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

  • 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.

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

    I believe they were misled by the Lugano results. That is what I have heard, but it could be a rumor. They should have discovered the problems before making a major investment. They failed at due diligence.


    They were not fooled by the Doral test. You were fooled by it, and you remain fooled by it, so your judgement is worse than theirs.


    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.

    I said "if you had tons of money." But Rossi is not looking for large technical companies. He is looking for people who are fooled by his tests. If he were looking for large technical companies he would do a proper test that would convince people. That would be easy. As I said, a properly designed black-box test would be easier than the one he did, and it would reveal less about the device, and less IP, which is exactly contrary to what you said.


  • Just before the resistor test begins, the test that modified the circuit to introduce new resistor values, Rossi lifts the cover on the White control box and throws switches:


    In order to maintain trust in that particular test, Rossi should have informed the audience as to what the switches do and why he was changing their settings.


    If this action has not been explained thus far, Mats among others should get an explanation for this action, including what those switches do and why their setting where changed.

  • There will be very little more from me until I get back to the UK. I have managed on around 15 hours sleep since thursday, and am running a little ragged as you might imagine. More (and more photographs when I have time. Out of here at sparrowfart, hopefully beating the forecast snow. Back online monday at the latest, probably before.


    However, I want to sat something about this.

    I said "if you had tons of money." But Rossi is not looking for large technical companies. He is looking for people who are fooled by his tests. If he were looking for large technical companies he would do a proper test that would convince people. That would be easy. As I said, a properly designed black-box test would be easier than the one he did, and it would reveal less about the device, and less IP, which is exactly contrary to what you said.

    Jed - You are wrong at least in part. Rossi is not interested in private investors at all. He wants corporate investors. Technical skills are a matter of opinion here, and a matter of who they are. I asked the refinery engineer who was on the platform what his interest in the technology was. 'We use a lot of (process) heat' was his response. Maybe they are potential investors, maybe not. I have no idea.


    After the demo was finished, there was a line of supplicants outside Rossi's door. It was still there 4 hours later. And they weren't there to complain by the way they behaved. Whatever you think, the Rossi magic is still working. And it doesn't seem to be fading.

  • Quote

    Rossi is not interested in private investors at all. He wants corporate investors. Technical skills are a matter of opinion here

    Are the ones who bought distributor licenses (and sub-licenses) corporate investors?

    And what technical skills does e.g the feng-shui master Roger Green have... or the IH guys (lawyers).

    Whatever you think, the Rossi magic is still working. And it doesn't seem to be fading.

    ... so does the magic of Dr. Ibrahim Ahmed from Nigeria.


  • it looks like he is moving 2 switches. this and not the action after he closed the box (as I posted before) could be the trick moment.

  • Fabiani does mention that the waveform is intentionally different during the dummy run.


  • So all of a sudden there is 11.52 V (DC) across the whole system, rather than 100 mV (report/whiteboard).

    And still only around 280 to 300 mV (DC) across the 1 ohm resistor during the experiment.

    The COP is getting murky... taking an order or two of magnitude hit compared to the report version.

    Kudos to Mats for installing a voltage divider on the system.

  • can and Paradigmnoia

    IMHO it’s quite clear that the “two tones” (Fabiani spoke) were the sinusoidal signals: the carrier having period of about 10 microsecond (100kHz) and the modulation signal, the carrier was deeply AM modulated by the modulation sinusoidal signal having time period of about 50-100 microsecond (10-20kHz).


    The original YouTube video at link:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lkj-7whwpUk

    has been removed. Now they have fear after the trick discovered.

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

  • Anyway, if they do have a 0.6mm electrode gap and assuming 1 bar of H2 pressure, wouldn't they need a voltage in the order of 1500V or so to at least get the plasma started, regardless of what happens afterwards? Perhaps this could drop in the few hundred V range with a different gas/gas mixture at a low pressure.


    Maybe the generator of this starting HV pulse was disabled during the dummy run?


    575px-Paschen_curves.svg.png

  • Maybe the generator of this starting HV pulse was disabled during the dummy run?

    Maybe, when Mats tried to touch one of terminal of circuit the King of Hoax did forbid him to have any contact.

    No pulses but sinusoial waveforms.

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

  • A big spike in voltage is pretty much neccesary in order to strike a plasma across a gap. With no gap, a strike-hold power supply may sense the low resistance (compared to a gap) and not fire the initial voltage spike. This might be a safety feature, or might simply be not possible without the "air" gap.

    Xenon is the arc helper. It reduces the arc maintaining voltage.

