Advantages of a Battery-Powered QuarkX

I was most interested to learn that Andrea Rossi is working on a battery-powered QuarkX reactor, and that he said that if possible he would use the battery-powered QuarkX “if possible” in the planned presentation of the QuarkX (if and when it happens). Personally, if Rossi can pull this off, I think this would be a most important milestone in the development of the E-Cat.

A battery-powered QuarkX would be an advantage for a number of reasons (assuming the QuarkX really works).

1. Portability. Battery input would mean that QuarkX devices could be moved around easily, and be more suitable for transportation purposes.

2. Off-grid usage. If the QuarkX needs only batteries to operate, the QuarkX would be able to be used in places where the electrical grid is unreliable or unavailable. Batteries can be charged in many ways, so this would make the QuarkX more versatile and flexible, depending on local conditions. You could also design portable products such as heaters or stoves that would not need to be plugged into a mains supply.

3. Closing the loop. There has been lots of discussion about this over the years. If the QuarkX produces (as Rossi has reported) even a small amount of electrical energy, it might be enough to be able to charge a battery which can then be used to power the QuarkX.

4. Demonstration purposes. It will be easier to verify whether the QuarkX is really producing more energy than it consumes if the input source is a battery. Maximum energy capacity of a given battery is usually a known quantity, and therefore one side of the energy balance should (power in) reasonably simple to calculate. If the QuarkX really can produce a very high COP (as suggested by the Rossi-Gullstrom paper) it should be quite obvious. If the output of the QuarkX matches only the capacity of the battery, it will then be clear it doesn’t work.

Having said all this, if you have a reliable grid connection available, a battery powered QuarkX may have no main advantages; in fact, having to mess with batteries (replacing, recharging, etc.) would likely be an inconvenience to be avoided. But I think a battery option would be a definite advantage in some circumstances, and I do hope that Rossi is successful with this project. The last comment from the JONP on the subject was:

Andrea Rossi
April 23, 2017 at 2:23 PM
JPR:
In very good progress with the battery fueled system. I am very glad how things are going on in our R&D center of Miami.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Stephen

    I wonder if every house uses a QuarkX attached to a battery of capacitor of some kind if power distribution will change? Could it be that instead if having continuous power supplied throughout the day and night that instead the power is distributed in “on demand”, “packets of power” when the batteries/capacitors need charging?

    Would these packets of power be bound, identified and routed based on encoded data with in the power signal?

    If so would this bring advantages to a networked society or introduce other problems of control and privacy if every “power packet” could be controlled or tracked?

  • Gerard McEk

    So the QuarkX is running at a temperature of 2700 degrees C. That should give many opportunities for exotic conversion of heat into electricity.

    • artefact

      Reference:

      “Andrea Rossi May 9, 2017 at 8:16 PM
      Svein Henrik:
      We have a temperature in the primary about 2700 C, so we can convert to any P and T of steam we want.
      Any fluid can be used, also for example oil .
      COP: enough.
      Warm Regards, A.R.”

      • DrD

        Yes, that’s quite Interesting.

        I’m sure he used to say about 1500 Deg C for his earliest Quarks.
        If so that’s a very big change and very demanding indeed for

        • cashmemorz

          I was going to say , “Ouch, so Hot fusion meets ‘cold'”. But if the practical aspects of making it work require that then who are we to say otherwise. Rossi may, in his own way find the holy grail for making hot fusion work as well.

          • DrD

            Very true

    • Gerard McEk

      And another thing:

      Prof
      May 10, 2017 at 10:57 AM
      Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
      Which fluid are you using in the heat exchanger of the QuarkX?

      Andrea Rossi
      May 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM
      Prof:
      Oil, to avoid the change of phase.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Which oil can withstand 2700 C without phase change?
      The temperature at the surface in contact with the oil must be a lot lower.

