Rossi Reports Recent “Tremendous Progress” with E-Cat QuarkX

Andrea Rossi today responded to a question from a reader who asked him what the eventual model of the QuarkX reactor (Rossi’s most recent version of the E-Cat). He responded:

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

Key points to me:

1. The QuarkX now is rated at 20W, whereas previously Rossi had said that the smallest unit would be 100W. So for some reason they have made a decision to go smaller. Perhaps this is for safety reasons. Rossi has said that they had been experiencing problems with the reactors overheating, and it makes me wonder if they have found the problem is lessened if the reactors are smaller.

2. While the QuarkX reactors can reportedly produce electricity and light directly, Rossi says that it will be more efficient to produce electricity from the heat of the QuarkX via the Carnot cycle; i.e. using the heat to turn steam turbines. If the COP really is ‘very high’ (Rossi has said recently that it is similar to the COP of the E-Cat plant in the one-year test which he claims was around 50), then efficiency of the electricity production would be very good.

3. Rossi saying they are ‘very close’ to industrial applications sounds encouraging; however, that is still indefinite. I try to temper my expectations in this area — we’ll see it if and when we see it.

4. Rossi reporting being ‘very happy’ about the current state of affairs might be significant. The fact that he says they have made ‘tremendous progress’ might signal that they have successfully dealt with overheating issue they have been experiencing. Incidentally, Rossi said that the specialist they had brought in from California to help them to deal with this problem was a “retired officer engineer of the US Navy.”

  • Brokeeper

    Certainly possible if they were able to reduced previous sizes, however much more expensive to build and maintain if LENR had matured. No certainty for either one. Again why specifically solicit a Naval electronic engineer if not successful in the field of LENR control? Coincidence? Maybe.

  • In my opinion Rossi state the state of the research with a delay of at least some weeks if not some months.
    He tell you about his step only when he already did three more.

  • Omega Z

    Demo’s cost time and money. Much more then anyone might think. And they accomplish nothing, & possibly provide clues to his competitors.

    Rossi could provide a closed loop totally conclusive demo to a select group of people and those who refuse to accept it will still be trashing him on the internet and anywhere anyone would listen.

    Other then making Rossi’s followers happy, it would accomplish absolutely nothing. The only thing that will change things will be a marketable product on the shelves. Even then, you will find resistance.

    I think you will find similar circumstances with any fringe science. I believe LENR is just a little more vicious in nature because of the other scientific interests that will be impacted.

  • Omega Z

    Size/Temp makes a big difference.

    If I have a brick heated to 1500`C, I need some heavy cabling.

    However, compare the tungsten wire of an incandescent light bulb at 2500`C. It requires very little wire in size to power it.

    This is just food for thought. The Hot-cats(only 3.5KW reactors) required a good 4 hours to bring to temp.

    A 20 watt Quark takes maybe a minute or less to come up to temp.

    An assembly of Quarks equal to 3.5KW would only take maybe a minute or less to come up to temp.

    You would also have the option of powering only the number of quarks necessary. Not all of them all the time. Quarks provide many advantages over the larger hot cats.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    Nice to read a brief update from Rossi.

    I find the time we’re in to be highly exciting, and also pretty frightening. The Cold Fusion/LENR project has been going reasonably well, I think, over the years – considering the stakes, the complexity, and the vested interests. The Pons & Fleischmann problems with replication were the first alert for many that, whatever their “excess heat” was, it wasn’t going to give up its secrets easily. Fair enough.

    But over the many years – and with so much harm to the environment, species, and people – it appears that several bodies out there have begun to nail down the needed processes and elements. That’s the exciting part. Rossi is obviously not alone, and love him though I may, I am not waiting on his timetable alone.

    The frightening part – again, aside from the ongoing, unimaginable catastrophe to the world around us due to the current global energy regime – the frightening part of this story comes from the recent developments with Industrial Heat.

    Rossi and IH appeared to have a good thing going. IH validated much of what Rossi had been saying about his progress for years. To have that partnership fall apart so entirely raises the threat that any real LENR progress may be (1 – Rossi is a fraud) actually impossible because of the tech, or (2 – IH is a fraud) impossible because of bad actors torpedoing the tech.

    One might say, such an amazing technology like LENR, if it can be actualized, will be irresistible and MUST therefore come into the public. But peace in the Middle East is also irresistible, and yet people have successfully scuttled it for – well for long enough.

    So as the autumn begins finally, I look forward to someone – ANYONE – coming forward with a verifiable, unimpeachable demonstration of this promised tech. Because, while I didn’t want to focus on the actual problems of the day (a global, mass extinction event), the problem is that we do in fact have a global, mass extinction event happening, and new tech is critical to stopping it.

