 
Best Regards,
Daniel G. Zavela


      2. Translate



Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 12:41 PM
Daniel G. Zavela:
Sorry, I cannot answer.
Warm Regards
A.R.



      3. Bernie Morrissey
September 21, 2016 at 7:48 AM
Andrea Rossi,
Is the current problem with the E-Cat QuarkX related to the software, hardware or both?
Thank you. Best of luck in court.
Bernie Morrissey


      4. Translate



Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 8:48 AM
Bernie Morrissey:
Hardware
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.



      5. Joe
September 21, 2016 at 5:53 AM
The American Medical Association has stated that streelights with too much blue can cause problems with human health.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/health/led-streetlights-ama/
Do you think this could hinder your plans for QuarkX lighting applications?
Best regards


      6. Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 7:09 AM
Joe:
The core of the problem is in the numbers. Obviously if we will put a thing in the market the safety limitations will have to be assessed.
Warm Regards
A.R.


      7. Sal
September 20, 2016 at 7:52 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I understand the Quarkx is generating some trouble: can you specify?


      8. Translate



Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 4:52 AM
Sal:
Peaks of too high temperature.
Warm Regards
A.R.



      9. Frank Acland
September 21, 2016 at 2:01 AM
Dear Andrea,
What is the danger from the E-Cat QuarkX that you mention?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland


      10. Andrea Rossi
September 21, 2016 at 4:50 AM
Frank Acland:
Overheating.
Warm Regards
A.R.



      • sam

        Norris Wiesneski
        September 17, 2016 at 6:19 PM
        Dr Andrea Rossi:
        Which of the three outputs of the QuarkX you think will be the more exploited ?
        Thanks,
        Norris

        Andrea Rossi
        September 17, 2016 at 6:46 PM
        Norris Wiesneski:
        Heat, in all its utilizations, even to produce electricity by means of the Carnot cycle, due to the very high temperature we can reach.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.