Rossi: US Military Engineer Performing Third Party Testing on the QuarkX

Andrea Rossi has been posting on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about some new testing that has been taking place at Leonardo laboratory. Here are some of the comments and Q&As from the JONP about the testing.

Q: Can you tell us more abut the test on course today with the QuarkX? AR: It is a measurement made by a third party: it is confirming our data so far.

1. Is this third party a potential customer or partner? AR: no, he is an engineer from a military concern of the USA.

2. What was tested, and how long did the test take? AR: is on course a three days test of the COP and the stability, which means reliability

3. What has been their response to what they have witnessed? AR: so far so good ( hoping this is not a case in analogy with the guy arrived at the height of the 3rd floor after falling from the 10th floor )

4. What do you think will be impact on commercialization of your technology? AR: substantial

Q: Dr. Rossi, some people might have concerns about being involved with the military, clearly you do not feel this way. Obviously they can contribute enormously to the development of your reactors, though they might introduce complexities such as secrecy. What is your opinion on working with the military? Do you see them as simply customers like any other? AR: The engineer who is working with us is not a customer, he is a very skilled man from whom I am learning and that is making a fantastic job with the measurements. I prefer military engineers, because their preparation is superior in average.

Q: I hope that the military will not seek to have exclusive access to your products. Do you think that is a possibility? AR: no

1 – Do you trust this third party individual implicitly and whole heartedly? AR: yes

2 – Will this individual witness the construction of the Quark (s) that are too be tested? AR: yes

3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison? AR: useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable

4 – Will he be informed as to the fuel composition of the Quark? AR: no

5 – Will he only be testing for thermal output or also electrical? AR: thermal

6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video? AR: no

7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative? AR: no: internal

Q: Is the military engineer the same person who came to see you previously, and who helped you solve the problem with the QuarkX reactors overheating? I recall he was from California. AR: No, this one is another and I work with both of them.

As usual, we have only the report from Rossi here, and we should make of this what we will. This third party testing is apparently only for internal purposes, so we are unlikely to ever see a report come out of this. An internal third-party test from a military engineer could be useful for Leonardo to have on hand for marketing purposes, even if it was made available on an NDA basis.

  • Omega Z

    If you’re a 3rd party doing a black box test, you may need a dummy. If you’re merely an onlooker of a test, you may need a dummy.

    Beyond that, No dummy is required as long as your equipment is properly calibrated and you can accurately measure the input and output. Most everything has already been measured and documented by science. We know how many joules to heat quantities of water etc…

    interestingly, due to the size and output of the Quark, one could easily use a bomb calorimeter to obtain very accurate measurements and dummy would be required black box or not.

  • Stephen

    You are fully right in the contexts you mention of course Abd and I would not be against seeing an experiment performed that way. Where the generated energy is comparable to that that could be generated by chemical or mechanical means such as phase changes of exothermic reactions we should indeed be careful. Also it would also be viable to quantify accurately the performance even of high energy outputs over wide ranges of external conditions.

    I just think the differences maybe down to different points of view about what is being tested. I think AR is happy to see the light bulb is On and brighter than can be explained by other means where as you are interested in measuring accurately its luminosity.

    I do wonder however if having a dummy would maybe lead to endless discussion about the viability of the dummy or control. That could be distracting maybe But maybe we would learn something from it to improve future tests too.

  • Stephen

    With respect Abd, if the Lugano test had a positive COP an order of magnitude higher. I suspect we would not be discussing it so much here.

  • sam

    A comment from Ego Out blog

    PweetDecember 11, 2016 at 7:01 PM
    Peter, This probably relates more to what you discussed a few days ago, regarding what is holding back LENR today.
    I added one item to your list of things which are holding back the acceptance of LENR today, which I copy and paste to here.

    “6/. Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results. ”

    And now, a few days later we have the perfect example of exactly what I refer to.

    From the Rossi-blog;-

    “Patrick Ellul
    December 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM
    Dear Andrea.
    With “control”/”dummy”, it is meant to be a quarkX without one of its crucial elements (like fuel) that is fed the same input and whose output is measured in the same way as your fueled quarkX.
    This will cross check your calculations against another reference.
    Do you still think such experiment is useless at this stage?
    Regards.”

    Rossi replied;-

    “Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Of course it is useless.
    The COP is what counts.
    Warm Regards
    A.R”

    Really? It’s the COP that counts and it’s useless to check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor?
    No wonder there is such a reluctance by almost everyone to accept the Rossi results at face value.

    It’s equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi.

    Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ?

    • Stephen

      I agree unless it’s something really obvious like a light bulb. You don’t really need bulb with out a filament in it next to it to see if it works.

      With experiments making marginal COP I think dummy’s are really essential to be really sure we are seeing something. but if the out put Energy is orders of magnitude larger than the input do we really need a dummy device to see it?

      Maybe to quantify the COP accurately it is useful to have a dummy but maybe accurately calibrated measuring equipment might be sufficient for his need.

      In a public Demo though it could be interesting to demonstrate the COP in some visible way perhaps powering a football stadiums lights compared to a single bulb?