      • Rene

        It is odd that the only place I can find a mention of heat transfer fluids at 2700 C is in a typo in google search. Coincidences like this set off my spidey sense https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e54d3b5914c4f665f823daa07f2bf7d5e07b687059dbe014d6ccb4ffdf8c2b7f.jpg :

        When I read the referenced contents, the temp mentioned was 270 C (follow link, scroll a page or two):
        https://books.google.com/books?id=6AroCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=high+temperature+heat+transfer+fluid+2700C+toluene&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiShemNr-bTAhXKwVQKHT2PCe0Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=high%20temperature%20heat%20transfer%20fluid%202700C%20toluene&f=false

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Think of a light bulb. Its filament becomes as hot as the QX, but the temperature on the glass surface may reach only about 100C. You could recover most of the energy by means of a conventional heat exchanger.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          BTW I think that the energy transfer would happen mainly by radiation, rather than by conduction from the glass. But since the thermal mass of the heat exchanger system will be much higher than the thermal mass of the filament, there would be no risk that the fluid gets too hot.

          • Gerard McEk

            I agree, but what a waste of potential. For an efficient energy conversion into electricity you need high temperatures. It sounds like Andrea can manage the life-time of the QuarkX by keeping the temperature relatively low. For domestic purposes (like room heating) that seems OK, but for high tech purposes there is still a long way to go.

            • Andreas Moraitis

              For high temperature applications like turbines he would use superheated steam. It just depends on the design of the heat exchanger and the selected flow rate.

            • DrD

              Yes, I had the same thought, What a waste of hi quality heat. In theory, if 2700 deg C “heat” could be used, it’s possible to have a very high conversion efficiency, to electric say, even with a Stirling Engine (cycle).

              • Gerard McEk

                This is what AR says about using oil:

                Gerard McEk
                May 11, 2017 at 2:29 AM
                Dear Andrea,
                Using oil for extracting the energy of the QuarkX seems to limit the potential for high temperature applications and efficient energy conversion into electricity.
                You replied positively on different suggestions of using super critical CO2 in turbines.
                Is the existing QuarkX design already suitable for CO2 gas cooling or does that require more design?
                Thank you for answering our questions.
                Kind regards and good health, Gerard

                Andrea Rossi
                May 11, 2017 at 9:56 AM
                Gerard McEk:
                We use the oil only for simplify the measurements. There are no reasons not to use water in the industrial applications.
                About the use of supercritical carbon dioxyde, I just said it is interesting and the GE turbines are very interesting, but we are still very green on this issue, we still have to make tests with it.
                Warm Regards,
                A.R.

                So my assumption was not correct. That gives the QuarkX a huge short term potential.

      • DrD

        I can’t believe he would try to use a heat exchange fluid at anything like 2700 degC and possibly that’s one of the things he’s struggling to control. Obviously the 2700 is the “core” temperature and the surrounding exchange fluid would be much lower, provided it kept flowing!
        BUT, I had the same thought you mentioned

        • Gerard McEk

          That’s why I thought a jet, directly heated by the 2700 C QuarkX’s would be the IDEAL way. The temperature of the heated air should be flow controlled to the maximum allowed jet temperature. The more power that is needed, the more QuarkX’s will be switched on visa-versa.

          • DrD

            Yes that would be quite something. It’s a serious engineering challange, normally involving a huge team of different experts. and people wonder why it takes him so long. Clearly, even the basic Quark (just for heating) has serious technolgy challenges. Maybe his potential “jet” customer has such a team working on it.

    • Observer

      With a fully ionized plasma!

  • According to the new court documents it looks like Rossi’s lawyers are resigning one after the other.
    Doesn’t look good.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Apparently Dottore Rossi’s theory supports being able to run off of DC, if it cannot that is a challenge to his theory. If it can, there remains the likely potential of different behavior characteristics which could be capitalized by a competitor and that is a genuine business risk.

  • cashmemorz

    However much George H may seem to be about the ideal towards his wishes to steer LENR, among many perceived injustices, inequalities, he serves a great purpose. That of examining what it means to have or not to have and in so doing give us all many view points, facts and attitudes surrounding those points. It is not enough, therefore to simply criticize or try to get ones own view in this regard, but to get into the thick of things and in so doing re-examine ones own view point, opinion, and dare I say, prejudices, corruption or worse, surrounding LENR and other disruptives, in current societies world wide. Don’t let anyone hold you down George. It is people like you that get things going. To all the others, listen to talk like his and all others, with a grain of salt and more importantly, with a grain of wisdom and self searching.

  • Rene

    I just do not see why this over-concern of battery operation of quarks, e-cats continues. I have 54KWh of battery storage. I have 8000W of inverter generated AC and 6000W of PV. I may be off-grid but have plenty of high quality AC. And, my microgrid is demonstrably more reliable than the mains grid. If the e-cat quark is as reliable as all the power generating equipment, it should be possible to ditch the PV and most of the battery storage. There is nothing special about batteries and DC when AC can be generated at efficiencies over 96%.

    • nietsnie

      I have often wondered the same thing. Why is it that Rossi has previously resisted the idea of self-contained power generation. Why the previous reliance on the grid?

      As an aside, I think it’s very cool that you’re electrically self-sufficient. I had friends who lived in the mountains that got rain constantly for six months of the year, and cloud-free sunshine for the other six months. Like you, they had PV for the sunny months. But, during the rainy season, they took advantage of the 300+ feet of drop on the property to collect rain water at the top, run it down hill in PVC, concentrate it, and use it to spin truck alternators at the bottom. The resulting juice charged golf cart batteries – which was turned into AC as needed. There was a large gauge in the living room to let anyone who was interested know whether the batteries were becoming over-charged on extra-rainy days. In those situations they’d arrange for the alternators to have less field to work against (rheostat at each alternator) and find some clothes that needed to be washed.

      It’s been decades now, but that’s still my favorite hack.

      • Rene

        Gosh, those people you mentioned remind me of folks I met in the Tantalus area in B.C. Canada. They have a sweet off-grid hydro and PV system.
        My only shortfall months are December through February, and I supplant the 8KWh shortfall with a two hour run of a propane generator usually once every 4-5 days. The shortfalls happen during heavy rains or deep cloud cover. I get about 60-80% off the PV in moderate to light cloud cover.
        Back in 2011 I thought a 1KW electrical e-cat would be a fine thing. Since the cost of PV panels has dropped dramatically and the e-cat is still vaporware, I am adding panels to make up the short fall. A heat-only e-cat would still be nice to handle the cold days. Someday…

        ..

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc2917f9e33eba961c4868e03b1a0ea2a18af4e44aa904a7940670bcd5da7429.jpg

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/783887ac0e551ce71298b38a3f3ca912b30b4b53c6a6a6776cba9f377307f37c.jpg

        • nietsnie

          Thanks for sharing the pics! Your battery room is especially impressive.

          The only problem my friends never solved was how to keep leaves out of the water collection boxes at the top of the property in the middle of a forest. No matter how they did it eventually they’d clog the water input screen and have to be manually removed – which involved a looong trip uphill regularly. Young persons game.

          I hope to be off the grid myself someday. Still hoping for LENR in some form for power. Did you see the water generation technology demonstrated recently by MIT? It can pull water out of even desert air with very little power input.

          https://phys.org/news/2017-04-device-air-powered-sun.html

          Not ready for prime-time yet but very promising if ramped-up.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    April 29, 2017 at 2:04 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    How different is the performance of the QuarkX when you compare AC (grid) and DC (battery) inputs?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM
    Frank Acland:
    None.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Omega Z

    Spoiler Alert:

    Never needs fuel, but you will still have to fill up your Road Tax Pass Card. 10 cents a mile. 🙁

    There will be a built in Kill switch. It will stall out just like running out of gas when your pass card reads zero…

    • Steve D

      As soon as the bean counters see there’s cheap fuel out there, parity pricing with existing fuels will quickly change the scenery. What’s the easiest way to make wind and solar more competitive or cheaper? Answer. Increase the cost of traditional fuels. Expect maneuvering once LENR hits town. You can always count on the government to tax the smile from peoples faces.

