Rossi Describes QuarkX Setup in More Detail

Andrea Rossi responded on the Journal of Nuclear Physics y
esterday to a question regarding the configuration of the QuarkX reactor currently under test with a response that provides more information than we have received previously. Here is his comment:

Andrea Rossi
January 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM
Hans:
The QuarkX is a very small thing with a rating of circa 20 W.
It is inside a heat exchanger where a fluid exchanges heat with the QuarkX. The fluid remains in the liquid phase, no steam to make it easier. The amount of fluid heated is measured with precision.
The difference of temperature obtained in one hour is measured with a precise thermometer. The energy consumed by the QuarkX is measured with precision. A dummy is measured in parallel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So if we are to eventually see a demonstration of the Quark, this will probably be what is demonstrated — comparing the performance of the heat exchanger with the active unit against the dummy. If the COP is as high as what has been hinted (Rossi reported COP as high as 200 this summer in an internal test report), then it should not be too hard to demonstrate that it is performing well beyond the possibility of a chemical reaction.

However, as always, one would need a trustworthy independent assessment of any demonstration for people to be fully convinced that it is performing as claimed.

  • sam

    Frank Acland

    May 28, 2017 at 7:48 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Are you currently testing QuarkX reactors of different sizes?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Translate

    Andrea Rossi

    May 28, 2017 at 8:08 AM

    Frank Acland:
    Yes.
    Best Wishes to you,
    Warm Regards,

  • sam

    Stephen

    May 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi, the next weeks and months seem to be particularly important. I wish and all your team positive strength and good health over this period. I have the strong impression the time for this technology becoming better know and understood is soon upon us. I’m very hopeful about it.

    The QuarkX seems more and more interesting the more we hear about it and the technology of ECat and your other devices seem more and more intriguing as a consequence too.

    I wonder if I may ask a few questions about the thermal behavior of your devices (I apologize if some of them are a bit ignorant)

    1. I think you mentioned the QuarkX could be turned On quite quickly in a few seconds?
    2. Does the QuarkX reach the operational output temperature quickly too? If so does it a) instantly at temperature at switch on or b) takes a few seconds b) a few minutes c) longer
    3. Is the output temperature from the device directly from the LENR process it self?
    4. Or Does thermal and kinetic effects from sorbtion of Hydrogen have a significant role in the out put temperature of your ECat device?
    5. Or does the output heat of the device have some other origin.
    6. I think you mentioned the device thermal behavior is quite complex and is a matter of integration. May I ask Is this integration over time? Space (surface or volume) Both or something more complex?

    I wish you and your team the best over this important period. It must be amazing and fascinating seeing the technology develop and evolve.

    Andrea Rossi

    May 24, 2017 at 1:10 PM

    Stephen:
    1. yes
    2. few minutes
    3. yes
    4. no
    5. no
    6. more complex
    Thank you for your kind wishes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Ron Stringer

    May 24, 2017 at 9:28 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Thank you for your reply. So, each Quarkx is physically connected to its control system, BUT, you don’t need to disconnect to recycle. That is interesting. Could we have a little clarification, please?
    I assume a “unit” to consist of a set of multiple quarkx devices, connected to some supporting hardware.
    For the user:
    1. spent units will be removed and replaced, with the spent units being returned to the manufacturer for recycling. Yes or No?
    For the manufacturer:
    1. spent units will be dismantled/destroyed and new units manufactured from the materials. Yes or No?
    2. spent units will be refuelled, without removing them from the support hardware. Yes or No?
    3. Some other arrangement. Yes or No?
    I am assuming you have designed with a “cradle to cradle” approach. Yes or No?
    All the best.
    Ron

    Andrea Rossi

    May 24, 2017 at 1:06 PM

    Ron Stringer:
    1A: yes
    1B: no
    2: no
    3: yes
    4: what do you mean in this case with “cradle to cradle”, exactly ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Bernie Koppenhofer

    May 24, 2017 at 9:48 AM

    Dr. Rossi: Do you think you need to show economic benefits of your intellectual property to win the court battle against Darden?

