New QuarkX Dimensions Show Decreased Power Density

Recently on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Andrea Rossi responded to a question about the current dimensions of the QuarkX reactor. His response was:

Andrea Rossi
November 4, 2016 at 11:35 AM
Wilson Ramos:
length 2 cm
Diam 0.6 cm
Rating 20 W
Warm Regards

This compares with the internal report published by Andrea Rossi on June 14, 2016 where the following dimensions/power rating were given:

length 30 mm
diam 1 mm
Energy produced: 100 Wh/h
Energy consumed: 0.5 Wh/h

As a follow-up on the JONP, Xavier Pitz made this interesting calculation:

Xavier Pitz
November 5, 2016 at 3:58 AM
Dear Andrea,

I’m a little puzzled by your answer to Wilson Ramos.
I calculated a volume to power ratio of 0.11314cm^3/W for those 20W QuarkX modules. (L=2 D=0.6)
From my previous calculation this ratio was 0.00094cm^3/W for the previous 100W QuarkX modules. (L=3 D=0.1)

I’m not saying that the 20W version is not impressive anymore but I’m just trying to understand, what does this 120x increase of volume accounts for ?

Is it the price of the sigmas ?

Greetings from France,


Andrea Rossi responded to Xavier simply, “Yes.”

Rossi has said that they were having problems with the early version of the QuarkX overheating, and that following the visit of an expert engineer from California as a consultant they had made it smaller, and reduced the power rating. Rossi has said that this change has solved the overheating problem so far.

Also, Rossi has said that they are shooting for the goal of 5 sigma in order to meet some important condition set by his partner (a manufacturer), and so his response to Xavier above suggests that power density has been sacrificed in order meet these requirements.

14 Replies to “New QuarkX Dimensions Show Decreased Power Density”

    1. Xavier asked Rossi, “… what does this 120x increase of volume accounts for ?…” Rossi responded positively. Pretty sure dimensions are 2 cm x 0.6 cm. In any case anything as thin as 0.6mm would be very hard to manage.

      1. Gerard McEk: Just a question about the 6-fault increase of the QuarkX diameter: Is the fuel contents also changed?
        A.R.: No, only the internal physics

        So with this latest question and answer I will now assume that there is no typo or misunderstanding in play. And I agree that 0.6 would be extremely thin.

  1. Rossi said that the 20W quarks are like fuses. So I think in the given dimensions the case (fuse holder) is included. the core is probably still a small stick.
    I guess the old reference to 1 milimeter is without the fuseholder.

  2. 20 mm x 6 mm, that’s smaller than an AAA battery. This thing will be able to run a cell phone like candy.

    Total volume 120 mm3 / 20w = 6 mm3 / watt. Crunching some approximations, that’s about 2.5 inch cube per horsepower. That’s in the order of 125 horsepower per cubic foot. I know that this is the heat calculation, not the useful energy calculation — but that’s still an incredible power to volume ratio.

    The other thing that we need to realize is that this whole thing is the work of one engineering team over 6 years, starting from hardly a working theory. Factor in the thousands of engineering teams that will be on core technology once the world gets its head out of the sand. Given 10 years, we will be very much farther along than we are now.

    The QuarkX is the model T of LENR.

    1. You made math errors. There are 16,387 (mm)3/(in)3, so at 6(mm)3/W, there are 3.6 HP/(in)3 (1 HP=746 W). Also there are 1,728 (in)3/(ft)3, so the result is a power density of the new version of 6,293 HP/(ft)3. This result would be misleading, and the final power density not even close to this high level due to the required heat exchange medium and container, but this is still very high (in metric units, it is a power density of 165 MW/(m)3! The heat exchange medium would dominate size even for the more concentrated version, so it is not useful to emphasize just unit power density.

      1. Thanks for the correction. 6,000 gross horsepower per cubic foot — WOW! You are right, of course, that heat exchange will have to be managed. Further, we have a very poor picture of the electrical output characteristics. We do know that traditional heat to electricity conversion (stirling, steam, peltier ) can convert 10% to about 30%. However, even at 10% heat to electricity conversion, we are talking about 600 electrical horsepower per cubic foot of QuarkX.

        QuarkX is clearly powerful enough to transform the world.

    2. Ok, time to publish the full calculation. (This time I used my unit converter on my cell phone.)

      2cm * 0.6 cm = 20w.
      100cm * 0.6 cm = 1kw.
      36 cm3 = 1kw
      0.00127 ft3 = 1kw.
      787 kw per ft3
      1055 hp per ft3

      This presumes a 2 cm * 0.6 cm cube, but it is a tube. There is a wee bit of room between the stacked tubes laid out this way, but hardly enough for cooling nearly 1 megawatt.

      Remains, with the QuarkX as currently discussed, we should get the energy necessary to run a car from about 1 cu ft of QuarkXs. Even if we need 100 times that, it still would revolutionize car travel.

      And again, this is the model T of LENR, not the LENR we will see ten years after release.

  3. So,since the quarkx needs power to run,I wonder if it could be coupled to a battery AA or AAA or even smaller, and produces power for a long time. It even could be coupled to a PV panel?

  4. Rossi has said that his design will discard the power related to electrical production and light production and just use the heat production. The power used is about 50% of the power density. Does anybody remember the correct breakdown and has that percentage changed in the power density redesign?

      1. Not necessarily. The emission of heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. Muons are also produced if is Rossi does not beleive it.

  5. Frank,

    Seems I recall Rossi recently saying part of reducing the overheating issue is/was accomplished by heat removal. This may be what lead to the Quark X being larger leading to decreased power density.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *