Demonstration of the E-Cat QX - 24 November - Summary thread

    @Mary Yugo ,

    I have already demonstrated that 25 to 30 mV DC across a 1 ohm resistor is possible while passing 1.75 A through it. The AC voltage across the 1 ohm resistor at that time was about 1.3 V true RMS. And there was 25 to 30 V true RMS across the whole circuit at that time.


    The handheld voltmeter, when set to DV volts, won't give any indication of AC volts.

    The Klein (orange) meter imaged in the Gullstrom-Rossi report reports DV volts, but not by default. It defaults to AC volts, and so must be changed to DC manually.


    The 1 ohm resistor rated wattage sets the current limit to some degree. They can pass a fair bit of current, but they will get hot. How hot can be used to estimate the current. A 10 W ceramic resistor will reach about 70 C at a 3 W load.

    Quote from can

    Even without taking into account any LENR occurring, only large currents, if one could solve the problem on one side by using thicker wires with as few connection points as possible, it would still have to be handled by the power supply or some sort of circuit (e.g. flyback diode as Ahlfors suggested), which will produce heat in the process. So it could have been a related problem, but I'm absolutely no electric engineer.


    Putting in milliwatts (without LENR) should not cause returning current requiring tens of watts active cooling (And still even few watt Computer fan would be more than enough for 60w cooling).


    Quote by Rossi you pasted (google translated):
    [Rossi]: then I'll tell you: the cable return problem we had and we solved it in another way. The problem instead of the enormous excess heat that is formed here, that we must handle it with the valves [?]? ...

    [Rossi]: The cable problem when I told you was that. We had both problems, but then we solved it ...


    I guess by 'valves' he refers to Diode (in the beginning them were also called as valves).

    So my interpretation this case is:

    1) Originally Rossi have had cable burning problem, because he was not aware of extra returning current (and if I recall correctly he initially thought that it was conducted heat from reactor). Then he must have learned about returning current and heating problem was solved by putting stronger cables.


    2) Stronger cables moved problem to control box as you said. Rossi learned just recently that he should use valves (Diodes) to bypass returning current to avoid heating of power supply.


    If that is really true that with few hundred milliamp input you get back several amps because of plasma (or actually LENR), I think overheating is pretty basic problem to solve by electrical engineer (Adding even Zener-diode to flyback configuration, extra current could partially be used to feed super capacitors for juicing control unit => Infinite COP.


    Too many open questions and in my opinion Rossi is so stubborn that he tries to solve all problems by himself that would be much easier for professional engineers to solve. Or alternatively I tend to buy Pekka Janhunen theory (in ecatworld.org) that by being unclear, Rossi manages to remain under Big Radars who could ruin his plans...

    Les

    I suggest that A value should be very very impressive therefore during few µs..This is why AR uses complex/heavy DC supply..

    • Official Post

    This comment from another attendee, someone I talked to during the event. Also posted (somewhere) on fb. I think it sums up the feelings of many who were there, and pretty much sums up mine.


    "I had the opportunity to attend the demo in Stockholm on Friday. It was good to meet lots of interesting people and share some thoughts regarding the LENR field and other emerging New Energy initiatives. Here are my thoughts on the Friday event.

    No, this demo will not convince a single one of those who believes Rossi is a scam. They will call it a dog and pony show, and still cry out in disbelief.

    Yes, it was a successful demo, if you can accept the rules of engagement. The event was supervised by a third party engineer, William Hurley, who seemingly had nothing to complain about regarding the setup and delivered calculations based on the measured data. The calculated COP, by mr Hurley, was 244, but since the power was switched off 4/7 of the time, the effective COP is higher than 500.

    Yes, it was a successful demo, if you can accept the dilemma Rossi has; he has to protect his IP but still convince financiers and potential partners. We, the public, doesn’t know what’s in the black box. Maybe they have more info.

    No, it was not a successful demo for those who was hoping for a close to market ready product. There is still thousands and thousands of high level engineering hours to put in.

    Yes, it was a successful demo, for those who’s been looking for a working theory explaining “The Rossi Effect”. Carl-Oscar Gullström presented a work in progress theory of the main characteristics regarding the effect.

    The world is polarized. And that also goes for any conclusions regarding “The Rossi Effect”. The late Eugene Mallove said twenty years ago: - The best way to prove the LENR effect is to get a working product on the market.

