Would using a Dummy Make for an Effective QuarkX Presentation?

Since Andrea Rossi has been discussing his plans for a public presentation of the QuarkX reactor there have been a number of posts on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the possibility of using a ‘dummy’ reactor as a means of effectively demonstrating the ability of the QuarkX to operate with a high COP.

The idea is a simple one: compare the performance of an active QuarkX reactor to one of similar size and physical properties (this is the dummy), but without any of the QuarkX special sauce (whatever that may be) using the same energy input, and the same measurement instruments. If the QuarkX really does what Rossi has claimed, it will act very differently from a dummy.

Rossi had seemed to be resisting the idea of using a dummy, saying any system with a COP <1 (like a conventional heater)  would be an appropriate comparison. But recently he responded to a question about using a dummy with this comment:

Andrea Rossi

Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP <, using the same instrumentation and methodology. Warm Regards, A.R

Having followed the E-Cat story over the last six years, and knowing the skeptical stance of many people about it, it may be difficult to overcome that skepticism with a single demonstration. Whatever Rossi does or does not do (assuming there will be a public presentation) there will probably be people who will claim it is all theatrics, illusion, smoke and mirrors, etc.

Probably convincing the most skeptical observers will not be Rossi’s goal with a public presentation. It is probably not possible to do so in a staged event. He continues to talk about his commercial goals which to begin with are sales of industrial plants, and he will be likely thinking how he can best engage the curiosity of potential commercial customers.

Someone on the JONP asked if he was planning to do something spectacular, such as “such as run the QuarkX in SSM without any power input?” Rossi responded, “I think it will be interesting enough.”

  • Roy O’Neil

    Following, is a demonstration that should convince any skeptic:
    – A fueled quark unit and an unfueled quark unit, side by side, on a glass table top
    – Same electrical energy applied to both units
    -Same quantity of heat transfer fluid flowing thru both units
    – If, after a period of time, the temperature of fluid from the fueled unit is materially higher, then the fueled quark is providing excess heat.
    What are the shortcomings of this idea?

  • sam

    December 19, 2016 at 3:03 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    December 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM
    6 a.m. of Dec 19th: QuarkX in good standing.
    Warm Regards,

    Lars Lindberg
    December 19, 2016 at 5:00 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    will the light from the QuarkX be useful?
    How many QuarkX are you testing at the same time?

    Andrea Rossi
    December 19, 2016 at 6:02 AM
    Lars Lindberg:
    No, the QuarkX will focus on heat.
    We are testing three QuarkXes.
    Warm Regards,

    Luis Navarro
    December 19, 2016 at 5:21 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    A very Happy Xmas to you, your staff and partners as well as to all your respective families!
    Can we, your readers and followers, expect a Xmas present from you in the form of a ‘dream’ this year?
    All the very best from Maspalomas,

    Andrea Rossi
    December 19, 2016 at 6:00 AM
    Luis Navarro:
    Likewise to you from our team.
    Answer: I hope so.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Wpj is correct. Measurements – especially under uncustomary conditions – are not as safe as some people might think. I recommend reading the Gamberale report (cited below). One could ask whether a blank run of the QuarkX would be practicable in a public demonstration, but that’s a different question.

  • sam

    December 18, 2016 at 1:51 PM
    Dear Andrea

    Congratulations on your continuing progress towards 5 sigma.

    1. Have any of the QuarkX you have produced run out of fuel?

    2. Have you obtained any ash from a QuarkX?

    3. Any suprises within the ash?

    4. In the current QuarkX prototypes is the light they produce visible to an observer in the same room?

    5. If the light is visible can you publish another photo, without revealing proprietary information which shows the light?

    Thanks and best wishes

    Bob Belovich

    Frank Acland
    December 18, 2016 at 12:54 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Do you plan to have an independent expert present at the presentation of the QuarkX who will be responsible for taking measurements and communicating them to the observers of the presentation?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 18, 2016 at 4:55 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Warm Regards

    Andrea Rossi
    December 18, 2016 at 4:49 PM
    Bob Belovich:
    1- no
    2- no
    3- no
    4- yes
    5- will do
    Warm Regards

  • sam

    Interesting question and answer from Ego Out blog December 16,17,18.
    Peter calls it Lenr mysteries.


  • wpj

    A prof at university (Nobel prize, chemistry) always asked “have you done the blank experiment?”. Personally, I think that the “blank experiment” with a dummy reactor needs to be run as this would silence any criticism that might manifest itself.