    Andrea Rossi

    May 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Sorry, I cannot discuss here issues related to the litigation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Steven N. Karels

    May 24, 2017 at 3:30 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your comments are very interesting.

    1. For a projection of refueling once per year to be commercially meaningful, that implies that the majority of Quark units within a grouping are functioning over that refueling interval. For example, if a unit contains 1,000 Quark individual reactors, yielding 20 kW of thermal power capability, then one would expect that perhaps 90% of them would still be functioning at the end of one year. This suggests the failure rate (not fuel depletion but an actual fault occurring) must be much greater than one year. Do you agree?

    2. You stated that there are no wires connecting to the Quark, no need to unscrew the Quark. This suggests to me an electrical connection, similar to an electrical fuse or a fluorescent light tube. You apparently still need to provide some form of energy to the Quark individual reactor to control it, to activate it and to shut it down. Can you clarify your statement?

    Translate

    Andrea Rossi

    May 24, 2017 at 6:15 AM

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- No
    2- No
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Giuseppe

    May 24, 2017 at 5:06 AM

    Dear Andrea,
    does the output temperature of a single quark is direct proportional to its dimension, lenght or diameter?
    Regards, Giuseppe

    Andrea Rossi

    May 24, 2017 at 6:12 AM

    Giuseppe:
    No, the issue is much more complicated. It derives from a system of integrals.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Andrea Rossi

    May 23, 2017 at 9:39 PM

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    The modules are independent. If a module fails there is no reason for others to fail. They are not interacting between them, they just sum up their heat. A shutdown happens in seconds. Every QuarkX can be shutdown independently.
    By the way, nothing exists that can never fail: remember the words of the commander of the Titanic: “This ship is unsinkable”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Joseph Fine

    May 23, 2017 at 8:24 PM

    Andrea Rossi,

    If you build and test a system with 100’s or 1000’s of modules, and one or several modules fail, it is presumed that individual units/modules fail safely. That is, all of the other modules will continue to function undamaged. At least that is the goal.

    Have you considered building/testing a multiple module system to see if a module can fail “gracefully”?

    Can you prevent a failing module from damaging the other ones? Or, can you shut down an individual module fast enough?

    How fast does each or all of the modules respond to a shutdown signal? (Minutes? Seconds, Milliseconds? etc.)

    Do all system modules have to be shutdown simultaneously, or can you operate a Quarkx with a few damaged modules?

    Or can the system be made so robust, that the individual modules will almost never fail?

    That might be the best way.

    Multiple regards,

    Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi

    May 23, 2017 at 7:43 PM

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    You are right.
    I must be sincere: when I work on the QuarkX I am stunned myself.
    But it is working and spectrometry and calorimetry are conciliable.
    I am not ready to tell you the power density after the application of all the components, also because there are very different possibilities, also depending on the applications.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Andrea Rossi

    May 23, 2017 at 7:41 PM

    Vitaly & Irina Uzikov:
    You will be for sure invited.
    About your technology, I am very surprised that you did not yet receive a proposal ro make a prototype: your tech maybe a solution for an extremely important issue related to the nuclear wastes.
    Fingers crossed for your success ( you would merit it),
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Ron Stringer

    May 23, 2017 at 10:03 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Marco has an interesting point – working with a device so small presents difficulties! I am really looking forward to seeing how you have dealt with this. Are the Quarkx units to be strung like beads, screwed into a fixture or mounted on a board, or just piled in a heap in a fancy high-tech bucket?
    Most of your engineering challenges are well beyond me, but this one I might understand!
    So, two questions, if you don’t mind.
    1. Does each Quarkx unit require a physical connection to the control system?
    2. When it comes time to recycle the spent units, will this require undoing that physical connection (cutting wires, desoldering or unscrewing from a fixture)?
    I wish you the best of luck with your court case, and look forward to seeing the presentation of the Quarkx!
    Ron Stringer

    Andrea Rossi

    May 23, 2017 at 7:37 PM

    Ron Stringer:
    1- yes
    2- no
    Thank you for your kindness,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • artefact

    But it is said to be very small and connectable to others.