  • pg

    In January it will be 6 years for us following AR in his endeavours. We all know the saying “people tend to over estimate what can be done in one year and to underestimate what can be done in ten years.”
    It will be six years now. What I am asking now is should we look at this as a glass half full, due to the alleged breakthrough, or half empty for the lack of industrial breakthrough.
    To paraphrase Don Cheadle in the movie The Guard in one on the best one liners in the last decade, I really can’t tell any more if we are really mother fucking dumb or really mother fucking smart.
    Comments appreciated

  • Brokeeper

    Warning! This is pure speculative: It is interesting AR solicited a “retired officer [electronic] engineer of the US Navy” he knew for five years. Perhaps he was involved with investigating one of three 1MW plants shipped to the US allegedly to the Navy. Rossi has stated that Naval officers have visited his facilities in Bologna years ago. If so, could these Naval modified power plants be soon powering the Next Generation Zumwalt-class cruisers/destroyers. Pictures show no noticeable exhaust stacks and statistically incapable of holding current size nuclear power plants. A year ago the Navy stated LENR was real. Why build futuristic naval ships requiring huge amounts of electricity with old power sources when LENR is real? What better way to resolve a E-Cat control problem than from someone who has succeeded?

    • Fibber McGourlic

      Such a transformational secret would not and could not be kept by the U.S. government. Moreover such a device would not just be appearing on ships. So far, such a device does not exist.

      • Omega Z

        While I don’t buy into Brokeeper scenario, I think you are absolutely wrong about the U.S. Government keeping secrets. All the Stealth technology is 50 plus years old. Do you think they have done Nothing since then. And, Nano tech R&D was also underway in the late 50’s. Decades ahead of the public scientific community.

        When secrets leak out, those are the secrets they want you to know. Thus leading people to believe secrets can’t be kept. And in essence, keeps people from looking for the real secrets.

        • US_Citizen71

          Brokeeper may not be far off:

          “While its traditional weapons are extraordinary, the Zumwalt’s true power lies in its ability to generate, well, power. When the first-of-class Zumwalt lit-off its power generators late last month it became literally the most powerful destroyer in U.S. navy history, producing 78 megawatts, enough energy to power about 10,000 homes. Conversely, DDG-51s produce just 9 megawatts of power, with only 1.7 megawatts remaining when the ship is at speed, compared to the 58 megawatts a Zumwalt still has available when traveling at 20 knots.

          This extra power gives DDG-1000s the ability to operate electrically powered weapons like the electromagnetic railgun, which uses nothing but energy to launch projectiles at speeds up to Mach 7.5, and has been described by the Office of Naval Research as, “a true warfighter game changer.” The DDG-1000s will also be able to use the Navy’s laser weapon system, which has a demonstrated ability to shoot down aircraft and swarm boats. With it the Navy will be “spending about $1 per shot on a directed-energy source that never runs out and gives us an alternative to firing costly munitions at inexpensive threats,” according to Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder. In contrast, the DDG-51’s surface-to-air missiles cost $165,400 per shot.” – http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/January/Pages/CancelingtheDDG1000DestroyerProgramWasaMistake.aspx

          78MW is a boat load of juice. I have never been able to find a reference on what is powering the twin turbines that turn the generators and the ship doesn’t seem to have anywhere to exhaust burned fuel.

          • Omega Z

            The Arleigh Burke clas produces 75MW and with modification could produce 100MW plus. Note there’s a trade off in requiring refueling more often.

            However, you’re correct that the Zumwalt-class uses less energy and thus has more reserve for energy weapons. Not to mention it’s platform was built for energy weapons. Likely as well it is designed with foresight of future developments and additional generating power. Lasers will cost more then the quoted $1 as it will be armed with 150KW lasers rather then 30KW. Also note rail-gun rounds cost $25K each. Their only building 3 so this doesn’t amount to much…

        • Fibber McGourlic

          There’s an infinite difference between military secrets and a non-destructive energy technology that will save the world and bring prosperity to the whole human race.

          • Omega Z

            ->”a non-destructive energy technology”

            The Zumwalt-class destroyer was designed to be a platform for rail-guns and 150KW lasers and eventually for 24/7 all weather lases. LENR opens many new doors to destruction.
            ———————————————————————–
            If the DOD discovered LENR in a black project, don’t expect them to release it to the public. People would want to know what other technology they are hiding. Currently they maintain a plausible deniability and intend to continue doing so.

