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

  • What he said after 2:31:19 (in Italian) was interesting, but I think he simply toggled the main switch of the power supply.

    Pictures from http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…emo-in-stockholm-cop-550/


    Yes that would be interesting. I tried to listen with 150% volume with headphones, but still could not not hear his words properly.

    I played again with 0.5xspeed setting and all I could pick was: 2:31:05 Rossi could say something like "Whi... I have to soun...." and Fabiani replies in English "The switch" and again "...switch" when his hand reaches the switch. Maybe native English or Italian speaker with higher volume could pick more. (at 2:31:19 you refer to I think it is Matts voice behind verifying calcuations 'Okay,... how much time...")


    You are propably right. Anyway before that point Rossi seems to search power switch switch for real (for fraud they would have practiced it carefully). Further looking at Sifferkolls pic you posted, PSU seems to be around there inside the case. So I also guess it was the just because they had shut off the controller while changing setup to avoid damages while removing the reactor from circuitry.

  • Anyway before that point Rossi seems to search power switch switch for real (for fraud they would have practiced it carefully).


    Simply the power switch?

    Look well from 2:30:58 to 2:31:02 he opened the top cover of the box and disconnected or swapped a connection :-D :-D :-D

    and this happened after QX switch-off and before the verification by means of the SC and the 800 ohm resistor. ROTFL

    (Fulvio was in front of the table covering the view with his body... Mats was chattering... and Alan the expert that "be able to see obvious flaws from a distance": boh... beer...)

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

  • In the attached figure, I added to Mats' test circuit diagram in orange, to show how easy it is to inject arbitrary electrical power into the eCat as demonstrated.


    This cheat could be tested for by disconnecting the scope probe ground, and seeing whether the eCat continues to heat without that connection.

    Was that tried?


    Or, the problem could be avoided by using a battery-powered scope and carefully isolating it from ground.

  • No Jed. What I specifically said was hat no skeptics (like you) would believe any experiment done by Rossi. That you would only believe he had something once he had working units for sale.

    What you say is false. I would believe an experiment done by Rossi, if it were done correctly and vetted by outsiders. When I first heard from him, he invited me to see a test. I would have believed that test, if he had allowed me to use my own instruments to measure the input power, the flow rate and the temperatures. I could have done that easily, but he refused to let me do it. Despite what Mary Yugo and others say, there is not the slightest chance he could have fooled me. Penon's results did not fool me for five minutes. Later, Rossi's lies about magic endothermic processes and invisible mezzanine heat exchangers did not fool me.


    There are several other examples of easily discovered errors and fake results. In chronological order:


    The people from NASA saw that no steam was coming out of his reactor, contrary to what he claimed. The people at Defkalion tried to fool observers. They did not allow proper instruments, and when instruments were installed, they removed them. The moment observers got a chance to use their own instruments, they saw through Defkalion's deception. When people tested an empty cell from Rossi, they saw that his calorimetry indicated excess heat when there was none. Murray immediately saw the errors in 1-year test setup. When they checked that test with their own instruments, they confirmed it was fake.


    In yesterday's test, if they had used a watt meter to measure all of the power going into the system, I expect they would have seen there was no excess heat. I don't know that for sure, for the same reason I do not know for sure the first test Rossi refused to let me see was fake: because no one was allowed to use proper instruments.

  • Dave wrote:This cheat could be tested for by disconnecting the scope probe ground, and seeing whether the eCat continues to heat without that connection.


    Was that tried?


    This brings up another important potential issue (pun intended), that may have already been mentioned. It looks like a typical 10:1 scope probe was used. Pro-grade scopes like the Tektronix used for the demo will sense the type of a compatible probe, and correctly adjust the display of screen resolution. The probe shown in the demo video looks like the probe shown on the Tek web site, but the probe is not identified in the list posted by Mats Lewan, and should be confirmed so that the scope input gain and thus its voltage display can be verified.


    Further, the scope used has only 50 mHz bandwidth, and would not show any microwave energy present at the point of measurement. MFMP's recent work replicating microwave stimulus of plasma suggests that this is a real possibility, one not detectable by the scope used. It could also explain the need for substantial fan cooling in the power supply/control box.


    I mention these issues knowing full well that certain aggressive skeptics here will seize and run with any possible criticism of the demo. There's already adequate cause for doubt and I remain undecided, with hope that such issues can be cleared up by Mats Lewan. For example, the Tektronix display should have shown the type of probe it sensed, whether 10:1 or 1:1, and he appears to have been the principal observer that might have noted such a detail.