      Or did I miss some point?

    • US_Citizen71

      If the COP is high enough say 20 then a dummy is extraneous and a complete waste of time and material. If is is less than 2 or 3 then sure I could see the need for a dummy.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    1. Do you have plans to present the COP of the QuarkX at your public presentation?
    2. Will the general public have the ability to see this presentation, and if so, how?
    3. Will special guests be invited to this presentation?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland.

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes, to be defined
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • pg

    Hi everyone, is there any date for the presentation?

    • artefact

      Not yet. But it should be in February.

      • pg

        Thank you.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Frank Acland December 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    1. Do you have plans to present the COP of the QuarkX at your public presentation?
    2. Will the general public have the ability to see this presentation, and if so, how?
    3. Will special guests be invited to this presentation?
    Best wishes, Frank Acland.

    Andrea Rossi December 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes, to be defined
    3- yes
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • artefact

    QZ . com:
    “Bill Gates and investors worth $170 billion are launching a fund to fight climate change through energy innovation”

    “Anything that leads to cheap, clean, reliable energy we’re open-minded to,” says Gates, who is serving as chairman of BEV and anticipates being actively involved.”

    http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I think he was referring to the 3–day test which is at the moment already landed.
    The reason why he’s using such metaphor might be the particular 1-year test which suddenly made so messy landing that a good fraction of his time still goes to cleaning it up in court.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 3:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I recall you once paid Sergio Focardi to find the errors in your measurements for the early E-Cat. Now you hired another expert to do the same — don’t you trust what you see for yourself?

    Congratulations!

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    Frank Acland:
    You are right, I made the same as with Prof. Focardi. No, I do not trust myself when I am too enthusiast.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    A Goumy
    December 11, 2016 at 4:02 AM
    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Did the engineer use the same calorimetry technique as yours, or another one? If not confidential, can you tell us more, without going into details, about it?

    Warm regards,

    A. Goumy

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    A. Goumy:
    Another one, that now I adopt. Datails will be disclosed in the public presentation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      Irina and Vitaly Uzikov
      December 11, 2016 at 3:48 AM
      Dear Andrea!

      The most sincere congratulations on the successful conclusion of a very important stage of your great work! You’re too much work, so watch out your health! We look forward to the presentation in February

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      December 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM
      Dr Irina and Vitaly Uzikov:
      Thank you for your continue and very important attention. You will be surely invited to the presentation.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 10:16 PM
    Frank Acland:
    End of the test now, at 10.10 P.M. of Saturday December 12th.
    The results are confirmed. I was afraid that my results were too good to be true, so I said to the third part engineer that I was paying him to find my measurements’ errors. He is saying my measurements were not wrong, basically, with exception of minor errors, so the results are confirmed. I am very encouraged. We go to close for the 5Sigma.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Buck
    December 10, 2016 at 2:46 PM

    Happy Holidays Andrea.
    I am glad to hear that the just completed test with the independent engineer provided confirmation for your measurements.
    A question: Did this engineer assess the degree of statistical correlation for his measurements over three days with the measurements you gathered at the same time? This assumes that he set up measurement
    devices parallel and run concurrently to yours. Would you be able to share the measure of correlation?

    ~~~~~~~

    Andrea Rossi
    December 10, 2016 at 3:56 PM

    Buck:
    The measurements practically confirm each other within the margin of error of the instrumentation.
    Besides, the margin of error is insignificant in respect of the COP.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe the military has been shepherding the E-Cat all along while waiting for a change in the administration.

    http://disq.us/p/1dmr1bj

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi December 10, 2016 at 1:40 PM
    JPR:
    Today we complete the test made by the independent engineer.
    We arr going very well, all my data have been confirmed, with minor corrections.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Hey!

      He spelled independent correctly!

  • Gerrit

    you know what, I didn’t even read it.

  • Let me guess: In the end it’s a retired military engineer in the mid 70’s who currently has nothing to do anything with the military. But it sounds good.

  • Rene

    6 – Will the test be recorded from start to finish on video? AR: no
    7 – Will he be writing a paper about the results of the test, positive or negative? AR: no: internal
    *sigh*

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    December 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you say if the engineer doing third party testing with you works for the US military itself, or for a company that does work with/for the military.

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 9, 2016 at 8:57 PM
    Frank Acland:
    This information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • wizkid

      How do I spell it out? D.A.R.P.A.

      • sam
        • wizkid

          Men in Black. Molding the world for the 1%.

        • Jas

          I read that the robot pack mule was rejected by the military because it was too noisy.

          • sam
          • Jas
          • Rene

            They knew it was a prototype, so they expected the noise issue to be dealt with eventually. What ended the mule was that it did not meet a number of objectives, a big one that it could tolerate being shot at. Apparently one shot cripples it.

            From the article:
            “The contract also provided for the construction of an enhanced version of LS3 that featured a quieter power supply and better survivability against small arms fire.”

            But, that didn’t happen. They developed spot the smaller one but it lacked the advanced path finding logic – it was controller driven, and that pretty much killed the program.