      • Omega Z

        “the easiest way to make wind and solar more competitive or cheaper?Increase the cost of traditional fuels. ”

        Correct. The very reason my Electricity per kilowatt hour has doubled in about 2 years…

  • georgehants

    I will repeat my comment below that is clearly arguing for a more sharing and caring system than one that delays and keeps secret, life saving and enhancing technology for reasons of pure, self obvious inefficient capitalist greed.
    I did imply that “intelligence” was needed to understand the point and not just closed-minded uncaring people, who for some reason talk about caring and sharing etc. as if it where a Stupid idea.
    Perhaps those people would like to have another try at explaining why as I have shown, one in seven American children live in Poverty and why they don’t care.
    Or do they like most just blame the Russians.
    ——–
    If we did not live in a World where greed and selfishness rule then we
    could all be celebrating and following the efforts Worldwide to bring
    Cold Fusion to those most in need.
    What advances could have happened in seven years with thousands of scientists working on Rossi’s basic discovery (if genuine).
    When the World eventually grows-up, he will be used as the sad example of the insane mentality of our age to future generations.
    But lets keep discussing the comical court case and windows and the size of pipes etc.
    The intelligence displayed leaves me in awe.

    • nietsnie

      I assume that I am one of the people you are deriding, so I’ll respond. I think there are two positions in this: those who are actively working to make LENR a reality; and those who are idly waiting for the first group to provide them with the results of their labor. You at least (and please correct me if I am wrong) seem to be from the second group.

      Not all the members of the first group, who are spending the years out of their lives, and often their own fortunes to accomplish this, plan to profit from all their work. But many do. To my mind, they all have a seat at the table due to their sweat equity in the work. If one of them says to another, “I think this is too important for any one person to control. This is one project we should all work on strictly for the good of all mankind”, then we should listen to that opinion with respect.

      Similarly, if another at the table replies, “I have spent this sixth of my lifetime devoted to birthing this difficult idea. I have mortgaged my home. I have endured unfair personal attacks from the unknowledgeable and the ignorant – as well as from those who have a vested interest in holding me and my idea back. I have persisted in spite of all of this. If I am successful – I deserve to be rewarded handsomely for it”. We should listen to that opinion with respect as well.

      Among those of us in group two who are waiting for group one to accomplish this great task for us you stick out in that you not only deride some of those at the table as frauds, but demand that *if* they’re not frauds after all – they capitulate to YOU as to what to do with the result of all of their work.

      You cloak it in universalism and starving children, but the way it at least comes across is that you demand something for the nothing you have personally invested. You want an un-earned seat at that table. I think that’s what people are reacting to. They’re not really attacking you – they’re attacking the pomposity of your demands.

      • georgehants

        You seem to accidentally have completely avoided admitting the intellectual and practical Stupidity of the system you are defending.
        Please justify, the lost lives and suffering caused by seven years delay in the free Research of Cold Fusion.
        Please justify your clear acceptance of a system where one in seven American children live below the poverty line.
        Are you saying you are unable to put forward any ways of improving our system, well I do agree that some people have great difficulty in constructive thinking.

        • Engineer48

          Hi George,

          The denial of LENR started in 1989 by the folks who cooked the data that proved P&F were right.

          Maybe go and chase them as to why they lied about the results and stop attacking forum members who have had nothing to do with the very high level & continual denial of LENR since 1989.

        • nietsnie

          George – you’re way off topic. You at least started out relating your baiting to the forum’s subject matter. If you want to troll the forum with your questionable political concerns you have to at least pretend to relate them to what the forum is about. In this particular case it’s the advantages of a battery operated Quark-X.

          If you were really interested in humanities many problems – you’d be out there contributing to their solution. Instead, you spending that time trolling a science forum trying to provoke silly arguments. I question your sincerity.

    • Fibber McGourlic

      You seem to think Capitalism and greed are synonymous.

      Our system of Capitalistic democracy has brought us just about everything we could wish for. Read what the world was like for Mr. & Mrs. Average in 1750 and 1850.
      Capitalism has brought us the relatively benevolent modern world. For all its defects it’s made it possible for billions of people who otherwise would not exist to live long and relatively comfortable lives. Think electricity, indoor plumbing, central heat and air-conditioning, pharmaceuticals, trains, supermarkets, tractors, vacations… etc.,etc. If you want fast-passed and inventive development that enriches everyone, think English-speaking Capitalists, not backwater, slowly-festering communism. What do the very rich do with their billions? They spend a small fraction of their annual income on themselves (which creates jobs for some of us) and the rest is invested (which creates jobs for many of the rest of us). I won’t bother mentioning their philanthropy.