    AlanG

  • Quote

    Despite what Mary Yugo and others say, there is not the slightest chance he could have fooled me.

    Given enough people who know what they are doing watching him, Rossi wouldn't fool anyone. Remember, I helped plan a potential experiment with you back in 2011 so I don't know what you mean by "Mary Yugo and others". I was certainly confident at the time that Rossi would not put anything past or around us if we could test the way we wanted to. But to be sure one would have made no mistakes, the people doing the test would have had to have complete access to the device so you could isolate it, you'd need clearcut access to the input wires (ALL of them if there are more than two) and the same for whatever the output is, in the case you refer to, water and/or steam. What we discussed back then was sparging (condensing) the steam in a condenser inside an insulated and instrumented water bath. Also, placing a high quality power meter *ahead* of and in series with any power Rossi connected to his ecat. And a scope across the input power as well. Obviously, Rossi wouldn't allow that! ANY of it.


    The other thing to be cautious about is sleight of hand. I'm sure everyone has seen magic tricks (more aptly named "illusions") where you know for a fact that what you see is not really happening the way you perceive it but you have absolutely no idea how it was done. For the best of the magicians, it is often difficult to even guess at how it *could* have been done. Fortunately, Rossi is nowhere near that good. He's tricky but he leaves a lot of "tells" around.

  • Good reporting.

    I'm also interested in more comment on people, even if I've been fooled by perceived credibility earlier.


    Let us assume E-cat X is real.

    The experiment is not convincing, just entertaining. As well explained it is not needed to protect the IP.

    personally my setup would be to use a battery/UPS of a power physically limited to 1/5x of output (assume COP=50, it is easy)... AAA batteries, tiny inverter, used near their max power... then feed the power suply as needed, and find a simple blackbox method for heat, like tea kettle or Parkomov.


    One have to conclude the demo is designed to be unclear, like nearly all previous demo, except maybe Ferrara which seems not bad, and Doral which is an apparent ridiculous deception.


    Inventor disease is the prefered hypothesis of Alan...

    Another was proposed by Nasa supporter (? not sure) in an old presentation was that to avoid being overtaken by copycats the best was to only show weak evidence, weak performance, until it is commercially ready...

    Brillouin performance, match this characteristic, even if it seems in fact sincere... For Rossi, he goes very far in self-FUD.


    Let us assume E-cat never existed.


    Unclear test, are a repetitive pattern.

    Jed previously proposed a method to deceive the audience. Take a fair way to measure something. analyse all the artifacts that may cause errors in the measurement, amplify them by a faulty design as required to obtain a faulty measurement that please the audience.


    The only reason to trust rossi is to see many people who seems to trust him.

    Alan reports that people presented as victims of his abuses (the swedish he told he deceived in a magnificent way, talking to Darden... was it a lie ? was he already trying to deceive not the swedish but Darden? ) seems still in good terms with him, this mean something... but what ...


    Whatever you believe, nothing will prove you wrong.

    Let us see if some actor make something big enough to prove it works, or it does not work.

  • Given enough people who know what they are doing watching him, Rossi wouldn't fool anyone.

    I do not think you need many people. Just the right instruments and procedures. For example, with the Doral 1-year test, any licensed HVAC engineer could have shown it was fake in 10 minutes.


    Remember, I helped plan a potential experiment with you back in 2011 so I don't know what you mean by "Mary Yugo and others".

    I believe that was Defkalion, but perhaps I remember it incorrectly.


    Perhaps I am confusing you with Abd, who claimed that it is always possible to fool an observer by one method or another. That is true of some tests, but not the first one Rossi un-invited me to.

    But to be sure one would have made no mistakes, the people doing the test would have had to have complete access to the device so you could isolate it, you'd need clearcut access to the input wires (ALL of them if there are more than two) and the same for whatever the output is, in the case you refer to, water and/or steam.

    The test I was un-invited to was liquid, which is easier to confirm than steam.


    The other thing to be cautious about is sleight of hand.

    As I said, that is a problem with some tests but not others. The gigantic Doral test made sleight of hand easy. A small desktop test with one electric plug, water coming in and water coming out at a flow rate that you can easily measure with a liter bottle is easy to confirm.


    The test yesterday looked like a can of worms to me, but I have not looked closely.

  • Quote

    I believe that was Defkalion, but perhaps I remember it incorrectly.