  • sam

    Steven N. Karels
    February 4, 2017 at 7:06 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Without replying about specific performance of your current or previous ecat reactors, do you consider units operating under your design to have the performance function that the difficulty of control remains the same though out the fuel time of the reactor. Specifically:

    a. Control is easier at the beginning of the fuel consumption and then more difficult as fuel is consumed?
    b. The difficulty of control remains about constant over the life of the fuel?
    c. The difficulty of control is the most at the beginning and end of the fuel life and relatively easier in the middle of the fuel consumption?
    d. none of the above?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 4, 2017 at 7:34 AM
    Steven N. Karels:
    The difficulty of control is intrinsic of the matter, in every phase.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    JPR
    February 4, 2017 at 5:12 AM
    Update?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 4, 2017 at 7:34 AM
    JPR:
    Still good.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Hank Mills
    February 3, 2017 at 12:11 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    In regards to the switch from intermittent to constant…

    1) Did the COP go up, down, or stay the same?
    2) Did the operating temperature go up, down, or stay the same?
    3) Is it now possible to operate the Quark for a period of time with zero input (true self sustain)?

    Thanks,
    Hank

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM
    Hank Mills:
    1- yes
    2- tes
    3- no
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    February 3, 2017 at 3:59 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    In your reply to Hank Mills, your answers to questions 1 and 2 are ambiguous — it is not clear what you are answering ‘yes’ to.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2017 at 5:09 PM
    Frank Acland:
    You are right, I meant “yes” to the last chance: both the same.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • otto1923

    But its convenient that its all covered up so we cant actually see it. If we were allowed to see it that is.

  • sam

    • Updated: 2017-02-03 13:20:07.707425Z
    Britt Quimet
    February 3, 2017 at 2:31 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Did you learn anything new from the last break of the QuarkX?
    Thanks if you can answer,
    Britt

    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2017 at 8:15 AM
    Britt Quimet:
    Yes, and we got also an important improvement, since now, due to a better managemant of the heat, we do not need an intermittent operation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    JPR
    February 3, 2017 at 2:42 AM
    Update?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2017 at 8:14 AM
    JPR:
    Also today, so far, appears to be a good day, thanks to God.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Gerard McEk
    February 3, 2017 at 7:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I am very much impressed of the performance of the 1 MW plant. I know you are not allowed to say anything about this, but I wonder why you have not started the full speed production of these plants, as they are really a goldmine. Instead you are developing a QuarkX, which has probably even more potential, but may require also much more time to get it into production. Can you please give us some insight of what moves you in this?
    Thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2017 at 8:13 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    The E-Cat is not an alternative to the QuarkX.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Omega Z

    Quark produces mostly heat. Not much electricity.
    Also requires AC voltage.
    Also requires electricity for the control system(100+ watts).
    Try and keep up…

  • sam

    JPR
    February 2, 2017 at 5:00 AM
    Update?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 2, 2017 at 7:47 AM
    JPR:
    Minor problem, no stop, on our way to 5 Sigma.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Rene

    “Rossi has stated many times that the QuarkX has direct electrical production.” True that is what he said originally, but he walked that back later on and started concentrating on heat extraction, since the quark presumably produces far more of that than anything else. It is not clear how far Rossi got with direct current production. I’d guess not very far.

    • NCY

      It probably creates a magnetic field which can be used to induce a current, or simply to generate additional heat. Given that it already produces a lot of heat the sensible idea is to focus on the heat.

      • Rene

        No, he said directly collected current. We speculated some form of beta effect. But yes, it is claimed to produce far more heat than any other effect, hence the focus on heat collection.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Publish with full data and allow multiple scientists to replicate and publish.

