Obviously Mats knows he has to be diplomatic with Rossi, and that if he were to show doubt to what Rossi says, it would be the end of their collaboration.
I feel like Mats Lewan went above and beyond being merely diplomatic in his writeup.
Demonstration of the E-Cat QX - 24 November - Summary thread
-
-
Display More
The QX is an order of magnitude better than any known previous reactor.
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 for up to a year.
You and Jed make a fine couple. You both think you could easily verify the performance of the QX but anyone else, particularly if they are rich, are too dumb to do so.
I know I could. Just putting an oscilloscope across the reactor would answer most of the critics here and would be one of the first things to do.
The idea of the demo was to show the performance of the QX, not verify it worked in a scientific way. It is not possible to do the latter without giving away Rossi's IP. The only thing that concerns me is whether the dimensions of the reactor are in mm or cm. If mm, it seems too small to me.
Adrian,
I take time with your comments because you appear rational, but then say things that are either not true, or only true if you ignore other rational comment.
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.
High COP. We cannot know what is the COP. Rossi's ideas about it seem both variable (it was 20,000 a year ago) and highly tendentious. i appreciate you think this is not a test, but Rossi obviously views it as that because he derives COP from it. Go figure.
Operate at up to 2300C for up to a year. Rossi has in no way shown long-term reliability: plasma tubes are not necessarily that. There are applications that would want high-grade heat, but for them the high temperature interfaces between process and device are problematic, especially when you have zillions of little devices all which need to be connected. But the big market for heat is what IH was going for. 100C heat where Rossi's device would be an easy retrofit for a conventional boiler. Altogrther an easier proposition to sell.
THH
It is not possible to do the latter without giving away Rossi's IP. Adrian, I wonder whether you have selective deafness here? Many people have pointed out that black box testing is usual in industry and does not give away IP. Some, posting here, have actually done black box testing where the IP was indeed confidential. If the exact COP (all you would get from such testing) is confidential Rossi could add a resistor to derate it
-
Quote
I feel like Mats Lewan went above and beyond being merely diplomatic in his writeup.
Mats is largely responsible for Rossi's success in bamboozling prospective distributors early on and in flummoxing Darden, Vaughn and Woodford in more recent years though Levi and the Swedish scientists share that blame. And after all that time, he STILL can't smell the coffee.
EDITED TO ADD (ETA):
QuoteClearly this comes down to a question of trust, and personally, discussing this detail with Rossi for some time, I have come to the conclusion that his explanation is reasonable and trustworthy. (Mats Lewan)
https://animpossibleinvention.…cat-qx-demo-in-stockholm/
What is actually "clearly" about all this is that Mr. Lewan has learned absolutely nothing. Nothing from Rossi's ridiculously easy misdirection around his attempts to calibrate the test properly. Nothing from the entire sordid collection of lies in the pretrial transcripts in Rossi vs IH vs Rossi. Nothing from the lack of development of Rossi's obviously potentially profitable early ecat claims none of which went anywhere at all. Nothing from the rack of lies about customers. Nothing from the lies and non-deliveries to distributors. Nothing from the copious and continuous stream of lies on JONP. Lewan is a hopeless believer. It seems as if nothing will teach him. Even if Rossi admitted he was a fraud, Rossi's believers would probably say he was forced to say that by some conspiracy!
-
To sum up the demo, there were several details that were discussed, from the problematic electrical measurement to observations of Rossi touching something inside the control system just before an additional measurement was being made (see below). In the end, I found that there were reasonable explanations for everything that occurred, and the result indicated a clear thermal output with a very small electrical input from the control system.
However, 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.
I agree with Eric here. Summations matter. What Mats says - the result indicated a clear thermal output with a very small electrical input from the control system - just cannot be substantiated based on the facts that Mats here agrees. I guess you can allow it only if by "the result" you mean "the claims made by Rossi". Then his summary makes sense, but that is not the way most people will read it.
