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

Quote from skip

As an electrician, if I were auditing such a system, I would not trust a wall receptacle. Assuming I knew the expected load, I would run cabling from a panel as close to the building's source as practicable, and supply my own breakers. I've put a lot of wires in walls and had them covered. Who knows what's in there after the drywall is on?

Meters like the Kill-a-watt plug directly into the wall socket, with a standard 3-prong plug. The device you are testing then plugs into the Kill-a-watt. So I do not see how hidden wires could "get around" it. All of the electricity has to go through it, and as I said, it will either measure the electricity or burn up. If there were hidden wires the only thing they could do is supply more amperage than a standard wall socket, and the only thing that could do is burn up the plastic Kill-a-watt gadget. It isn't big or rugged.

You could also use a computer battery backup for this purpose. Some of them have built-in volt-meter or watt-meter functions. With a device plugged into the "battery backup" sockets, I do not think it is possible for one of these to supply more than the rated power shown on the back. The "surge only" sockets might produce more than the rated power.

You can also unplug a battery backup and watch the battery drain. I have an APC battery backup that has an optional connection to a computer, so you can collect data from it. At this moment it shows: 121 V, 122 W, 60 Hz, 39 minutes of battery power remaining.

A Kill-a-watt or similar watt-meter might not produce definitive proof that the Rossi device is (or is not) producing more energy out than in, but it would produce far better evidence than his test did. It should be combined with other instruments and test methods. The Kill-a-watt should have been supplied by one of the audience members, and plugged in the first time just before the test. I think there is no way Rossi or anyone else can alter one of these gadgets, but there is no point to leaving that possibility open.

Regarding a battery backup gadget:

They cost about $130. As I said, you can collect data from them into a program called "PowerChute." I have not done it so I don't know what data it provides. Even if it is not exactly what you need, you can always read the LCD display on the front of the unit and write down the numbers periodically.

However many hidden wires there may be in the wall, or tricks there may be, when you unplug the battery backup from the wall, it can only supply the manufacturer’s rated watt-minutes of energy. If the device being tested in a black box mode produces far more energy than the watt-minute capacity of the battery backup, you know it is producing excess energy.

A pure-black box test from a battery backup would be the best proof that a demonstration of this nature could provide, because it would be simple, cheap, and nearly irrefutable, unlike the test Rossi did. It would also do a much better job hiding the nature of the device and whatever IP there may be. Let me point out again that this is exactly contrary to what Rossi supporters here say. They claim he had to do the test the way he did in order to hide the IP.

I just now gave more attention to the oscilloscope measurements seen in the video. Can anybody confirm what was exactly the scale used here during the test?

Is it 100 mV (Y) / 100 µs (X) per major subdivision as seen later in the video in a more zoomed up view? So would the graph here be showing a +/- 400 mV, 1000 µs window?

EDIT: I think I see a fractal waveform as others have suggested this is in the past days, by the way.

Interested observer; you got it right, now in stage 5 and 6. Well done.

Either Mary or Jed once commented that each of Rossi's tests/demos/DPS get successively worse (from a data perspective) not better, as would be the case with most development projects.

And indeed we can see that here.

Reading the Dr Mike analysis on Ecatworld.org this was certainly not science.

It was indeed (as Eric called it) a dog and pony show (DPS).

Rossi certainly does not care about his critics (fair enough, as Adrian says he does not owe us anything). But he does entertain us so.

Nor does he care much for his supporters. Once again he provides them with a DPS and a crock of data that is worthless.

Clearly, as others have stated, it is all about the money.

The key people in the room were not the scientists and loyal followers, they were just there for decorative purposes.

The key people were the marks (sorry investors).

For those who might disagree with this view it would be interesting to find who Rossi actually spent his attention on after the show.

According to Alan the maestro was only available for a limited time, so who got to see him?

