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

  • Though after 5 beers I am not looking for an argument

    Good, how about some gossip than? Swedes rumored replication of their own Lugano, what they think of the E controversy in their Lugano report, has the new investor/partner gotten as far as a DD yet?

    After you have another 5 beers, I will have more. :) 

  • The QX is stated to have near zero resistance. Which tends to suggest it has near zero impedance. Though after 5 beers I am not looking for an argument about that. Have at it.

    Well, for example...

    Suppose it has low resistance when in plasma state but high resistance when off. Driven by AC it would have varying impedance, and maybe absorb much power during these HV spikes some believe exist.

    Or, take an inductor in parallel with a resistor. Low impedance at DC, high resistance at AC.

    Perhaps I need to drink some more wine to even things up...

  • Back now. To revert to an earlier question - which may have been answered elsewhere, in which case apologies.

    The 800 ohm resistor was used as part of the calibration demonstration. Since the Q-X has virtually zero resistance there is not much point in measuring the voltage drop across it, so in order do show that (for example) an 800 ohm resistive heater was NOT present inside the Q-X capsule, the Q-X was taken out of circuit and a low-wattage 800 ohm resistor was put in its place. The voltage drop was measured again over the 1 ohm resistor to show there was a significant difference. This also was used to prove that the PSU was a constant voltage device, not a constant current device.

    Was the 800 ohm resister inductive or non inductive?

    I am still having trouble with the claim that the claim that the device has "virtually zero resistance".

    Was it measured while running? How was that measured for the system as demonstrated?

    Sure seem like there IS a "point in measuring the voltage drop across it". A major point. It is possible to have a device with a low DC resistance but high inductive impedance. If there was any pulses or AC present, it could make a very big difference. -(example: a wire coil around some Ni) If It is to demonstrate the reality of excess then the voltage needs to be measured across with what ever waveform it is running with.

  • Not necessary, someone else has already drunk for all instead of giving answers to your technical questions of before.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • The QX is stated to have near zero resistance. Which tends to suggest it has near zero impedance. Though after 5 beers I am not looking for an argument about that. Have at it.

    No, again, you can have near zero DC resistance but have a large inductive impedance to high frequency (or spikes). The narrower the pulses the greater the "effective resistance" for an inductive device.

  • Except that Rossi says so, how do we know there is anything in the so-called QX other than perhaps a few passive electrical components to generate heat when powered by the obvious included power supply? Why does a device with such a high COP and the ability to generate electricity require a power supply at all, except maybe for starting?

    Also, what is it that is proprietary? if only the fuel, why not take it apart and show the inside?

  • Tell me about this device? A choke perhaps? I think you will struggle to find me a good example.

    A simple wire coil with a nickel or cobalt core would do it. For example, a 10 mH inductor, would appear to have near zero resistance (depending on gauge) but about 4 ohms at 60 Hz and 7.5 ohms at 120 Hz and then about 160 ohms at 2500 Hz. Very fast pulses (single wave of a very high freq in effect) would make the effective R very high and with power going as V^2 you could transfer a significant power. A flyback transformer, cap and a read vibrator could easily be put in the housing of most DC supplies to add high V pulses.

    Bottom line - the DC and AC across the device must me measured while running or you know nothing about possible power consumption.

  • Its extremely easy for the magic PSU to determine if an 800 ohm resistor is connected and alter the output accordingly. This really is a magic show in the classical sense. Anyone on Rossi's team made magician hardware in a past life.

    All these (dubious even at DC) indirect measurements are no good if the PSU is AC, or has HV AC spikes.

    Rossi, remember, has a proven (by Mats, of all people) history of mismeasuring things with meters to show positive COP from devices that are actually electric heaters.

  • Tell me about this device? A choke perhaps? I think you will struggle to find me a good example.

    The pathoskeptics are just looking for a way to back up their previous firmly held opinions. I doubt you can win against hem short of units for sale.

    Even if the setup were perfect they would say the readings were false, or there's hidden battery, etc, etc. The current and voltage appears to be low enough that would be very difficult claim measurement error would wipe away a COP of 300.

  • Looks like we'll have to wait at least til tomorrow for the video publication to be sorted out...

  • 1. I never felt more than curious about the QX. I remain curious.

    2. See point 1 above.

    3. Always optimistic. For example, I have 3 sons, I am sure I fathered them all.

    3 . Was this a trick? You did 3 twice, I can still count.

    ETA. You are quite right about bedtime. Long day today, another one tomorrow. BFN

  • Does the QuarkX scale well?

    I don't think anyone outside Rossi's group knows. That the design has shrunk in size and power from the early versions (used to be 100W) suggests that it will be difficult to scale up.

    Rossi seems happy with the present design and it would do well for many applications. I hope he finalizes it and start mass production. I'm sure he won't stop working on new designs.

  • From Mats Lewan

    ‘I think the demonstration today went well, with some limits that depends on what Rossi will accept to measure publicly. The problematic part is that the voltage over the reactor could not be measured, which would be necessary to calculate the electric power consumed by the reactor. In the calculations made by Rossi and Eng. William S. Hurley, who oversaw the measurements, the power consumed by the 1-ohm resistor was used as input power instead, assuming that the plasma inside the reactor has a resistance close to that of a conductor, thus consuming a negligible amount of power since the voltage across the reactor would be very low.