  • sam

    Hank Mills
    September 30, 2016 at 9:14 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    ——

    Here are the websites where the figures come from. Since then, you’ve stated that the maximum output in the form of direct electricity is 20% of the total output.

    http://ecat.com/news/ecat-quark-x-preliminary-report-findings

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/14/report-on-preliminary-findings-from-e-cat-quarkx-testing-posted-on-ecat-com/comment-page-1/

    —–

    You previously stated that the E-Cat Quark X utilized a .5 watt “drive” to produce a total output of 100 watts that can be in the forms of light, heat, and direct electricity.

    .5 watts goes into 100 watts two hundred times. That is where I came up with the COP of 200 number.

    Of this output of 100 watts, you have stated that up to 20% of it can be in the form of directly produced electricity.

    Now…

    A) I’ll admit that your “Report on Preliminary Findings” did not include the word “watt” (a term for power). Instead, you used the terms, “energy consumed” and “energy produced.” I’m simply assuming the 0.5 Wh/h figure represents the input of .5 watts of electricity.

    Energy produced: 100 Wh/h
    Energy consumed: 0.5 Wh/h

    B) I’ll admit that that the input may not all be in the form of electricity. We do not know all of the forms of input. The assumption that the 0.5 Wh/h is all in the form of electricity could be completely incorrect.

    C) I will openly admit the output in the form of direct electricity may not always be constant. However, averaged out, you have indicated twenty percent can be in the form of electricity.

    ——

    So you see, I’m not pulling this figures “out of my hat.” I’ve provided the references.

    If my initial post seemed rude or disrespectful, I apologize.

    I’m simply trying to wrap my head around the performance of the previous 100 watt Quark to the new 20 watt Quark.

    Sincerely,
    Hank Mills

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    Hank Mills:
    Now I understand, it was not from your hat! You are right.
    I have been rude and disrespectful, not you ( but I was just joking, as you surely have understood).
    Now I have to answer: those data were from a very preliminar test, that needed a lot of work to be confirmed. One thing is to get a result in a provisional test, one thing is to talk of COP of a prospective apparatus.
    At the moment I am not able to say numbers related to the COP. But it is high.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Bill Conley
    September 30, 2016 at 11:20 PM
    Dr. Rossi,

    With your recently announced unit power (and size?) reduction for the QuarkX, many have expressed concern that the number of reactors required for larger applications would make refueling prohibitively expensive or at least increase maintenance cost significantly.

    Is it possible that you now consider the QuarkX disposable? Swap-able?

    Any insight you can provide is welcome as always.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:23 AM
    Bill Conley:
    No, the maintainance is easy. The modules will be replaced and recharged in our factory. Imagine to substitute fuses in a control panel.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Rene

    An electric bicycle has a highly varying demand depending on the weight of the person, whether it has to go uphill. I’ve seen e-bikes rated at 500W with multi-minute peaks of 1500W. So, A QuarkX producing 500W of electricity is going to produce 2000W of heat. On the peaks it will pour out 6000W of heat. That is seriously hot. I have to agree with Rossi that a nice steampunk LENR heated steam engine would be quite interesting. Someday.

  • Zeddicus23

    I like your suggestion of having them as a heating sleeve around and along a pipe. They’re only 3 cm long right? The longer the pipe, the more QuarkX’s and the greater the power output.

  • Zeddicus23

    These are some good points, although following your logic you could also prevent “run-away” simply by lowering the melting temperature, so I’m not so sure about that part. But my main question is: how do you transfer heat efficiently from all of these bundled quarkX’s? I can only think of two possible ways:
    (1) run a heat-transfer fluid/gas through the bundle
    (2) embed the bundle in a highly thermally conductive metal matrix with the entire bundle surrounded by a heat-transfer fluid gas

  • akupaku

    I am pretty worried and even skeptical about Rossi’s optimism. Bundling a lot of these small QuarkX modules together means the ones towards the middle will run hotter and it will be more difficult to cool or remove the produced heat from them. Potentially each QuarkX module needs slightly different control input to keep it running optimally and not getting out of control. Each of 50000 QuarkX modules in a 1 MW system might need individual slightly different control input from all the other modules. If this is true, how is he going to achieve that?

    To make things even more complicated it might be necessary to adjust control input of individual modules based on what is happening in the neighbor modules which might make the whole bundle a very complex dynamic nonlinear system and very difficult to control.

    A typical feature of complex nonlinear systems is that it is very difficult or even impossible to predict how they react to external input and a control input that one moment produces a particular reaction can in next minute produce a completely different reaction. Good examples of complex nonlinear systems are for example Earth’s climate or a child or teenager, lol.

    From what Rossi has already said about the QuarkX I presume it is difficult to control the reaction in a single module. Bundling 50000 of them together might make the control problem exponentially more difficult or even impossible.

    Well, I sure hope I am wrong about this.

    • Zeddicus23

      akupaku,
      You’re concerns are similar to some of the concerns I raised earlier. BTW, I love the last part of the following quote:
      “A typical feature of complex nonlinear systems is that it is very difficult or even impossible to predict how they react to external input and a control input that one moment produces a particular reaction can in next minute produce a completely different reaction. Good examples of complex nonlinear systems are for example Earth’s climate or a child or teenager, lol.”

      Zeddicus23

      • akupaku

        I don’t usually have time to read all other entries here but I can now see you have raised similar concerns below. Let’s hope Rossi is aware of the problems and has figured out a solution. I am just afraid that such problems become apparent first when thousands of QuarkX modules are bundled together and trying to make them work together in stable manner.

    • akupaku

      To make things even more complicated, controlling the system needs some measured output parameters. Are these parameters measured per each QuarkX module or in a big bundle somehow sampled just in some spatial intervals? How stable or unstable is the reaction in each QuarkX module timewise? If neighbor modules can affect each other somehow, how fast is this effect spreading in a bundle of modules and how fast and how can a control system try to stabilize it?

      Of course, one solution is that each QuarkX module is so isolated that neighbors don’t affect it in any way. However, I have no idea how much isolation material and distance is required for this? Seems to me this kind of complete isolation will be difficult to achieve.

      • Rene

        Think about how hot the individual control methods will get. Electronics do not like that kind of heat.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Nah, you start off with small, say 100 watt units. The R&D curve will scale it up. Whatever you do, don’t scare Rossi into thinking he needs 1 MW units off the bat. hehe.

    • US_Citizen71

      Each of the 8,553,600 pixels in my 4K tv screen needs to be controlled individually, be changed 60 times a second and stay within limits with regard to it effect on its neighbors in order for me to watch a 4K video. What type of sorcery is capable of that?

      • akupaku

        So you equate QuarkX with a screen pixel? I am not sure it is as simple as that but let’s hope you are right!

    • Zephir

      It could be simply array of thin (nickel?) wires surrounded with anode plates, each wire can have its potential driven by temperature (resistance) of wire.

      I can imagine that easily.

  • sam

    —————————————–
    ENGLISH VERSION:
    Dear Andrea,
    I’m happy to hear of your achievements with the QuarkX. Your continuous repetition of your “huge progress” was not a mantra, it was the truth.
    I would like to ask you some questions about the drive module required to control the QuarkX.
    1) Does 10 Wcm^-3 density you reported include the control system ?
    2) Is the QuarkX-20W size the same as the QuarkX-100W (cylinder 3cm x 0.2cm) ?
    3) Suppose a system with more QuarkXs working together. Which of these is true:
    –A) Each QuarkX require its own control system.
    –B) A centralized control system can drive many/all the QuarkXs (excluding sensors which cannot be centralized).
    –C) Between A) and B): There will be a centralized part of the control system but also dedicated modules, one for each QuarkX.

    4) Can you give us an estimate of the volume of the control system for each multiple of 20W power of a plant?

    Please keep up your good work. The world need it a lot.

    God bless you
    Marco Serra

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    Marco Serra:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- C
    4- for example, for a 1 MW plant the control system will be 2 m x 2 m x 0.7 m ( 7′ x 7′ x 2’4″ ) circa.
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Piero
    October 1, 2016 at 4:34 AM
    Dear Andrea, I’m puzzled by your statement of planning to use the 20W quarkX for “industrial applications”. So far your industrial plants were meant to generate 1MW. That would require 50,000 modules bundled together. May be this is NOT the type of industrial apps you are thinking of now?
    Keep up your great work. Piero

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    Piero:
    It is not a problem to combine 50 000 modules with proper manufacturing systems. There are many apparatuses of normal use made by thousands of components. Smaller modules open market sectors in the low power range.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Gerard McEk
    October 1, 2016 at 5:02 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I am very happy to read that you made a lot of progress with the QuarkX lately, congratulations!
    What worries me is that because of this development you may need to go again through a new full test cycle again for getting the 5 sigma on all aspects.
    1. Is that true?
    2. Does each QuarkX need to be separately controlled?
    3. Does such a small unit not automatically mean more control complexity for big clusters?
    4. The ability to recharge seems more difficult for such tiny units, is it still possible?
    5. If so, do you think of replaceable and recyclable units?
    6. I assume that using the QuarkX in a jet engine is now one of your favorite applications, am I right?
    7. When do you think you are able to produce a large cluster of QuarkX’s?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    I wish you a lot of progress the coming time!
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- no
    2- n.a.
    3- no, the contrary is true
    4- yes, by sostitution on the site of the Customers and recharge in our robotized line
    5- yes
    6- C.B.N.*
    7- soon
    * C.B.N.= crystal ball needed
    Thank you for your kind wish,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    K
    October 1, 2016 at 4:56 AM
    The materials with which is made the QuarkX are in commerce did you invent them?
    Thanks,
    K

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    K:
    Some we had to invent.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Tom Conover
    October 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    What does 10 Wcm^-3 convert to for 1 cubic liter please?