Quote from JedRothwell

Meters like the Kill-a-watt plug directly into the wall socket, with a standard 3-prong plug. The device you are testing then plugs into the Kill-a-watt. So I do not see how hidden wires could "get around" it. All of the electricity has to go through it, and as I said, it will either measure the electricity or burn up. If there were hidden wires the only thing they could do is supply more amperage than a standard wall socket, and the only thing that could do is burn up the plastic Kill-a-watt gadget. It isn't big or rugged.

You could also use a computer battery backup for this purpose. Some of them have built-in volt-meter or watt-meter functions. With a device plugged into the "battery backup" sockets, I do not think it is possible for one of these to supply more than the rated power shown on the back. The "surge only" sockets might produce more than the rated power.

You can also unplug a battery backup and watch the battery drain. I have an APC battery backup that has an optional connection to a computer, so you can collect data from it. At this moment it shows: 121 V, 122 W, 60 Hz, 39 minutes of battery power remaining.

A Kill-a-watt or similar watt-meter might not produce definitive proof that the Rossi device is (or is not) producing more energy out than in, but it would produce far better evidence than his test did. It should be combined with other instruments and test methods. The Kill-a-watt should have been supplied by one of the audience members, and plugged in the first time just before the test. I think there is no way Rossi or anyone else can alter one of these gadgets, but there is no point to leaving that possibility open.

Display More

Hey Jed, I fully concur with what you have stated with the exception of a "Kill-A-Watt" device can't be fooled. You may be correct, but to my knowledge this hasn't been tested with "unusual" frequencies etc.

I should state that I consider myself reasonably experienced with small and large UPS devices and systems, and energy monitoring similar to the Kill-A-Watt.

Nevertheless, I suggest that if the mains power supply was appropriately audited, or was disconnected when a UPS did the supply; an energy monitoring device (from a trustworthy source) would adequately provide input numbers.

I guess Rossi lost my phone number...

I have digested the demo for a few days. I conclude that many people does find it strange that Rossi continue to try his supposed scam although there is simple not much to gain in that

quest, still he continues. If you followed that man you should know that he view himself as a extreme long runner and fighter, he does not give up simply. On the other hand we have evidences

that for example dummy runs run with a good COP indicating a fake or mistake, weak points in the HOT Cat measurements etc. Also in a sense he view himself as a strategic player and seam to interact

with suspicion with people. He can very well played IH to believe he has nothing as said he played the Swedes. He is simply not a normal man. He surely could have taken roads that lead to no

end, doing misstakes - not admitted, as well. As noted things are crufty and not according to standards in a lot of ways.

So can we draw some observation assuming that he have seen unexplaind things, but failed to refine it previously. To see if the Quarkie works we must wait is my conclusion. Even assuming

that he does not fool this time. What could make this Quark thing not work out as a good solution? And hence leave us in uncertainty? Well i picture this.

In development stage power in was measured with the help of a meter just as everyone of us would have liked to see in the demo, and while trying to optimize the waveform and frequency,

they keep on modifying until they see that "wow" the inlet power decreases more and more untill it's virtually zero. In this process there is a difficulty. One need to know if the measurement

is correct and a risk is that they push the structure outside the limits of the meter, e.g. the frequency is higher then the upper limit of the meter. Is it so? I don't know, but we can't know for

sure can't we. What we know is that the needed frequency is probably high because there is a significant power drain of the control box

which would only be possible if there is a need of high frequency.

Finally I think that skeptical comments are important and disagree with the tiresome wining and complaining of them. I view

this site as something that could be continuously be looked at in order to deduce economical decisions. Things is uncertain for sure and the best way to mediate that is to have pro and cons

discussed ad neuseum with people at different roles. I'll continue to be skeptical after this demonstration. It all looks too good to be true although my glasses are in color and not black and white.

But as I tell my friends, maybe maybe it will come a time where it will freeze down there - then cool, what a ride!!