    These two items (Quark-X design snippet and the released data on the Doral plant) are at least a tad positive.

    Now Andrea Rossi, time to show some real data, and allow fully open replications, to keep people supporting you. It is getting late in the third act of the show and we are waiting for something to happen…

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Would prefer two identical bathtubs, one heated with QuarkX and the other with the same input power as this QuarkX gets.
    And measuring the temperature-difference by hand, nothing else will convince the pathological ones.

    • Rene

      That would be naked calorimetry, not clothed calorimetry.

  • Paul Smith

    If the QuarkX works (I think it works), it would be really cool if Rossi would do a test NOW (even for a few hours) to show to the world that the “Rossi Effect” is real. This would be very useful for his dispute with IH.
    Why delaying the test?

  • Gerard McEk

    Things become more convincing if ‘others’ are allowed to use their own metering to check. Still, measuring temperature rise requires exact knowledge of the water mass, the mass and properties of the ‘influenced zone’ materials and the quality of the insulation, to determine an exact energy increase.
    I am sure AR would not allow signal analysis of the controlling wave form, so only the mains connection (50 Hz or 60 Hz) side of the controller (ignoring the controllers losses) can be done. Even that requires a (voltage/current) broad band wave analysis tools ensuring the used electrical power measuring equipment can be used.

    More convincing would be an independent well established lab doing the tests and have the test results officially ratified.

  • Axil Axil

    Because the power output of the QuarkX is so small, a small volume of water can be heated in an isolated tank (20 liters?). The final temperature of the water will show the heat produced by the QuarkX.

    http://www.precisionnutrition.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bomb-calorimeter.jpg

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Good idea. That would be much more trustworthy than a test that requires flow measurement and/or steam quality detection. Low power can beat high power, so to speak.

      • Jonnyb

        Would this be any good for a very long test though? as depending on the heat lost, all I think it was show is the change of temperature (Power) the QuarkX can produce, would you not need a way to remove some of the heat to continue a very long test?, otherwise if the insulation is good should just get hotter and hotter until near the temp of QuarkX is reached? obviously the boiling point of water will have an effect before this unless a pressurized container. Just my opinion, probably wrong.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          You are right, this method would not be suitable for a long-term test. But it could determine if the device produces a net gain at all. If the input is measured correctly (see Gerard’s post above) there will be only little headroom for errors, since the QX is so lightweight that one could probably rule out any known chemical source. AR should allow the observers to check for hidden wires and the like (to delight Mary Yugo and Co.).

  • Ophelia Rump

    I disagree that any demonstration will ever be convincing. Only product on the store shelves will suffice.
    When the first product hits the first store shelf, people will believe; only then will they believe.

    • Nixter

      In this type of scenario where Rossi starts selling his QuarkX’s, doubts are immediately reduced, devices that are working, being made and purchased, happy users spreading the word, it quickly becomes obvious whether they work or not. But testing, validations, pronouncements by experts and witnesses, etc, etc, all easily could be wrong, skeptics can righteously point out an endless litany of possible points of failure or suggest outright fraud, such a path cannot lead to widespread acceptance. Besides that, these tests will likely be kept from the public, so until they are seen in the wild, it is a good idea to remain (at least) a little skeptical.

      • malkom700

        Same time demonstrations are the only means further research and funding. For example the laity as Trump sitting in air-conditioned rooms and do not have even warming in the world.

  • Gerald

    Not an electrical engineer, not even close. Its like a dark hole to me but I now in a 3 fase measurement is very easy to make mistakes. You just have to change some properties/rate counters and your numbers are way off. So is there a way of make it absolute temper proof? For instance use 3 meters, 1 for the active and 1 for the dummy and 1 measuring both of them. So you can cross reference the numbers you get.

    • Hi all

      Simply use two identical Diesel generators with the same amount of fuel to supply power. The amount of fuel used tells the tale.The one that runs out first is the one that has the lowest COP. The time taken for the second one to run out, compared to the first tells you the difference in COP.