  • Mats002

    And 2016 Nobel prize in physics goes to:


    Is this not the foundation for LENR development???

    • sam

      From the article.

      “You never set out to discover something new. You stumble upon it and you have the luck to recognise that what you’ve found is something very interesting,” Haldane said. The dramatic transitions in the electrical behaviour of some materials was “so surprising” that it took Haldane a while to realise what he was observing. “But once you see it, you think why didn’t anyone else think of it before?” he added.

  • Bob

    The only point is that the difference between levitating and producing excess heat is completely apples to oranges.

    In the plate case, a dish never levitates, so when one does, it is completely evident. One stays on the table the other does not.

    With the eCat, you are inputting energy which requires that energy to be dissipated. A eCat with no fuel is going to produce heat or to you example “levitate”. The fueled eCat also produces heat, but does it produce more?

    Since there can be measurement errors, such as the Lugano thermal settings, one cannot know if all the measurements are correct unless you run the control sample. You put 100 watts of power in both, a unit with fuel and one without. Using the same measuring devices, if the fueled on measures more output energy, then it is due to the fuel, not the measurement, Why, because you have a control run. If they both measure the same, then the fuel did nothing.

    This is science 101.

    So we need to see that a control run is needed.

    However, to your point, self sustain mode would be different! A control run is not needed, because if in self sustain mode, one can run long enough to prove that any chemical reaction is discounted.

    However…. surprisingly enough…. no test are ever an in self-sustain mode! Even though many posts are made that the eCat has ran for long periods in SSM.

    I wonder why? 🙁

    To preempt the “safety reason” excuse, it has now been removed. The QuarkX is only 20 watts. No reason to not run SSM now. Even it run away occurred, it would not have significant enough power to do harm.

    Do you think we will see a SSM now?

    • Frank Acland

      I believe Rossi has said that the QuarkX doesn’t run in self sustain mode. He said it has a continuous small pulsed input, if I recall correctly.

  • wonderboy
  • Anon2012_2014

    I’m sorry, but this is beyond absurd claiming that using a control reactor that has a COP=1 makes one iota of difference in the demo.

    Rossi has repeatedly given demonstrations under controlled conditions that have flaws, that in turn prevent a reasonable man from ruling out chemical, i.e. the IR camera test, the secret powder test, the wet steam test with an H2 tank hooked up, etc… When challenged on those flaws, rather than address them, he goes back to “en mercatus veritas” (or something with better latin, sorry). The defenders of this lack of responsiveness to experimental criticism hang bank on “Rossi owes us nothing”. Rossi then says he has constructed a robot factory in 2013. He then says he has a secret deal with various customers (military – 2014, 2016, Industrial Heat, 2014, 2015) which prevents him from disclosure. And now we are back to “demonstrations” that again don’t close off the flaws.

    It is now time for multiple public demos with multiple scientists coming and criticizing the flaws, with responsiveness to repair the flaws. It’s show us the experiment time.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, a “test” and “presentation” are rather different.

    I MUCH fail to see how having some “dummy” device will have any kind of effect or relevance in ANY way in terms of a demonstration.

    Given the quark is new, and un-seen, then ANY type of demo of the device in operation would be most welcome. Dummy devices for a demo is really meaningless, and the comments by Rossi near show confusing as to why people would think such a “thing” sitting on a table not working has any value (it does not).

    Just seeing some numbers as to input watts, output watts and seeing the device in operation is something long overdue – I much welcome any kind of demo.
    Now down the road? Of course we want some kind of 3rd party test and verification – but we have to start somewhere.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • sam

    Nothing to do with topic but if anyone
    is interested.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Actually, I think a dummy load tested along with the QuarkX makes sense from an instrumentation viewpoint. If a cooling fluid (air, water) was pumped in series, first through the dummy cell, then through the active cell, it would eliminate measurement of the mass flow rate as a debatable measurement. You would still have to measure accurately electrical power in (a pretty straightforward measurement), and fluid temperature in and out of each cell. The ratio of the power produced can be simply measured as the ratio of the temperature deltas for each cell. This assumes, of course, that the heat capacity of the fluid is not temperature dependent. If it is, the heat load can be corrected by changing the heat capacity. The COP would then be calculated by taking the ratio of the delta-T’s and correct for differences in electrical power input.