      • radvar

        That’s an interesting possible fit for the term “military concern”. Still trying to imagine what the contract would look like in that case. They would want something in return, and it’s not clear what Rossi would be willing to offer them.

        • wizkid

          The cost of the nuclear engines for the submarines is in the billions if not trillions of $$$. LENR could cut help to reduce the military budget needs by 80% or more.

          • radvar

            That’s a valid quid pro quo, and I would hope that it might be true. Still doesn’t seems like a Rossi type arrangement though. He just keeps everything so closely and personally controlled.

          • Rene

            I’m fairly certain you meant nuclear power plant. The drive screw propellers are either electrical motors or steam turbines. But yes, replacing the rector would be a good thing. There is the matter of size vs power, which needs to be determined for LENR based systems. Size matters in a limited space sub.

          • Omega Z

            S1B reactor
            $100M for U.S. Submarines. require 1 each. 40 years to refuel.

            A1B reactor
            $200M for U.S. Carriers, require 2 each. $400M 24 years to refuel.

      • Rene

        A.A.R.P.

  • HS61AF91

    Can you just imagine the validity a military validation component will provide E-cat emergence on the scene? Like Tang in Spacecraft. The important fact is that such a third party is even there presupposes that the fact of LENR is indisputable, and the inquisitiveness of the military gentleman is there to see if Quark-X really is producing. Go get ’em! For yourself, for all of us, and humanity as a whole – proton on!

  • bfast

    ( hoping this is not a case in analogy with the guy arrived at the height of the 3rd floor after falling from the 10th floor )
    Love it!

  • Why do you think I keep pestering Mats Lewan to interview people?

    The perpetual state of ambiguity has got to stop.

  • Well, until they decide to go public about the QX they are all under NDA.

    We do know (or at least think we know) that ABB is involved with the robotics end of things.

  • radvar

    Military….or ex-military? That’s an important distinction. Someone might ask?

    It’s hard to see how an active duty US military member could be doing this with Rossi. As an ordered assignment? That would mean the US government is officially involved. As a “night job”? Not impossible, but very likely something the person would have to report to their superiors.

    Which is not to denigrate the person’s qualifications, or Rossi’s appreciation for them.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “…he is an engineer from a military concern [i.e., company] of the USA.”

      • Concern may or may not mean company.

        In fact the use of the word concern implies it may not be a company.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Agree. Also, Rossi likes to use the word “concern”.

      • radvar

        Well, this is nit-picking, however, while “concern” likely means company (would we think some kind of institute or NGO?), “military concern” doesn’t really parse. There are lots of “defense contractors” in the US, like Lockheed or Raytheon, however, only little ones have only Defense Department contracts. And again, I have to assume the person is freelancing, otherwise they would be under corporate contract, which doesn’t sound like a Rossi move. So my guess is that the person is a retired aerospace engineer (arbitrary, but lots of those, and high skills) who used to work on mil-spec (military specification) contracts, which indeed require a lot of precision and discipline.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I agree. Further, I certainly hope there are no NGOs in this field:-)

  • sam

    Always a good idea to have the US military working with you and not against you.

    https://youtu.be/SWiilSSkpaI

  • Gerard McEk

    Why is AR so regulary reporting about ‘military’ checking or selling stuff? Would he be pressed to do so or does it give the test some ‘status of rightness’? I know what he says, but having checked something by an independent specialized company would give much more confidence in my view.

    • Perhaps because organizations are loath to be associated with allegedly pathological science.

  • This would be a pretty big deal, if confirmed.

    • kenko1

      It’s BS Rossi sez crap. It means nothing. zero, zilch nada.

    • kenko1

      Is this sience or roSsi seZ?

      • We won’t know until we know, But in the past when he’s spoken like this we got the Levi and Lugano tests reports and then the legal partnership with the Cherokee folks.

        It’s a good bet that something interesting is happening.

  • Bruce__H

    It would be nice to have an interview with any of the people who Mr Rossi reports he has been working with. There must be many of them. I’m thinking of any one of the consultants or technicians who help him in his work. Or the manufacturers who have been helping him with automation. Or anyone who has even dealt with Rossi face-to-face on technical matters in the last while.

    Has anyone here heard from or read an account by one of these Rossi helpers? Can anyone even name one?

    • Rossi Fan

      That would be Fabio. He’s a middle class technician working on a machine worth trillions for a middle class wage. No stock options promised or offered. No chance he will give away any secrets to the competition. He has too much to lose.

      • If everybody that comes in contact with the man and his E-Cats and speaks positively about them is then immediately branded as part of a growing conspiracy that acts utterly irrationally…

        Then maybe the irrationality is not on their part.

  • artefact

    I guess it is Domenico Fioravanti.
    Probably they test the COP after many month of operation.

    • Gerard McEk

      I wouldn’t want to check the COP if I weren’t able to ensure the rightness of the electrical power readings as well.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I think he meant they will not be measuring electrical output.

        You can’t measure COP without knowing the input value, that would be a NULL test.
        The other engineers would laugh at him vigorously.