    The dummy measurements that I insisted to do, which can be seen in the slides, consisted in replacing the reactor, first with a conductor, then with a 800-ohm resistance. Using a conductor gave a similar electric situation as when the reactor was running—a voltage across the 1-ohm resistor of about 0.4V, slightly higher than the 0.3V measured with the reactor in the circuit. Using a 800-ohm resistor instead of the reactor the voltage across the 1-ohm resistor was about 20mV. At that point we also measured the total voltage over both the 1-ohm and the 800-ohm resistance together, basically the output voltage of the black box power supply, which was then about 12V. That is consistent with the 20mV voltage across the 1-ohm resistor (it should be 15mV).

    The 800-ohm dummy was used since at the current flowing through the circuit with the reactor – about 0.3A – the reactor would have consumed 72W electric power if it had a resistance of 800ohms. However, this would have meant that that the voltage across the reactor would have been about 240V. The dummy measurement with the 800-ohm resistor indicated three things: 1. The voltage from the power supply only reached only about 12V as a maximum. 2. If the reactor had a resistance of that order of magnitude it would have resulted in a much lower current, about 20mA, than the one measured with the reactor in place. 3. The power consumed by such a resistance in the circuit would only be about 0.3W.

    From the two dummy measurements we can also conclude that the black box power supply adapts its output according to the resistance in the circuit, or rather, to how the reactor behaves. The dummy resistance that most closely replicated the situation with the reactor was using a conductor, indicating that the reactor really behaves as a conductor. This means that the power consumed by the resistance and the reactor together was about 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.9W, as used in the calculations, but that in fact, the reactor consumed a negligible part of that power, resulting in a COP that could be in the order of tens of thousands or more.

    We can make another possible conclusion. Since the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance, while using a conductor as a dummy, was about 0.4V, the total output voltage from the power supply at normal operation could be about 0.4V, indicating that the voltage across the reactor could be at the order of magnitude of 0.1V, and the power consumed at 0.3A would be about 0.03W. This would result in a COP of about 1,000. (I don’t remember the value of thermal output power from the reactor, as calculated by William Hurley, but I think ot was about 30W).

    Having said this, it seems strange that the power supply, even if it is a complex design, is such that it needs significant active cooling, resulting in a total system that has a COP of about 1 or less at this point. On the other hand, this is what Rossi explained to be one of the challenges in further development of the system.’

  • Let's wait for another year ... Meet me again at LENR forum at the end of 2018

    It will be at least a year before Rossi has the ability to mass produce the QX.

    Borrowing Mary's pink unicorn and waving its magic horn you KNOW it should only take four or five weeks or less according to the pathoskeptics who keep asking why he hasn't already.

    That Rossi only has to convince his backers prpbably never crosses your mind.

  • Low content posts in this thread are -as of now- likely to end up in the 'clearance' thread without individual explanations. I'm sure that this might upset a few people, but heck, sometimes life is cruel. Well past my bedtime, curious skypers calling me from japan and usa are to blame.

  • T 12:08

    (SAIPEM, Nasdaq SAPMY)

    You are on a roll today my friend! Something new for me in your video...Fabiani at that Rossi conference way back in Sept. 2012. About the time Penon's name popped up on JONP. So that pushes Fabiani's timeline with Rossi further back, *professionally*, then I knew of before. Yes, in his deposition, he admits being family friends with Rossi way back from the old country, but this is professional like I said.

    Now, we have all these pieces falling into place, so where do we go with it? Keep digging.

  • New update on ECW (doing great job there BTW) from Lewan, to add on to what Alan already copied here:


    Mats also sent me the following:


    Duration of the measurement period: 1 hour: the measurement has been made after the apparatus has reached a reasonably constant temperature

    amount of water pumped through the reactor: 1 000 g

    Water temperature at the input of the reactor: 21 C

    Water temperature at the output of the reactor: 41 C

    Delta T: 20 C

    Energy produced: 20 x 1.14 = 22.8 Wh/h

    Measurement of the energy consumed ( during the hour for 30′ no energy has been supplied to the E-Cat) :

    V: 0.3

    OHM: 1

    A: 0.3

    Wh/h 0.09/2= 0.045

    Ratio between Energy Produced and energy consumed: 22.8/0.045 = 506.66

    Instrumentation used for the measurements:

    Oscilloscope Tektronix TBS 1052B

    K probes Omega supplied and calibrated by Prof. Bo Hoistad of the University of Uppsala

    Water pump Prominent. The water pumped for 1 hour has been poured in a plastic container seat on a scale to measure exactly the water passed through the E-Cat.

    Temperature Data Logger: PICO Technology

    The scale to weight the water passed through the E-Cat has been supplied by Eng. Mats Lewan of Stockolm

    William S. Hurley

    Senior Engineer- Endeavor

    Los Angeles