      Run a null test on each generator to establish their normal range.

      Swap the generator over say Half a dozen tests to ensure there is no difference in the two generators.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Obvious

        20 W is a rather low load for a diesel generator. The power level we are looking is less than the bright filament of an incandescent automobile signal bulb.

        • Hi all

          In reply to Obvious

          Stack multiple QuarkX to a level sufficient for the test to be carried out.

          Kind Regards Walker

      • Rene

        Now that’s a great way to wet stack a diesel generator. A 20KW genset to power 1W.

        • Hi all

          In reply to Rene

          Stack multiple QuarkX to a level sufficient for the test to be carried out.

          Kind Regards Walker

          • Rene

            Were it possible to get ahold of sufficient quarks, perhaps yes. Beside, a battery is a better way to do this. But, there appears to be a shortage of them (3ish). They are hidden away, etc. In short, unless Rossi chooses to bring them out of hiding, let others run independent tests, it’s just nice unverified statements. He is not going to let anyone get near them, except perhaps new investors. So, everyone else pretty much needs to wait until they are commercial products.
            We are better off going the way of open science.

    • Omega Z

      And already we have someone laying the ground work to claim error in the input. It should be quite easy to measure a 1/2 watt input.

      Anyway, This is why Rossi should just ignore everyone and build a product for a specific customer. Seriously, If I’m a business using heat to produce product provided by electricity and my energy bill declines by 90%, I don’t care about other people’s opinions.

      • cashmemorz

        Until your unit stops working. Better get an ironclad contract for warranty coverage. Even the best designed products have been known to malfunction. In the case of a new untried technology it will be impossible for a new customer to know what is happening as to why that new tech malfunctions. I’m not saying it will malfunction, just that in case it does, what will you the customer do. You have to plan ahead when getting into new territory. One thing that you as the customer will have to have, to protect yourself, is knowing the exact theory of what makes it work. This gives you or the scientists and engineers tasked with repair or replacement a dependable road map to do their work. Without that theory, they have no map. Just Rossi’s ad hoc theory. It might be the exact theory, but that is not known for sure.

      • Gerald

        No i’m not trying to claim an arror, I just know from experience that errors are very easy to make in power consumption measurement. So I wondered is there a simple way to cross check the measurement with an extra meter. I guess it wrong to ask here, so I’ll ask someone I know who know this kind of stuff and see if there’s a possible way. I’m no negative guy, i’ve just seen over and over again the input discussion and i’ve seen enough energie parameters and measurements to know its not a straight forward thing. Most of the time a (humen) error could be retrieved by cross reference with other data.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Rossi said he sold three reactors to the customer of the year long test. Why more tests, just give us feed back from these three reactors.

        • Jimr

          Bernie, i have heard him say he had orders for three, possibly said sold three, have never heard him say he has delivered any, on his blog someone asked if he had any feedback from the three, his reply was no. Which would not be a lie if he has not delivered them.

          • Brent Buckner

            Taking

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/14/rossi-1mw-plant-customer-bought-three-more-plants/
            at face value we’d expect that they have been delivered by now.

            • Jimr

              Wpj, Brent, try asking him if he has delvered three or any to the customer, and are any in operation. I have had no luck in getting an answer.

              • Brent Buckner

                I’d rather not even attempt to communicate directly with Rossi.

          • wpj

            He was asked by someone a few days ago how they were performing at the customer’s site, but he said that he had not had any feedback. So, it appears they are in place but no confirmation again.

            • that is NEWS imo. deserved it’s own thread.

              • wpj

                Bernard Koppenhofer
                January 28, 2017 at 4:01 AM

                Dr Rossi: What feed back are you getting from the company you sold three reactors to after the year long test? Thanks for answering our questions.
                Andrea Rossi
                January 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM

                Bernard Koppenhofer:
                None yet.
                Warm Regards,
                A.R.