    That is still the most intelligent comment I’ve ever read when it comes to commenting emerging technologies."

    To me this isn't a successful demo. And it's not because we don't have a ready product, not dependent on what I think of Rossi. I wasn't expecting third party measurement or anything like that.


    To me a successful demo would have been one that actually measures input and output power in a direct and simple manner. I would have given Rossi the benefit of the doubt that he's not pulling some hidden magic tricks (and waited for a replication/third party verification for later)


    Heck, I would just be happy with a paper by Gullstrom where he describes an experiment where he is actually measuring input power.

    Again:

    This demo (aka show) was not made up to satisfy any forum member anywhere.

    It's purpose was to attract potential investors and to give it a scientific touch (... at the IVA...)

    I'm through with that and Rossi anyway.

    "However, as I stated above, if I were an investor considering to invest in this technology, I would require further private tests being made with accurate measurements made by third-party experts, specifically regarding the electrical input power, making such tests in a way that these experts would consider to be relevant" Mats Lewan.


    Someone commented about the post-demo line up of interested investors waiting to talk to Rossi. This forum has provided enough "guidance to VC's" to ensure they will certainly do full due diligence before anyone invests in the next round. Mats Report : https://t.co/CuYPCShgR2


    My wish for Rossi is that he change his protective strategy, and move to this mode - where his historic role would be much more appreciated by the human race.


    "The mission of our Energy Solutions Plan is to bring the very best inventors in the world of sustainable, non-polluting, “free” energy together, under one roof to achieve a very specific objective. Our ultimate objective is to produce an Energy Generating System (a free energy generator) for the home or business, which will be available to the general global public. Ultimately this will free us from dependence on costly, limited, and polluting fossil fuels and forever transform the current non-sustainable energy paradigm".

    Debye length

    Electrical neutrality of plasmas is only macroscopically true. Electric field of each particle interacts with electrical charges of neighboring particles. Distance after which the potential of a particle is "hidden" by charges of particles around is called the Debye length. This length defines the volume (the Debye sphere) in which the rule of neutrality can be violated. This parameter can be generally approximated by the following equation:

    24189_5.png

    Where is the permittivity of the vacuum, e is electron's charge, k is Boltzmann constant, T e is electrons temperature, and n e is electrons density (number of electrons per unit volume). An ionized gas will be considered a plasma if and only if its Debye length is much smaller than the physical dimensions of the plasma and if number of particles in the Debye sphere is greater than unity. Typically,Debye length of a low-pressure plasma (~ 300mTorr) is around 1mm ( close to AR device ????) and electrons number in Debye sphere is around 10 4 -10 7 electrons [28]. 24189_6.png

    Quote

    No, this demo will not convince a single one of those who believes Rossi is a scam. They will call it a dog and pony show, and still cry out in disbelief.

    Yes and completely unnecessary since a simple test of input power vs output power could have been done as a black box without revealing IP. Especially so at the claimed extremely high COP.


    Quote

    Yes, it was a successful demo, if you can accept the rules of engagement. The event was supervised by a third party engineer, William Hurley, who seemingly had nothing to complain about regarding the setup and delivered calculations based on the measured data. The calculated COP, by mr Hurley, was 244, but since the power was switched off 4/7 of the time, the effective COP is higher than 500.

    If he had nothing to complain about, he knows absolutely nothing about electrical power measurement and how to evaluate a purported energy producing device. One can only conjecture about the cause for his abysmal failure. Out of deference to the hosts, I will let you use your own imagination. But there are a limited number of possibilities to account for Mr. Hurley's bizarre lack of complaints and even more bizarre alleged calculations. Most of those possibilities are not "very nice."


    Quote

    Yes, it was a successful demo, if you can accept the dilemma Rossi has; he has to protect his IP but still convince financiers and potential partners.

    Complete bullpuckey. Only the dumbest of the dumb and inept would be convinced by this DPS. It's very simple to protect IP and convince prospective investors-- just perform the black box experiment everyone is asking for and do it properly and have it done independently. It has zero risk to IP.


    Quote

    We, the public, doesn’t know what’s in the black box. Maybe they have more info.

    What does this even mean? Is that an obscure suggestion that the investors will have more info than the public? Whatever they had, it didn't help IH from being flummoxed so it probably won't help gullible new investors either.