    Warm regards,
    Tom

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 10:57 AM
    Tom Conover:
    He,he,he…that’s kind of hyperbolic.
    But it is true that our team is making a fantastic job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Anonymous
    October 1, 2016 at 5:58 AM
    Dr Rossi:
    Is a system of many 20W Quarkx still able to yield a thrust?

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 10:57 AM
    Anonymous:
    I think so.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Translate
    Tom Conover
    October 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Buttare il cappello in aria e iniziare già una festa! Complimenti! Sei il nuovo Tesla e Einstein avvolto in uno! Non noioso!

    Warm Regards,
    Tom

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 10:56 AM
    Tom Conover:
    1 L = 1000 cm^3, therefore we have 10 x 1000 = 10 kW/L, but attention: we need more space for the assembly, so this equation is theoretical.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Bernie Koppenhofer
    October 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM
    Dr. Rossi: Over the last six years you have repeatedly told us there were no safety issues connected to your E-Cats. You recently stated describing the quarkx “The COP is very high, and the small power/module is necessary for safety reasons.” Could you please explain this apparent new safety issue? Thanks for responding to our questions.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Yes, you are right. But safety is first.
    Making modules of 20 W of power, it is much easier to control them. Combinig them, we can reach any power rate we want in small space.
    Like Quarks…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The most important result of the century?

    https://goo.gl/wmwlpZ

    • Fantastic. Hope it holds up to scrutiny.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The PDF reports that his recent work holds up to independent scrutiny, that is the point.

        Independent labs tested not only multiple samples against control of Cs 137 (Radioactive) – Ba 138 (Stable), but also Cs 133 (Stable) – Barium 134 (Stable).

        They even showed that the rate of remediation could be even faster than in VV previous work.

        • It’s a curious question how many replications are required and by what kinds of organizations before acceptance is achieved.

          I don’t think we’re there yet.

          Also, the mechanism of the changes does not receive the same attention as measuring the changes themselves, so the connection to LENR is tenuous.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Agreed on what is needed for acceptance – also, there needs to be the will to accept and wonderful science is often not enough to achieve engagement.

            About LENR, there does seem to be some positioning by various players as to what constitutes “valid” LENR. Some are going so far as to frame the process such that all observables that don’t match their theory is not LENR.

            In my book, if at the end of a procedure you have different isotopic or elemental ratios than you did at the start, and the bulk of the reactants did not rise to the temperatures considered viable for hot fusions to ordinarily effect that change, the process is LENR.

      • Zephir

        Given the pictures in th PDF presented, the Cesium can get selectively adsorbed on some part of reactor/bacterial biofilm – I’d definitely wait for replication here.

    • Ged

      Gees, and ICCF20 doesn’t even start till tomorrow (really, Monday). Looking forward to what surprises may be in store at the conference if that’s just a warmup :).

    • Zeddicus23

      These results are quite interesting. The Cs-137 activity reduction results are quite impressive, decreasing in one case by 70% in 20-30 days, when the half-life is 30 years. Of course, this could be due to the escape of Cs from the bottle and/or a local dilution in the portion of the bottle selected for analysis. I notice that they have just filed a patent.

      The Cs-133 results do not seem to match the suggested Cs133 + p -> Ba134 reaction, since the decrease in the Cs-133 concentration (about 20 mg/L) is 1000 times greater than the increase in Ba134 concentration (about 0.18 mg/L).

      This suggests that either the reaction is quite different, or there is a problem with these results.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Given multiple samples and experiment over the years, I would expect them to have established that the Cs137 does not selectively evaporate from the bottles containing microbes. Then there is the question of where the Barium 138 came from.

        The second argument is answered in context of the Cs137 rate result and the BT-Isotope results.

        Essentially, the purpose of these experiments was to see if it was just a Cs137 effect or if the proton pushing could be generalised. Just because there is a lower Ba134 amount does not mean that the same number of Cs133 were not transmuted – what it may mean is that the process continues and other elements are likely formed which were not sampled for. BT-Isotope claims that the process goes on until you stop it. Essentially, the observed Ba134 will trend to the steady state intermediary.

