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


    For everyone watching. On the Gamma pump thread I have been challenging the overall conclusion that Alan Flecher mentions here. On the evidence so far the Gammas seem capable of delivering only about 2/3 of the output Penon claims.

    Quote

    LOLs. Yes, Roger Green IS the owner of all those regions he mentions: https://www.ecat.tech/


    He may as well have said instead: "I, Roger Green, the Ecat licensee for Africa, India, Japan, Korea, SE Asia and Spain - wish Andrea good luck with the upcoming demo, and eagerly await a independent validation in the near future. I have supported Andrea now for many years thru thick and thin, and wish him the best- he deserves it !'


    Who knows? He was trying mercilessly to sell those regions for beaucoup bucks. No idea if he succeeded. Green has been steadily lying on his web pages for five years about ecat accomplishments and delivery dates. I have a very low opinion, to say it politely, of Mr. Green.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    For everyone watching. On the Gamma pump thread I have been challenging the overall conclusion that Alan Flecher mentions here. On the evidence so far the Gammas seem capable of delivering only about 2/3 of the output Penon claims.

    I mildly disagree with Bruce.

    I do my comparison based on 4 Big Frankies in operation, 1MW nominal power. For some days Penon reports that one BF was down, so the pump volume was reduced, and the output was only 3/4 MW.

    There may be meta evidence (which never got to court) that one BF was down when Penon reported it was up, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    I mildly disagree with Bruce.

    I do my comparison based on 4 Big Frankies in operation, 1MW nominal power. For some days Penon reports that one BF was down, so the pump volume was reduced, and the output was only 3/4 MW.

    There may be meta evidence (which never got to court) that one BF was down when Penon reported it was up, but that's a whole different ball of wax.


    I think that Alan is not aware of some of the evidence regarding how many Big Frankies were operational during some parts of the the 1 year test. I will fill him in on the evidence on the Gamma pump thread.

    As the members here have shown little interest in the E-Cat QX and so know little about it, a list of what is known (fron http://ecatworld.org) is given below.



    During the last year Andrea Rossi on several occasions has released carefully selected information from his R&D work with the QX heat generator. Below are some statements recently compiled from his blog and his latest scientific publication:

    • QX (earlier named by Rossi “Quark X”) is a very small cylinder shaped plasma reactor generating large amounts of excess heat (0-100%), light (0-50%)and electricity (0-10%).
    • QX data- length 10mm-diameter 5mm- default output power 20W
    • An activated QX contains a plasma between two LiAlH4 charged nickel rods
    • QX plasma is charge neutral (Van de Graaff behaviour) , with voltage drop like an electrical conductor made by silver (Ag)
    • QX plasma default temperature – >2300 Celsius
    • QX reactor default input power – 0.01W (0.1V DC-0.1A)
    • QX power default power density – 30W/cm-3
    • Large output power can be obtained with combining many QX in a stack
    • 1 MW power of QX stack fits within 1 cubic meter (excl. heat exchanger)
    • QX modules will be reloaded in factory exchange system
    • Work on QX is now moving towards phase of industrialization with assistance of Hydrofusion and unknown partner(s) .
    • QX will be mass manufactured by ABB robots. First factories will be placed in USA and Sweden.
    • Market introduction only after full economy of scale production is ready
    • On Nov 11 2017 the one year reliabilty test of QX reached Sigma 5 wich according Rossi secures following performance properties:
      – COP is higher that 50 (>20000 calculated from latest experiement)
      – Tested QX supplied 20W heat power continuously in a year
      – QX functions totally at least one year (8760 hours) on one charge
      – QX charge will last 10 years with 10% intermittent use
      – QX units are possible to control
      – No harmful radiation is present
      – No risk for run away or melt down
    • R&D is started to adapt QX based heater to Stirling engine within a year
    • Universal mobile QX engine is in plans

    Here is my reaction to the ECW correspondent's first post. I tried to put it up on ECat World but It was removed by Frank Acland. It has actually been a long time since he removed a post of mine. He has been quite reasonable and I'm sure I am a burden to him. But he seems more sensitive about his new site.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    ECWreporter said... "On the other side, the limited hard core of E-Cat skeptics expect seem to expect the opposite, a clear failure, and the several years of scamming by Rossi will be finally proven."


    On the contrary, This is definitely not what the skeptics (I am one) expect. I expect a demonstration with enough ambiguities inserted (e.g., "Special procedure for measuring input power due to R&D protection") that no one will be able to get a clear reading on what really happened.


    On the other hand I am hoping that something clear happens! I have argued previously on scientific grounds that really the only thing that could be completely clear is if Mr Rossi is caught in some obvious fakery. I think this has, indeed, happened once. When Steven Krivit visited Rossi he (Rossi) mistakenly showed on video something that could not possibly be true if his Ecat was doing what he claimed. But I would suppose that this sort of thing is rare.


    If Mr Rossi has something real here, a convincing demonstration would not arise in a one-off demo as is being staged in Sweden on Friday. Convincing demonstrations take time. They take a lot of precision and care. They take transparency. That is why science is hard. In contrast this is not science, it's just a show.


    The fact that ECWreporter doesn't seem realize all this indicates that he has not really thought very deeply about the nature of scientific evidence. I hope he can be objective nonetheless. Not much indication of that so far though.


    P.S. There are no "IP rights belonging to the E-Cat /QX innovation" beyond Mr Rossi having the right not to tell people things. If he wants to patent some of this then he acquires rights.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Convincing demonstrations take time. They take a lot of precision and care. They take transparency. That is why science is hard. In contrast this is not science, it's just a show.

    In the runup to the demo, Rossi will explain the theory behind the QX. I expect that this theory will discuss the role of mesons and magnetic fields, but not fusion. This explanation will offend the coldfusion community, not to mention the naysayers. In the long term, such an explanation will strengthen the case for LENR.


    But, this demo is essentially a reveal of a new type of product, this demo will not impress everyone, but it will bring some new blood into the LENR fold. The LENR meme will require time and much work to gain traction and build support. Few who patronize this forum will jump onto the LENR bandwagon, their mode of thinking is ossified into a hard to break cycle, they don't understand science, but then again lenr will gain more life and the naysayer harang will lose a small but appreciable bit of traction. Such is how a major shift in paradigms occur, step by painful step.


    Paradigm shifts must overcome deep rooted inertia, are complicated, and take time.


    https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html


    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    Quote from axil

    Paradigm shifts must overcome deep rooted inertia, are complicated, and take time.


    https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html


    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions


    Yes, but Kuhn never claimed that movements that seek to "overcome deep rooted inertia, are complicated, and take time" are thereby paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions. You, and many people on this site are adopting a fallacious form of argument called "affirming the consequent".

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

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