Anyway, if all we do is note that wonderful claims made by Rossi that can be done any day of the week.
-
QuoteDisplay More
Sam
November 26, 2017 at 9:17 AMHello DR Rossi
I seen this comment from E48 on ECat World
Blog.
Engineer48
11 hours ago
Just before Mats starts the tests with different resistor values, Rossi lifts the cover on the White control box and apparently switches a switch or two:
E cat QX presentation 24 November 2017 — disq.us
Which to this observer casts a big shadow over the validity of the tests Mats conducted.
Apparently Mats did not see this occur as he was looking at the data from Hurley.
As Rossi did not explain what he did nor why he did it, to me this killed any credibility on the input power claims.
Could you comment on it?
Enjoyed your QX demonstration.
Regards
QuoteDisplay MoreAndrea Rossi
November 26, 2017 at 9:45 AMSam:
I checked what you say, it is between the time 2h 30′ and 2h 31′.
I opened an air window to help the air circulation since when the E-Cat has been turned off the cooling system was disconnected.
After 2 hours of work and after the operation of the spectrometer without cooling circulation in the heat exchanger I wanted to help the hot air out.This has nothing to do with the measurements we were making.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=287#comment-1300354External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
It would interested me what Fabiani says in Italian to Rossi at 00:48 sec in this clip?
-
what if the wave form shown on the scope didn't go into the reactor but was dissipated directly inside the control box?
It is very easy to invent fanciful scenarios for fraud. You could spend the next ten years dreaming them up and still not run out. However, pay attention to the words of Mats Lewan, which I heartily endorse.
"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.
-
Display More
The big question for me is: Where does the heat to be removed from the controller box come from?
Look at this Q&A on Rossiblog:
Sommer
You have discussed before that the demo would be doable with batteries as the only sorce. Would such a configuration have the same need for massive cooling?
-
Andrea Rossi
Sommer:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sommer
First of all:
Congrats for Your big sucsess!
And many Thanks for Your quick answer to my question.
After the impressive demo many followers speculate about the source of the heat in the controls.
Do You have a hint for us what the reason may be, after the possibiliy of heat traveling trouh the wires was excluded?
-
Andrea Rossi
Sommer:
I am very sorry, but that would force me to explain confidential particulars.
Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
So the massive heat would even be there if the controller operated on batteries only. Has anyone any idea (exept the usual shoutings of fraud from the known parties)?
I speculate from a feeling I got from lisening to Fabiani, who said the the compound sign signl was a safety measure and Rossi shut him up fast.
That continuing signal 3/7 of the cycle in length might be a reaction suppression measure that keeps the reaction from going out of control after it is initiated by the initial high voltage arc activation signal.
That 3/7 signal might cut the top off the power curve to stabilize the reaction. After the 3/7 point in the cycle, the power profile of the reaction output begins to fall and no longer requires suppression.
The control box heat could come from a power feedback current from the reaction when the reaction is near the peak of its power production. The suppression signal must be maintained and the power feedback signal must be dissipated by an internal circuit in the control box. The interface circuit must be maintained to suppress the reaction so it cannot be cut to avoid power feedback. Heat carried by the feedback current must therefore be dissipated as heat.
Such a feedback condition was seen in the Papp engine where the feedback produced power to ignite the next cylinder firing.
There was a control circuit that stored that feedback power so that it could be used in the next ignition step.
It is my guess that Rossi does not have the circuit design know how to store the feedback current and at the same time suppress the reaction via the 3/7 signal.
-
-
Adrian Ashfield: "I don't need more facts to know what the claims are."
Apparently you don't understand that they are nothing but claims without a shred of evidence to support them. Instead, you quote them as if they were proven fact. And yes, you are proud to sign your name to those laughable assertions. Good for you.