        I would therefore expect some stable 139La, 140Ce, 141Pr and 142Nd

  • Zeddicus23

    The higher temperature of the QuarkX (1400 C) versus the Ecat (100C – 800 C?) could significantly , improve the Carnot conversion efficiency eta = (Thot – Tcold)/Thot. Assuming Tcold= 300 K (e.g. 27 C or room temperature) and Thot = 373 K (100 C) gives eta = 19.5%. Assuming Thot = 1073 K (800 C) gives eta = 72%. Assuming Thot = 1673 K (1400 C) gives eta = 82%. However, I don’t have any idea how easy it is to run a heat engine/power-plant at these high temperatures. Perhaps someone with experience and knowledge of coal-fired or gas-fired power plants could comment on their efficiency and operating temperatures?

    I’m also a little bit concerned about the stability and heat transfer if a lot of QuarkX’s are packed together. If there is a bundle of them then I imagine that the ones in the center will be much hotter. Perhaps this could be dealt with by using continuous feedback to regulate the temperature of each QuarkX, e.g. running the center ones at lower power?

    • Zeddicus23

      I’ve just partially answered one of my questions by looking up power-plant efficiency. Apparently fossil-fueled power plants can reach efficiencies in the range of 40% – 50% by using high pressures and superheated steam around 374 C (or somewhat higher for supercritical steam). Given a COP of 20 or more this should be fine for power-plant applications. It’s conceivable that Stirling engines (which can typically reach efficiencies of around 50%) could also run efficiently with the high-temperature (1400 C) of the QuarkX. But I still don’t understand why the very high-temperature is needed – perhaps it helps sustain the reaction and leads to improved stability when a high COP is used? I believe that Rossi indicated that for the QuarkX there is no SSM in the normal sense, e.g. period of sustained power with no input. Instead, he is just pulsing the input power on and off rapidly, so effectively it is always in partial SSM mode.

      I’m still concerned about the thermal stability and heat transfer for a “pack” of QuarkX’s.

  • US_Citizen71

    The temperature would seem to limit it being out in electronic devices, but they could be put in a generator that is used to charge said devices. Walk before sprinting.

  • Brokeeper

    OK, let’s imagine, if we could safely butt 20w Ecatx’s against one another (30x1mm size each) into a one meter by one meter 36mm high box. You then have 1 Million parallel Ecatx’s giving 20MW of power wedged between two 1x1m x 3mm control plates. Potentially enough to power a thousand homes with a high efficient heat to electric conversion unit.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘if we could safely butt …’
      Would you consider re-engineering this proposal to allow 20MW of heat to be dissipated by fair means or foul?

      Would you use liquid or gaseous cooling and how fast would you have to shift the coolant? If you want 1400C temperatures in the coolant, then it almost has to be gasous and that suggests a gas turbine for the first Carnot Cycle with air as working fluid, followed by steam raising in a waste heat boiler as the second Carnot Cycle.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

      • Brokeeper

        Yes to all. Just using the extreme to get the point across of its minimal density/volume. Certainly it will have to be adjusted for heat exchange ratios. It is again very amazing to me all its potential uses in such a small package. I just pray we can turn this CO2 and particulate problem, now a dangerous threshold 400 ppm since many millions of years ago, can be turned around in time.

        • menos50

          You do realize that the 400 ppm reading comes from the side of a volcano in Hawaii …right? Don’t think that’s a valid measurement of the CO2 of the world…. also how does Gas that’s 0.04% of earths atmosphere control the temperature compared to the sun and the ionic exchanges in the solar system?

          • Brokeeper

            “Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years” (not volcano)
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-co2-hit-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-4-million-years/

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            The inconvenent truth is Brokeeper is right!!!

            • Brokeeper

              Sorry for the inconvenience. 🙂
              Thanks!

              • Bernie Koppenhofer

                Amazing to me how many people just reject scientific fact

                • Brokeeper

                  Agreed, as a BI Analyst it is obvious this big data forecasting is critical to understanding any civil entity’s survival. But it’s not too late yet.

  • Jas

    The Quark X tubes are tiny. About the size of a matchstick.
    It was 1mm x 30mm if I remember correctly. They do get very hot but could be insulated to be used in electronic devices.

    • Greenwin

      Nope. Thermal energy, must be converted to electron energy, if it is to be of use in APUs or electronics. Perhaps the quark X, inefficiencies in direct electric current production, outweigh those of H2FC tech, Rossi is now working at the nano scale first developed by Navy’s SPAWAR lab and at China lake.