  • Paradigmnoia

    That's assuming that the electrodes are conventionally used (for example as if this was an HID lamp) and that the plasma occurs with the gas pre-contained in the gap. What if he does something "strange" like vaporizing part of the electrode material? Is it possible that a much lower voltage than usual would then be needed to maintain the plasma, which would essentially become current-driven (if this explanation makes sense) ? This might not necessarily be related with Rossi, I'm only curious due to past observations I made with my own tests with small carbon arc plasmas at rather low voltages.


    Ahlfors

    That's great, I should have thought of doing that too, which I eventually did for the second video in case more audio would eventually end up being edited out. However a dynamic range compressor filter is what is probably needed here, rather than noise removal.


  • Skeptics have also predicted the debate will not end with any Rossi demo. How could it? You cannot prove a negative and Rossi has his supporters who have shown themselves unswerving in faith regardless of negative evidence.


    The argument previously for Rossi to abandon 5 years of R&D on ecats and move to this new device is that it was so much technically superior that this made sense. This argument has its issues. However, in the light of this demo, I'm wondering whether you still see the new device is superior to the old ones? You should factor in to your answer the fact (stated by Rossi, so tendentious, but I'll admit it) that Rossi does not have certification for any markets except industrial and would therefore aim at industrial commercialisation. Just as what he was claiming to do during the IH test.


    As for whether this demo generated its output from a PSU, or from a revolutionary LENR process, no-one can ever prove there was no such revolutionary process, given the fact that Rossi for no doubt good reasons of his own never measured the input power. However, you will I hope agree that he supplied electrical input from a PSU clearly large enough to generate all the output. That was careless, if he had a working device. It makes a poor demo.

  • I

    As I said, he is protecting his IP, whether you like it or not.


    "If the power pack was heating the water, how can he possibly make money from such a scam? This is not for the general public to invest in, but for venture capitalists who will be able to do their own due diligence - like measure the voltage across the reactor."


    Rossi can hope to get money from one-off big pocket investors who buy his "the establishment has it in for me" story, and are foolish. There have always been foolish rich people.


    IH is the nearest he ever got to VCs, and they were too much the real thing for the relationship to last. They wanted working product above good PR (ref letters from Court case). You must remember that Rossi would have been hawking his offering to any VCs willing to listen - nearly all would refuse him. IH were idealistic and inclined to hope - a golden opportunity for him which he has squandered (on your reading) or obtained $10M for no product (on my reading). Sure, Rossi can hope to repeat the process with a new audience and a different product.

  • THH said: "my objection is hardly novel"

    You said it.


    Alan, I don't see any material difference between us in analysis of this test (maybe I am wrong?). Is it necessary to comment on whether analysis here is novel? We might as well say that Rossi's test, in its lack of any way to know whether the tested device works as claimed or not, is hardly novel. One of the things that keeps me looking at these repetitive events is people like you who hold out some apparently strong possibility that his devices really do work. in many cases i'd dismiss them as uninformed but not so in yours.

  • For me this was still demo and not test, so it cannot make one to believe it more nor conclude as fraud. Rossi has some clarfication to give on switch flipping before resistor swapping test. The resitor test itself was not convincing either because of probes, ac/dc consideration, changed waveforms etc.


    But the demo gives good material for speculation. And to move forward on that, can anyone point to any theory or research results why QX-power supply requires so heavy cooling fan?


    Generating modulated sine wave and feeding tens of milliwats to wire could not require 60w PSU. Someone speculated (can'remember which thread) that plasma generating flow of electrons 'pushing back' to PSU causing extra heat or something. When Matts mentioned in his presentation that "Heat conducted from reactor through wires requires extra fan in PSU", Rossi corrected afterwards that "Heat conduction problem was solved and there is other reason now".


    If we assume that QX is real, could that requirement of extra cooling be caused by electricity generating feature Rossi have mentioned? Controller case had rather big vent holes, so they could serve rather big fan, but then I didn't hear extra humming during the test. As a comparison if i remember correctly my house air conditining system fans are 45w and they exchange air 94l/s!

    Roughly calculated (from top of my head) each 1deg/c would transfer 100w. So 45w fan could move 1kw heat from chassis assuming 10C temp difference between intake and exhaust. I can guarantee that 92l/s even well diffused makes noticable noice. Something doesn't match in my opinion.

  • Ahlfors

    I had to search that... I guess you mean flyback diodes.

    BTW, I'm still waiting for the original video with full audio!


    Someone speculated (can'remember which thread) that plasma generating flow of electrons 'pushing back' to PSU causing extra heat or something.


    I did mention that earlier in this thread citing non-LENR references (1, 2) and personal observations. During high current DC arc discharges tests the positive wire would heat up significantly more than the negative wire. I don't know if this is really related to what Rossi observed, but it reminded me of that (although only by loose association). In my case in some tests at higher current than normal I had to periodically invert wire polarity to not melt the connectors and wire insulation, but it was mostly my fault since I used cheap and undersized equipment (not to mention improvised).