-
Even if the electrodes themselves were not made of Ni, the gap is still supposed to contain Ni, Li and Al (and also Mn according to Gullström) in some form, which would eventually coat anyway the inner surfaces as they get vaporized by the plasma formed. I suspect this is the intended mode of operation and that it wouldn't really work like a regular HID lamp, where this would be normally considered a deleterious effect.
If for example the coating formed a conductive pathway between both electrodes, wouldn't it cause a short circuit that would vaporize it back into a plasma? Wouldn't the same happen for any other pathway formed between both electrodes with the evaporated metals?
For all intents and purposes this would work by repeatedly short-circuiting itself, minus the initial HV pulse.
Or at least, that's how I imagine it would "work"
-
Display More
It is an obvious fact (as mentioned above) that Fabiani flips a switch in the control box at time 2:31:08 before the 800 ohm test.
This alone invalidates the whole demo and is a strong indication of foul play.
There is also a gaping hole in the logic that prevents measuring the voltage over the reactor.
The given reason for this is that such a measurement could reveal sensitive information about the operation of the gadget.
At the same time Rossi has told us over and over again that the reactor essentially is an electric short with zero resistance.
To me this indicates that the secret that must not be revealed is that the voltage is anything but zero.
Page 14 post # Post 417
To "hide" ANY voltage other than AC from the scope display, simply put the channel into AC coupling mode.
One button on the DSO. Simple. Anyone who has ever used an oscilloscope knows this.
The power supply might be roaring away (needing cooling),
but the scope trace only shows 0.01v AC.
The DC is hidden. (unless one looks for the tiny "A" next to the channel output
- which would mean walking behind the table to see it - as if anyone in attendance would even know to look for it, but as Mats pointed out VERY early in the Demo, this was forbidden.)
I gave the link to the scope user manual.
This "technique" has been used before in OU scams (Bill Alek and EMJunkie most recently)
Pete
-
Quote
It is very easy to invent fanciful scenarios for fraud.
It's even easier to describe entirely credible, plausible and probable scenarios for fraud as has been true since the first Rossi and Levi tests and demonstrations in 2011. It has also been true for each and every performance by Rossi or his associates and colleagues since then especially if you add gullibility, negligence and incompetence as possible alternatives to fraud in the case of all except Rossi. For Rossi, after all this time and all the opportunities for proper testing, I can't think of any reasonable alternative to fraud.
-
It's even easier to describe entirely credible, plausible and probable scenarios for fraud as has been true since the first Rossi and Levi tests and demonstrations in 2011. It has also been true for each and every performance by Rossi or his associates and colleagues since then especially if you add gullibility, negligence and incompetence as possible alternatives to fraud in the case of all except Rossi. For Rossi, after all this time and all the opportunities for proper testing, I can't think of any reasonable alternative to fraud.
I don't really get what you are arguing here. Are you justifying the invention of fraud scenarions on the grounds that they simply easy to invent?
-
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
It would interested me what Fabiani says in Italian to Rossi at 00:48 sec in this clip?
"Andrea, you did it all by yourself. Get mad with yourself".
It seems he did some kind of mistake.
-
Display More
Even if the electrodes themselves were not made of Ni, the gap is still supposed to contain Ni, Li and Al (and also Mn according to Gullström) in some form, which would eventually coat anyway the inner surfaces as they get vaporized by the plasma formed. I suspect this is the intended mode of operation and that it wouldn't really work like a regular HID lamp, where this would be normally considered a deleterious effect.
If for example the coating formed a conductive pathway between both electrodes, wouldn't it cause a short circuit that would vaporize it back into a plasma? Wouldn't the same happen for any other pathway formed between both electrodes with the evaporated metals?
For all intents and purposes this would work by repeatedly short-circuiting itself, minus the initial HV pulse.
Or at least, that's how I imagine it would "work"
The HV pulse might be short-circuited, and simply not fire. Just like the 800 ohm resistor did not explode into a plasma.
An analogy might be a spark plug with carbon across the gap. Carbon coatings down the insulator and back up the threaded end can also short circuit a spark plug. That route can be 2 cm long on some plugs.