      Who would want to suppress these remarkable findings? Certainly not the MIC, warned us of by President Eisenhower!

  • wpj

    It was previously 0.5 watt in for 100 out, but this looks now to have been reduced.

  • Gerard McEk

    How does this announcement fit in with the previous remark that the 5 sigma border was being approached? This new development would require an new test I suppose.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      One speculative possibility is that he has had a number of different quarks under prolonged testing with different power densities and he’s now looking at the results to make an informed tradeoff between power density and reliability.

    • wizkid

      This embodiment is very likely to be compatible with existing 5 sigma data, and will likely frost the cake for Rossi on the new “update” for the standard atomic model. The 5 sigma measurement is a scale of confidence by the discoverer of the validity of the data collected. 37hp per cubic foot is pretty convincing stuff, when it can run for a year without recharging … Rossi only needed to tip the scale, but instead I think he smashed the scale into tiny bits to get his 5 sigma…

  • Pekka Janhunen

    He has gone down in power density in favour of safety and stability. Making such tradeoff is not surprising, given that the early prototype Quark had excessive power density. The 10 W/cm3 figure he now gives is still rather nice: for example one litre gives 10 kW.

    • Gerard McEk

      Where did you read 10 W/cm3, Pekka? Or do you just assume the volume was maintained?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In JONP, in AR’s reply to Bob September 30, 2016 at 4:14 PM.

    • Brokeeper

      Pekka, I believe it was 10 Wcm^-3, which translates to 10 w per cubic mm. (1/1000 of a cubic cm).

      • Mylan

        No. cm^-1=1/cm

        • Brokeeper

          We’re talking three dimensional here. 10x10x10 mm = 1 cubic cm.

          • Mylan

            Doesn’t matter, it’s the same concept. cm^-3=1/cm^3

            • Brokeeper

              You’re missing the negative sign in -3. or 1 cm to the power of .001.

              • Ged

                Oh, no, that isn’t how that works. You’re thinking of *10^-3, which is a scientific notation. When a unit is put to a negative exponent, that flips it into the denominator of a fraction (reciprocal). Pekka and Mylan are completely correct.

                For instance, speed = distance * time^-1.

                • Brokeeper

                  Then how do you put 2 cubic cm’s equal to 20W into a 30X1mm tube of the E-Catx? It can only hold a couple to a few cubic mm.

                • Ged

                  Here is another example if it will help: “The SI unit of acceleration is the metre per second squared (m * s^-2)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

                  W*cm^-3 means W/cm^3.

                  Only *10^x changes decimal positions.

                  I don’t see the dimensions of this new quarkx to tell you if the power density is being reported correctly or not, but that is how the notation works.

                • Brokeeper

                  Maybe, but not mentioned. You would think it would be smaller if anything with less power. Just saying. It just doesn’t add up to me.

                • Ged

                  Well, if it were proportionally smaller with less power, then power density would not change, so it makes sense if it is bigger and less power output, so as to greatly reduce the power density (and thus the possibility of making heat too fast and driving temperature up too high, and melting the device).

                • Brokeeper

                  Only if AR reduced the potency of the fuel. If it stayed the same it would even make less sense if the QX stayed at 100W at its 30x1mm size. We know very little to come to a complete conclusion.

                • Ged

                  Exactly. We have a limited–though some–idea of how power rates are driven in the fuel. On the flip side, a larger QX with more fuel would of course have a larger energy storage. But, until we know how Rossi is controlling power densities, such as that let him make the leap from MFMP level power densities to what he had even with the hotcat, there is no way to really guess as to what he has done.

                • Brokeeper

                  Maybe its Rossi write.

              • Mylan

                What do you mean. I’m not missing anything. Again, more precise with parenthesis: cm^(-3)=1/(cm^3)

                • Brokeeper

                  It won’t fit in a 30x1mm tube.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Kind of useless and non-informative message, I would say.. tremendous… very small device….very high COP…. very close…very happy…. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • William D. Fleming

    ad majora=towards greater things

    (For those like me who didn’t know)

  • bfast

    When Eng. Rossi is happy, I am happy. A device about the size of an AA battery that produces 20w ongoing for a year is extremely valuable. Even with Seebeck energy conversion (usually about 10% efficient) we’re at a respectable 2 watts of power. Average power usage of a cell phone must be far less than that.