    Quote

    Yes, it was a successful demo, for those who’s been looking for a working theory explaining “The Rossi Effect”. Carl-Oscar Gullström presented a work in progress theory of the main characteristics regarding the effect.

    The world is polarized. And that also goes for any conclusions regarding “The Rossi Effect”.

    That would be nice if there were, in fact, a Rossi effect apart from fraud and misdirection. As for the world being polarized, most of the world doesn't know and doesn't care.


    Quote

    The late Eugene Mallove said twenty years ago: - The best way to prove the LENR effect is to get a working product on the market.

    That is still the most intelligent comment I’ve ever read when it comes to commenting emerging technologies."

    Actually, it's totally stupid. You'd have to be Captain Obvious to have to point out that a marketed product would prove the claims. But there are many other ways to verify Rossi's claims and many have been clearly explained here. It's just that nobody has been able to so-- in part because Rossi obstructs any practical tests and in part because the claims are not true.


    I am surprised that Alan signs off on this stuff above. I thought he was more intelligent and experienced than that.

    Alan Smith


    Just curious what you thought about the build quality of Rossi's device. That is clearly something you know about from doing the work you do on marketing components for experimenters.

    Let us get into the head of Rossi. If the 3/7 input signal produced an activation of the LENR reaction, Rossi would never reveal that secret to the competition. If that input signal dampens the LENR reaction, Rossi would feel that this signal is safe to reveal because if the competition used it, the reaction would fail and the competition would wonder why things were going wrong. Only if the competition had a full scale hard to control LENR reaction going would the input signal be of any value if meltdown prevention were to be performed.

    "Yes, it was a successful demo,"

    I thought so I prefer the Volvo /van Dam one


    External Content vimeo.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    the QX is a Elektron source. With a diode in one wire you can't see this Current over the 1R shunt. The Electrons flow the other wire back to Earth. It charges up like a storm cloud.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Relevant here is the usage for industrial applications. We have a device which (Rossi claims) generates small amounts of power. However it requires a large PSU to start it up. Why would industry be interested in this (remember it can't go in products for customers)? What industry would be interested in (and Alan says they were talking to Rossi) is people wanting large amounts of cheap industrial process heat.

    THH,

    The large PSU was not high on Rossi's priority list. Nobody here knows what output (waveform & pulses) it has to put out. Rossi says it can be reduced to the size of a cigarette pack to control hundreds of reactors and he knows what is i in it. You don't and are trying the most negative spin you can come up with. I suppose if the reactor had been connected directly to the mains you would insist the generators need to be examined. LOL.


    The bottom line is that any potential investor would put an oscilloscope across the reactor and see what is happening faster than you can write up your next speculation. I see Mary now approves of you comment. Time to break out the champagne?

    • Official Post

    Wondering if Rossi is using some sort of a microwave s to stimulate and simply using worng devices to measure power.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    in a similar setup what would the scope show. Maybe it will be that 'dc noise'

    • Official Post

    Lots of fill-in-the-blanks-science going on today. So many trying, yet again, to help Rossi out of this *latest mess* he created. Bad science, bad set-up, bad behavior so why not just say it? Many have done just that, to their credit, but I am seeing so much back-tracking. Science is not supposed to be that way. If it looks bad when you first look at it, well it probably is! Especially with someone with Rossi's history.


    So what is Rossi going to do if you honor your scientific oath, or if not a scientist....honor the truth, and tell him this thing truly was a DPS, and that it did not even come close to meeting the most minimal scientific standard. Then go on to say: "Rossi, do not ever invite me to one of your shows again, but please do tell me when the independent report is about to publish"?

    Shane, when someone does an obscure job of demonstrating what should be an extremely simple thing to show, it's fraud and deception until proven otherwise. I mean how hard it is to put proper meters on input power? In the past, Rossi probably cheated with output power. In this demo, he might actually have done that measurement right, though, absent calibration (another tell for fraud) we will never know. But it is clear nobody has a clue about the input power. So guess where he probably cheated this time? You can not have a proper evaluation of a purported energy producing device unless you calibrate the measurement system. Without calibration there is never a way to rule out sleight of hand or fraud. And obviously, the calibration should be independently done by qualified people using their own equipment and methods. None of that EVER endangers IP. To claim it does is just more obfuscation.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.