The gap is required in order to get the voltage high enough, and so it might be with the QX system. But who knows...
Hmmm..... I do have an old analog MSD unit in a box somewhere in my collection of stuff.
EDIT: The vaporized elements added to HID bulbs assist the bulb operation, as long as they vaporize and then turn to gas each time it is fired up. Some increase the internal pressure, some condition the output color, and some, like Xenon, condition the plasma voltage by changing the resistance of the gas with temperature. Xenon gas has decreasing resistance with temperature, the opposite of most gasses.
-
Display More
It is very easy to invent fanciful scenarios for fraud. You could spend the next ten years dreaming them up and still not run out. However, pay attention to the words of Mats Lewan, which I heartily endorse.
"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.
Such third party power tests would reveal the true purpose of the 3/7 signal and the nature of the feedback current. If Rossi wants to maintain his most secret methods, he will resist letting anyone near that control mechanism. Control is the jewel of great value for Rossi's IP. Understanding the details of that mechanism is key to reverse engineering the QX. IMHO, Rossi will wait on those third party tests until he can produce a high performance control box that is battery powered, so that a very long test can be run beyond the energy storage capacity of the battery power supply to prove overunity power production.
-
@Tony
QuoteI don't really get what you are arguing here. Are you justifying the invention of fraud scenarions on the grounds that they simply easy to invent?
Yikes! No, Tony. On the grounds that fraud scenarios are the best and most plausible explanation by far for everything but EVERYTHING we have seen from Rossi up to and including the current entirely useless and worthless performance.
-
This quote from Lewan is so stupid, it amazes even me. You can't tell ANYTHING from the idiotic measurement over an arbitrary resistance substituted for the so-called reactor. And you don't even know that the conditions of that test, for example the power supply's output voltage, are the same as they were during the actual run. And that's before you even consider possible power contributions from AC and/or RF inputs from Rossi's mysterious white box with the mysterious switch. The actual COP could be anything from zero to any number you want. It's completely impossible to determine from this lame data. Worse yet, with proper measurements, it COULD have been EASILY determined. Rossi simply set it up to fail like he always does/did.
QuoteAt the demo, 1,000 grams of water was heated 20 degrees Celsius in one hour, meaning that the total energy released was 1,000 x 20 x 4.18 = 83,600J and the thermal power 83,600/3600 ≈ 23W.
The voltage across the 1-ohm resistor was about 0.3V, thus the current 0.3A. The power consumed by the resistor was then about 0.09W and if the reactor behaved as a conductor its power consumption would be much less.
Using a conductor as a dummy, the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance was about 0.4V, thus similar as with the reactor in the circuit. With the 800-ohm resistance, the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance was about 0.02V and the current thus about 0.02A. The power consumption of the 800-ohm resistance was then 0.02 x 0.02 x 800 ≈ 0.3W, thus much lower than the thermal power released by the reactor.
These dummy measurements can be interpreted in a series of ways, giving a COP (output power/input power) ranging from about 40 to tens of thousands. Unfortunately, no precise answer can be given regarding the COP with this method, but even counting the lowest estimate, it’s very high, indicating a power source that produces useful thermal power with a very small input power for controlling the system.
-
Given how small the electrodes and the inner surfaces are, if there is electrical contact between them due to pre-deposited material it would probably not take a very large current to vaporize it back and start the plasma again. The HV pulse then might only be strictly required for when there's absolutely no electrical conduction between both electrodes and no way to generate a plasma otherwise.
But I'm just wildly speculating, this is just a crazy out-of-the-box idea after all.
-
@Tony
Yikes! No, Tony. On the grounds that fraud scenarios are the best and most plausible explanation by far for everything but EVERYTHING we have seen from Rossi up to and including the current entirely useless and worthless performance.
Ok. Since you seem to know so well what happened I suppose you attended the event, right? Or, how you know it was useless and worthless? For whom?