  • I am very skeptical of the QuarkX and the entire approach. I do not see how it will ever be cost effective to build a reactor with so many tiny little parts and then disassemble the entire reactor every year to refuel. It is going to be horrendously costly and time consuming. Does the QuarkX really produce excess energy, or is there some kind of skin effect going on? The smaller the unit, the greater the skin area. I would not invest in this idea. Brillouin Energy Corporation has more credibility than Rossi at this point, and their device has been independently tested by SRI showing a COP of at least 4. Lockheed Martin’s simplified microwave hot fusion reactor design has the most credibility of all, in my opinion. The credibility meter keeps changing.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think they would just replace and recycle the reactors.
      At the end of cycle, just plug in a new reactor package.

      Grind and separate the materials and recycle.

      • So, you would grind and reprocess all the batteries in a Tesla Model S every year? It is just not credible. Will Rossi’s next big breakthrough be a reactor that puts out just 1 watt? I have to keep up with E-Cat news because I have a website on energy, but I would say the outlook for Rossi is very bleak.

        • Greenwin

          Chris, you ignore the significant progress made in better recycling, e.g. Tesla:

          “At Tesla we have been refining our recycling program for years. Before sending our battery packs to be recycled we can reuse about 10% of the battery pack (by weight), e.g. the battery case and some electronic components. In North America we work with Kinsbursky Brothers to recycle about 60 percent of the battery pack. In Europe, we recently started working with Umicore, and now that we are selling cars in Japan and the Asia Pacific region, we will soon have news about recycling in Asia.”

          Modular expansion is the BEST method to scale technology, IMO.

          This is of course anathema to bloated guv’ment types who rely upon inefficiencies like chemical combustion to line thier pockets.

          • georgehants

            Welcome.

            • Greenwin

              Thanks George,. I am on my way to UK, on Friday, will be in London, 11/15-18… send your contact info via Frank…

        • Obvious

          Soon the quark-X will be so small that no one can ever see it.

          • if your snark is proven incorrect, will you make amends in some way?

          • Ged

            The ultimate goal is to make it quark sized, obviously.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Remember that the one-year replacement cycle (or 6 months or whatever) holds for a 24/7 reactor. An E-cat pack of a car would last without refuelling some half a million km i.e. roughly the same as the car itself. (Assuming that the reactors have a long shelf life and do not age when in stopped condition.)

        • US_Citizen71

          The small size of QuarkX would allow for a high surface area for heat transportation, building multiple into a replaceable pack seems ideal, the materials are relatively cheap, the form factor sounds like it is being design for automated production and recycling may be very automated as well. Most of the cost of production and recycling will likely be the energy need to run the machinery. Why not replace annually? I have a friend that replaces the deep cycle marine battery in his small fishing boat almost annually due to his daily charging and discharging of it.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You overgeneralize. In an ideal form and process the reactors could be extruded like Cheeze Doodles.

          Tesla batteries are another issue of scale, complexity and manufacturing effort all together.

    • Jas

      Perhaps its not meant to be refuelled? Its small and will probably be cheap to buy. After so many months of use its removed and then disposed of. You then insert a new one.

    • Brokeeper

      Hank Mills:
      1) Did the size of the Quark X reactor go down proportionally with the reduction in rated output? No

      • US_Citizen71

        So he is loading them with less fuel.

        • Brokeeper

          I don;t see anywhere he reduced the fuel size only the input power to .1w. which reduced the output proportionately and perhaps to safer controllable temperatures and extending its life.

    • Rene

      I doubt highly that the QuarkX can be refueled in that form factor. At the temperatures it runs, all those parts will be quite difficult to pry apart. This is throwaway tech, much like lithium batteries – they too have little bits of electronics to keep them from popping.

      The nice thing is that the materials are tiny and presumably it lasts a year under continuous power. The not so nice thing is that it cannot be verified until made commercially available – secrecy and all that cloaking. Make no bets on this one. The other not so nice thing is that it is producing 20W of *heat*. Assuming proportionality holds, that thing would produce 5W of electricity? Yes, he says you can gang them up, but that means a *lot* of heat will be flowing out of the QuarkX assembly. Its not laptop friendly, not flashlight friendly 🙂 It could make for a nice hot water heater or a low power space heater, or an efficient furnace.

      Frank wrote: “Rossi saying they are ‘very close’ to industrial applications sounds encouraging; however…” and yes that ‘however’ word is important. Rossi is a fervent optimist, bless his positive soul, but his track record is abysmal. We should treat ‘very close’ as the indefinite ‘someday’.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Actually I even to not see any way to comment or criticise QX, since we all have no clue what is this about. “Very small, generates light, heat and electricity” – all these words do not give any hint about design and reactions inside. Lets wait for demonstration…. I assume, it would take about another 4-5 years, Rossi style? 🙂