  • Vinney

    At this rate of development, AR doesn’t need a huge industrial manufacturing partner for the QX.
    Making portable cookers/heaters and light sources using battery powered QX technology he has a huge market in the ‘ under-developed’ world.
    In fact he may have to engineer both fuel and control system complexity to deter ‘copying’ on a wider scale.
    But, I see his enterprise achieving exponential growth, with scalable mechanised robotic lines of purely IP sensitive components.
    All other components licensed to hundreds of manufacturers (best in the same markets).
    This ensures his financial well-being by having hundreds of individual markets, and easily evading regulatory authorities.
    You cannot get a more ‘altruistic’ entry to market.

  • radvar

    I believe as George does that there must be a more direct path to getting LENR in use to relieve the suffering of billions of people. The motivation is compassion for the suffering.

    The problem I run into is that I don’t know how it could be done differently; EXCEPT, for Rossi to publish ALL of his IP.

    I appreciate that Rossi’s motives include:
    > wants some compensation
    > wants to make sure LENR actually gets distributed
    > wants to be able to continue to contribute to LENR (so he needs some money)

    He got burned trying to do all three with IH.

    So what’s a guy to do? I really don’t know what I would recommend at this point;

    EXCEPT: that if the quark is really that good, maybe he could publish the Tiger technology….EXCEPT… that may be tied up in the IH law suit.

    So what’s a guy to do?

  • Steve D

    What a dilemma it would be when the car sales guy asks if you want the car preloaded with 20,000km with fuel or 100,000km, or even more as long as the wheels don’t fall off.

    • Omega Z

      Actually Steve D, If a single Quark charge lasted about 1.5 years run time(13,000 hours), the average vehicle would never need a recharge.

      2 hours use a day times 365 equals 730 hours approximately 18 years. Most people would likely see in excess of 25 years on the initial charge.
      Even if they last only 1 year run time, they would last the life of the car…

  • Jas

    I wonder if this move to battery powered Quarks comes from a request from military interests. It would suit the military to have quarks that can be started from cold using a battery rather than having to find a plug socket. We know that Rossi has had dealings with the military in the past.

    • US_Citizen71

      I think the motivation is more likely due to the promised demo when the Quarks reaches sigma 5. A battery eliminates the skeptics default claim of hidden forty trillion volt DC power riding on the mains power.

      • Omega Z

        That’s silly. If he’s not connected to the grid, he is obviously feeding power to the QX by WiFi. 🙂

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi confirmed the military connection to Tom Conover on April 21, 2017 at 11:04 AM in JONP.

  • georgehants

    Chapman, “Ambition” is always good and should be used for the benefit of society and fairly rewarded.
    It is good that we agree that the present system, where Greedy, Corrupt manipulates gain must be changed.

  • Omega Z

    The lack of goods and resources gives cause for socialism.
    Abundance is good for commerce and capitalism.

  • I’d like to see a QuarkX coupled with EEStor’s soon to be proven SUPER battery.

    which can:

    – charge and discharge extremely quickly (high power and convenience).

    – fully charge and fully discharge without any degradation.

    – charge at least 1 million times without degradation (a battery you can pass down to your kids)

    All with low production costs mind you. So stay tuned. Third party testing will be released in the near term if I’m reading the tea leaves right.

    • Stephen

      Is the EEStor battery robust at very high temperature by any chance? It could be really interesting i think if so.

      It is already interesting of course…

  • Brokeeper

    Makes you wonder with lithium being the core of batteries and QuarkX with many similar properties, perhaps someday they will merge into one. The never-charge-super battery.

    • nietsnie

      I think Steorn beat them too that.

      • Jonnyb

        What happened to the Orbo or whatever it was called. Did MFMP get one, someone did I think it failed to live up to much, or am I wrong?

        • nietsnie

          It did not end well. Someone who watched more closely should correct me if I get something wrong. I believe they shipped a very small number of units, one of which came to Frank, which did not last long. Steorn claimed a hardware problem that they were resolving – but didn’t. A number of people here participated in an effort to try to make it work, using schematics supplied by Steorn. Steorn revealed that the unit contained a battery and a capacitor to store the charge but it was never clear to me that the battery actually ever charged. Steorn has disbanded now and all its investors and customers are out, I guess. I haven’t heard what became of Shaun.