    • sam

      Dr Andrea Rossi,
      I too agree that if you put a dummy in parallel with the QuarkX powered with the same amount of energy as the QuarkX the test is more convincing, also concerning the calibration of the measurement system.

      Andrea Rossi
      December 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM
      Thank you for your suggestion,
      Warm Regards

  • MasterBlaster7

    We do not need to convince skeptics; We need to sell product.

    • Gerard McEk

      How do you convince the first customer?
      If COP6?
      If I were the inventor, I would have my product accredited by a world-class company.

    • Bruce__H

      This particular argument is one Rossi is fond of. So much so that his fans have taken up the cry. But it is 100% wrong.

      The evidence of the past half decade is that Rossi uses this argument specifically to avoid testing and fool people.

  • Gerard McEk

    If you want to determine the COP accurately for COP just over 1, then a dummy test is very useful. It is also a way to check your calometry. When you have calibrated instruments, then it is not needed. For COP’s>>1 there is hardly a need and that is where AR referred to.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Simply publish the financial benefits from the three E-Cats he sold to the customer of the year long test.

  • Jas

    Rossi has said there is no need of a dummy. This has been discussed for a few days now. Just let it lie.

    • Mats002

      Hi Jas, did you mean the quark is a lie or wait and see?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think he meant let it lie down, i.e. let the issue be.

        • Gerald

          If the quark is good enough and Rossi will benefit of it he will do it. Most of the time stuberness is good, but sometimes you just give a little. Time is starting to be against him. He will acknoledse that.

      • Jas

        I was a bit drunk last night when I wrote that. I started following the JONP a few months ago. Rossi was asked about a dummy test and he gave his answer but as you know some people arent satisfied and just keep on going on about it. I meant that we should leave the subject alone as far as Rossi and the Quark is concerned. If people want to discuss the merits of having a unfueled device as part of their set up they are certainly free to do so. It seems that Rossi has decided its not for him.

    • Obvious

      He uses dummies, but his supply is running out.

      • Anon2012_2014

        We are the dummies apparently.

  • Dr. Mike

    A dummy reactor would represent a control for the active device. If the Lugano experiment had had a dummy control reactor, it would have been clear that the active reactor had only about 30% excess power. (I don’t believe Rossi knew that he had always been measuring the reactor temperature incorrectly.) Having a dummy control reactor running simultaneously in a presentation of the QuarkX reactor would just be good experimental procedure.

  • Rene

    Frank, by Rossi’s own hand he has made the situation untenable. He refuses to let anyone do an independent test. And of course that is his to choose, but that means he needs to accept the consequences of his choice that until he produces something that can be purchased and tested, none of his softball demos are worth anything. He is acting adversarial, again his choice, but there are consequences to that choice.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “Frank, by Rossi’s own hand he has made the situation untenable. He refuses to let anyone do an independent test.”

      Totally agree.

  • Brokeeper

    Only LENR for Dummies. Input vs Output should be sufficient proof for the common sense. Have third party skeptics inspect it before, during and after the presentation with an impartial judge overseeing it all.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      However, blank runs may help to discover measurement errors which could otherwise be overlooked. Gamberale’s test of Defkalion’s reactor is an instructive example:

      “These observations have prompted DE to perform independent testing to verify the correct operation of the flowmeter during the test. To this end DE decided to make a check of the operation of the flowmeter by performing a test using Ar in place of hydrogen and avoiding the use of the high voltage activation circuit.” (p. 8)

      “It is clearly noted that, while using Ar (considered by DGT an inert element for prompting the reaction and used as a reference gas to show that the reaction does not occur using Ar) in place of H2 and without making use of the high voltage excitation circuit, we get a significant increase in the measured thermal power up to about 17 kW, well above that of the electrical power input of about 2.5 kW.”(p. 10f.)


      • Brokeeper

        I agree for physics accurrecy a dummy QX would be necessary. However for public demonstration and for what we believe a COP > 50 any difference would be insignificance.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Never read this DGT report, but Ar has thermal conductivity about 1/10th of H2, so depending on the placement of thermocouples, the insulating effect of Ar would clear cause an increase in the uncompensated apparent power. This just shows how much more work needs to be done on an experiment rather than just using a “control” — to ensure the control is indeed calibrated in a way that when switched to the active experimental conditions we are measuring what we think we are measuring.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I agree that possible differences in thermal conductivity are a problem, especially in calibration. Nevertheless, a ‘COP’ >> 1 in a blank run (as in the cited case) would indicate that something went most likely wrong.