    It was definitely Rossi. Check your email if you want to confirm it. Defkalion gave me a bogus invitation to test them. When I sent a senior Canadian professor to schedule something, they evaded him -- no response to voice mails and never in the office. Of course, we now know they were crooks and nothing else. Far as I know, you were not involved with that. And the test with Rossi may have been liquid but then why would we sparge steam in a condenser? I do recall that was discussed though it's so long ago, I could be wrong.


    Quote

    Perhaps I am confusing you with Abd, who claimed that it is always possible to fool an observer by one method or another. That is true of some tests, but not the first one Rossi un-invited me to.

    I would never make such a stupid claim. But if you can't isolate the device at least at the input and output and sufficiently to avoid surreptitious connections, then you can indeed be fooled and not realize it. I think screwing with the input is one of the methods Rossi used to cheat of the many he employed at various times. A good magician does not do the same trick twice for the same audience. They may not be as easily misdirected the second time.


    BTW, if you confuse me with Abd, you are SERIOUSLY if not terminally confused!

  • It was definitely Rossi. Check your email if you want to confirm it. Defkalion gave me a bogus invitation to test them. When I sent a senior Canadian professor to schedule something, they evaded him

    I'll take your word that it was Rossi.


    Defkalion gave several people bogus invitations, including me. When they found we meant to actually test the device, rather than watch a Dog & Pony show, they uninvited us.


    I would never make such a stupid claim. But if you can't isolate the device at least at the input and output and sufficiently to avoid surreptitious connections, then you can indeed be fooled and not realize it.

    Yes. The device has to be small enough to see all connections.


    I think the only way to be 100% sure you are measuring all input power is to use a watt meter between the wall socket and the machine. If there is more than one socket or if it is a high voltage connection, you cannot do that. You can now buy cheap but reliable mass-produced meters such as the "Kill-a-watt" brand. I have the impression they are faster and more reliable than expensive meters were back in the 1980s.


    As I recall, the Rossi device I originally planned to test produced more power than an ordinary wall socket can supply. If it had been surreptitiously drawing extra power, the circuit breaker would trip, or the Kill-a-watt meter would burn up. In that sense, the Kill-a-watt will always reveal the truth. It will either show the correct power consumption or it will burn.


    In previous tests, I do not think Rossi lied about input power. I have the impression he reported the input power correctly, but he measured output incorrectly. I do not know about yesterday's test. Input power measurements were more complicated than previously, and I do not know much about electricity, so I cannot judge. As I said, the one method I do know, and that I am confident will work, is to install a watt meter between the wall and the power supply. Whatever fancy wave forms or hidden wires there may be coming out of the power supply and control electronics, all of the power has to go through the watt meter, and I think a modern meter will measure it all. Or burn up, as I said. Years ago people claimed there were ways to circumvent an old fashioned analog meter, but electricians disagreed.


    (I doubt you can fool an old analog meter significantly, because if you could, millions of people would rip off the power companies.)


    Measuring the power between the control electronics and the device is entirely different. People here have described ways get the wrong answer there. I can't comment, but I do not think Rossi will convince people with this measurement, given his track record of deception.


    In the present test, people may claim a lot of power was wasted at the hot power supply with the fan, so it should not be counted. Nope. Sorry. Too complicated. They should have found a way to supply power more efficiently without so much waste heat.


    [Somewhat off topic: On Monday last week I accidentally burned up the power supply in a 5-year-old Lenovo computer, something I have not done in many years. It runs ancient software so I am determined to fix it. The power supply is the only problem. I am having a heck of a time trying to replace the power supply because the form factor has been changed; the fan has been moved; the connectors have been changed for goodness sake (!); and Lenovo does not like to sell spare parts. I may have to resort to the Dremel tool approach to the form-factor problem. I found an old-school repair shop chain with a great name "UBREAKIFIX" with a guy who may cooperate with me. Anyway, when a power supply is rated 250 W you really cannot put 1000 W through it. You don't have to speculate about that happening. Oh, and pumps never produce twice the flow rate they are rated for. Flow meters do not work when you use them in ways the manual explicitly warns against. RTFM, people.]

  • I'm afraid it is even simpler than that.


    All Digital Oscilloscopes (including the Techtronix TBS model used in the "demo"), have a simple button to select between AC and DC coupling.

    Tektronix TBS user manual page 98.


    AC coupling blocks the DC component of the signal allowing only the AC portion to be shown.

    The input voltage could have been 100.01v But in AC coupling mode,

    only the AC component (0.01v) would have been displayed.