          • Omega Z

            I had read that the Investor took over all ownership and control and intends to do further development. Don’t know if this is a face saving statement of fact. However, even if it worked, it was of little real world use considering the cost. One could just as well used a small solar panel.

  • kalbo gwapo

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Possibilities are limitless

  • georgehants

    If we did not live in a World where greed and selfishness rule then we could all be celebrating and following the efforts Worldwide to bring Cold Fusion to those most in need.
    What advances could have happened in seven years with thousands of scientists working on Rossi’s basic discovery (if genuine).
    When the World eventually grows-up, he will be used as the sad example of the insane mentality of our age to future generations.

    • Omega Z

      Food for thought- If not for greed, there would be no E-cat, Cold Fusion, LENR or anything else of that nature.

      It’s like, If no one was competitive and wanted to win, there would be no races or any other type of compitition.

      And, had Rossi open sourced his work, you would find very few people paying interest to it. It is just the way people are.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        “If not for greed, there would be no E-cat, Cold Fusion, LENR or anything else of that nature.”
        My experience is different, I don’t know anyone who makes it out of greed.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          For ‘true’ scientists, curiosity is certainly the strongest motive. But I doubt that curiosity alone is a sufficient basis for running a business. BTW, the first requirement for entrepreneurs is to survive in the market. At least in this regard the “g”-word appears inappropriate. “Competition” might be a better keyword. There is no progress without competition, in all fields of human activity.

          • georgehants

            I think the caring and sharing members of our society would disagree with you.
            you seem to be unable to look beyond greed.
            According to you MFMP cannot exist or succeed

            • Andreas Moraitis

              MFMP are not a company. It is not their objective to produce and deliver products on a large scale.

              • georgehants

                Andreas, you completely miss the point.

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  No, you are missing it completely. Did read my above comment before you replied? I have been talking about competition. Instead of referring to this point you insinuate that I was pleading for “greed”. I am not interested in this kind of ‘discussion’, thanks.

                • georgehants

                  Andreas, of course you are not interested —-
                  Children International
                  Child poverty in the U.S.
                  facts & stats About Child Poverty in the United States
                  1 child in every 7 will be born into poverty in the United States. Are you surprised?
                  You may think that — because the United States is a rich nation — the poor in that country are only poor by American
                  standards. But the childhood poverty rate is actually much higher in
                  the U.S. than in other developed countries. The realities of poverty for American kids become clear when you know the facts.
                  https://www.children.org/global-poverty/global-poverty-facts/facts-about-poverty-in-usa

                • Andreas Moraitis

                  I am always interested in discussions with fair people who offer reasonable arguments.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Not curiosity, but some kind of altruism and willingness to improve things. My comment wasn’t related to science, which is a different story.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              My statistics is not so large, but those single entrepreneurs that I know are not there for the money, or greed. They do the job because they want to produce those services or goods they are producing. They get some reward, but they consider it more like salary than profit – or a way to make investments and to grow. I think that Rossi also might think similarly.

              Greed exists in big companies, because there greedy behaviour is rewarded. The only thing a faceless owner can want is to get more profit, and it can be obtained by internal competition in the company where the most immoral and greedy people get promoted.

          • psi2u2

            Very useful distinction. Greed is a sin and a dysfunction. Competition is a the a manifestation of the desire to excel and is in itself morally neutral.

        • Omega Z

          I know exactly what you mean, However- Over time I have come to understand that greed has played a far greater roll then any of us would like to admit. It is merely a matter of degree and how sharp a point you put on it. Without the greed factor, we would likely live in a much more backward world(days of pyramids possibly).

          Did Henry Ford create the assembly line to see more people have cars, Or to increase sales and revenue. Steve Jobs wasn’t concerned that we all have computers as he was about lots of money. What was Bill Gates motives.

          Greed also has a positive side. Ford’s assembly line reduced the overall cost and millions of people could afford a car that they couldn’t have otherwise. OPEC recently reduced oil production, but U.S. drillers increased production because they can still make a profit at $50 a barrel. When they could have obviously made much more off the 9 million barrels a day they currently produce by doing nothing.

          It is that same greed factor that will ultimately lead to the cheapest and fastest distribution of LENR devices.

    • nietsnie

      I’ve noticed that you seem to have a determined interest in researchers giving away their work, George – as if you have demonstrated that high ground yourself. Back when you worked (my presumption there…) which world changing technological breakthroughs did you donate to the world rather than profiting from them personally?

      • georgehants

        What a silly question.

        • nietsnie

          It doesn’t seem silly to me.
          Why do you think so?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    An efficient LENR process could be used as a self-sustained heat source with battery-backed electrical stimulation and control, provided the COP is high enough. For remote, off grid operation, one could design a device with a Li-Ion battery, a Thermal-Electric Generator (TEG), and a charger that would be very reliable. Given:
    1). A TEG efficiency of at least 10%,
    2). A Li-Ion battery charge/discharge Efficiency of 90%,
    3). And a battery charger efficiency of 90%,

    The COP required would be 1/(0.1*0.9*0.9) = 12.3 for sustained operation. The estimated efficiencies of each step are likely to be higher, requiring a lower COP for sustained operation.

    TEGs driven by propane are used to both heat and power remote data collection stations in Antarctica. Having no moving parts, the TEGs are very reliable. Radio-isotopically heated TEGs are the power source for NASA’s deep-space probes (like Voyager). Many rural areas in the US use propane to both heat homes and provide hot water. The developing world denudes the earth for fuel for cooking and heating water.

  • Engineer48
    • Gerard McEk

      If we still assume a COP of 200 and 10% can be directly generated electricity, then the QX-battery combination will be self sustaining. (20W output -> 2W electricity of which only 1 W is needed to drive the QX). I agree with AR that the Carnot cycle will still be the most efficient way to convert heat into electricity. So if AR would produce a cluster of 1000 Qx’s, that will produce 20 kW of mainly heat (2 kW of direct electricity, of which 1 kW is needed to control the Qx’s). If fully converted to electricity, it would deliver a maximum of 8 kW electricity and 12 kW of ‘waste’ heat, which is still suitable to heat most houses in winter. So E48, maybe add to your proposal also a mini CO2 turbine or a hot air motor-generator?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Problem with Carnot cycle is the need for very high steam temperature & pressure. Lethal stuff.

        The remote plant produces upto 250C steam, warm water, hot air, purified water, AC & DC. Today’s electronics don’t need a lot of juice to power them. Save for high efficiency lighting.

        What is needed in a remote village is hot air & water for washing just about everything, steam for sanitation & cooking and water purification.

        For sure others will develop QuarkX based systems to deliver on site what ever form of energy that is needed.

        • Gerard McEk

          The QX must be able to to produce heat at a lot higher temperature (no probleem over 600C). The Carnot cycle but also the CO2 turbine and the hot air motor can run quite efficiently then.

        • DrD

          Hi Eng,
          Furthermore, the “Carnot cycle” is a thermodynamic model of the fourstroke combustion engine and I see no way for a quarkX to fulfil it. Same goes for the “Diesel cycle” which is different again and more efficient due to the highr achievable compression ratios. The “Stirling cycle” on the other hand is possible but with lower efficiency. Also feasible is the “Rankine cycle” (Steam turbine) which you once mentioned and is probably going to be the most efficient.
          Oddly, AR once acknowedged that the ECat can’t drive a “Carnot cycle” but in typical manner, continued to discuss it as if it could. Perhaps his rejection meant something else.

          Given that the core of the Quark is around 1500 DegC (from memory), the temperature ought not be a problem; suitable containment materials obviously are.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            The Otto cycle can be easily realized with the aid of quarks. If the cop is greater than 20. The high surface temperature allows the production of hydrocarbons from water vapor and carbon monoxide on the catalysts. The whole installation operates in a closed loop. The launch of the plant will be made from a propane cylinder with exhaust to the atmosphere. Then they switch to a closed cycle.

  • Steve Swatman

    This is quite an exciting time in which we live.

  • wizkid

    and air transport … and everything in between. especially for the certification process for domestic units. millions of battery powered industrial units could be sold and produced in months. domestic could be certified in less than a year. crossing my fingers on that one ….