    The 100v DC component would have been hidden (but you would still need a fan to cool the PSU)


    This is scoposcopy 101. A trick used previously by Bill Alek, EMJunkie and others.

    The only way to hide it in this "demo" would be to not allow anyone behind the table and only show long range pictures of the scope.


    Has nobody ever used a DSO ?

  • What you say is false. I would believe an experiment done by Rossi, if it were done correctly and vetted by outsiders.

    Not true because the only way you would be satisfied would be an experiment that gave away his IP. Rossi is not going to do that before he is ready for mass production.

    Consider the logic of the situation. How could he make any money from the demo it it were a scam? Any investor would do due diligence and it would be easy to do so for the QX. If you could do it so could they.

  • Not true because the only way you would be satisfied would be an experiment that gave away his IP.

    As many others have pointed out already, that is nonsense. It would be dead simple to arrange a black box test. Such a test would actually be easier and more convincing than the test he did, since you would measure input electricity from the wall socket, telling us even less about the device than we learned in this test.


    There is absolutely no need to "give away IP" in a demonstration. But in any case, if there is any IP and he has not filed for a patent, and the technology is real, as soon as it become generally known the IP will be stolen. There are no laws against stealing un-patented IP and trade secrets. Every industrial company on earth will reverse engineer it and steal it all within weeks. Certainly within weeks of machines being sold. So, if it is real, Rossi will either patent or he will lose it. Hiding it during a demonstration of this nature will not change that output.


    Consider the logic of the situation. How could he make any money from the demo it it were a scam? Any investor would do due diligence and it would be easy to do so for the QX.

    As others have pointed out, he is probably looking for foolish investors who do not do due diligence. Mary Yugo correctly points out there have been many "over unity energy" scams of this nature. I regret to say that I agree I.H. failed to do enough checking before they gave him $10 million. He is looking for new victims who will give him millions more.


    You and others seem to be convinced by the Lugano tests and by the Doral Penon report, which are both obviously bogus. If he can fool you with that garbage, I expect he can find foolish investors with his latest QX claims.

  • AC coupling doesn't solve it, that doesn't disconnect the scope probe ground clip from the chassis or from the safety ground.

    All AC coupling does is block the DC component of the signal, which is not the problem here. The spurious current here flows in the ground path, not the probe-tip signal path.


    I see their scope has two probe inputs, "channels". If they used both, put one probe on each end of the resistor, and left the ground clips hanging, they could subtract (or, often, invert one then add) channel 2 from channel 1 and ideally see the real voltage across the resistor without providing this massive path to ground. Tying the two ground clips together might reduce noise somewhat. To get clean signals to subtract nicely, you might have to tie the grounds to one semi-isolated almost-floating point, with finite impedance to ground but large enough to block any spurious heating currents. You can temporarily connect the two probes to the same point to ensure that the gains really match (adjust until they do) and the subtraction really results in zero. The loop formed by the two scope probe cables will pick up EM noise, so keeping that small helps--perhaps loosely twist the probe cables around each other.


    The setup as apparently used could easily add 20 watts to the test device chamber through the ground connection, without any visible evidence. But if the device keeps heating while the scope ground clip is disconnected, then this cheat was not being used.

  • Let us assume E-cat X is real.

    The experiment is not convincing, just entertaining. As well explained it is not needed to protect the IP.

    The purpose of the demo was to show the characteristics of the QX. Not only did it do that well but you are overlooking that it was a significant advance.

    Consider its small size, that it can be instantly switched on and off, that it has a COP 500 - 1000. It can operate at 2300 C.

    That is a major step forward.

    As I've explained several times, any investor would do due diligence and the supposed frauds suggested by the usual suspects would be quikly discovered.

  • As I've explained several times, any investor would do due diligence and the supposed frauds suggested by the usual suspects would be quikly discovered.

    The frauds in the Penon report were quickly discovered, but you and many others do not see them. Rossi is looking for investors like you. If you had tons of money, judging by what you have said about the Penon report and the Doral test, if Rossi were still working on that, it seems you would be willing to invest in that even now. All Rossi has to do is find someone like you and he will scam millions of dollars more.

  • The frauds in the Penon report were quickly discovered, but you many others do not see them. Rossi is looking for investors like you.

    If the E-Cat didn't work why did they not discover this before making any investment?


    No. Rossi is not looking for investors like me. He has repeatedly stated he only wants larger technical comeanies that know what they are doing and can deal with the risk. You keep making things up.