Quote

I actually don't think Rossi is a crook. I do suspect that it's very possible he's fooling himself

Impossible after six years of negative and non-tests. NOBODY is that dumb. I suppose he could be crazy (psychotic) to account for it but there is no other evidence for it.

I can’t say I agree with you on this one Mary. A person could plug a hairdryer in and probably convince himself that it is producing excess heat if he created a contraption of twists and turns like AR has. To be clear, there are several instances where AR has lied through his teeth. Those don’t need to be restated because we all know what they are. But I do think he may be deluded into thinking he has something that works sometimes and he has dragged a group of followers into thinking the same.

Like a poster said in another thread, I am not sure what the purpose of this demonstration was. Investors will not be convinced of it. No media or large corporations will take notice. It’s just kind of a sideshow at a carnival. But maybe that’s all any of this ever was.

Quote from Tony

This was one of very few reasonably sceptical approaches. What bugs me however is the enormous creativy invested in finding out what is possibly wrong with Rossi and his E-Cat compared to the rare comments actually trying to figure out what is going on as if he had something. Is this the nature of us humans? I mean if it worked it would be a revolution for everyone but most people seems occupied with keeping the status quo ...

Tony, this is science, we try to shoot facts down, by either have other persons, or yourself, trying with all creativity to shoot it down, perhaps less certainty of "this is the trick" in stead of "this is a possible trick" should be employed. But I digress

this is internet and people are generally much ruder than what would have happen face to face. On both sides of the fence and there is a lot of teasing. So what you see happens to many researcher out there, although really big game changers

stir up less scientific behavior that for example stiffle progress by using ones power over good arguments e.g. a "you can't publish this because I say so" kind of argument, when a fact is disliked by someone in power.

Yes, it was a successful demo, if you can accept the dilemma Rossi has; he has to protect his IP but still convince financiers and potential partners. We, the public, doesn’t know what’s in the black box. Maybe they have more info.

No, it was not a successful demo for those who was hoping for a close to market ready product. There is still thousands and thousands of high level engineering hours to put in.

The issue is whether this demo showed the device working. Rossi claims it did, as does Mats. That is just not true, because the input power was never measured. And it would have been so easy to do that. I mean, even Rossi's previous demos all made some attempt to measure input power - even if with the wrong meters!

What bugs me however is the enormous creativity invested in finding out what is possibly wrong with Rossi and his E-Cat compared to the rare comments actually trying to figure out what is going on as if he had something.

GIGO. The scientific data from this test is essentially zero because of the lack of instrumentation. The demo was a vehicle for Rossi to make extravagant claims that if true would be worth at least $10M (a validated device, but maybe v difficult to commercialise and/or protect IP) and almost certainly much much more. Fewer people will believe this time because it is a repeat, and because, remarkably, with every repeat the the instrumentation, or the results, get worse. In this case Rossi has been radical - he just has not measured the input power! This is nothing to do with IP, and everything to do with Rossi needing to convince himself/others (take your pick) that his stuff works.

Quote from Tony

This was one of very few reasonably sceptical approaches. What bugs me however is the enormous creativy invested in finding out what is possibly wrong with Rossi and his E-Cat compared to the rare comments actually trying to figure out what is going on as if he had something. Is this the nature of us humans? I mean if it worked it would be a revolution for everyone but most people seems occupied with keeping the status quo ...

Rossi is not the only developer of the LENR tech. There are others who have provided evidence of the activity of the reaction. The question that is not answered with certainty is if Rossi has a viable LENR product or will have a viable product shortly. Product release marks when the LENR age begins.

Vaporware claims are a universal strategy used by startups to advance their business before product release. How much vaporware is Rossi using in his public relations and business practices and how much real stuff does he have? The demo shows us how far Rossi has to go before he can release a product.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Either Mary or Jed once commented that each of Rossi's tests/demos/DPS get successively worse (from a data perspective) not better

It does seem that way, doesn't it? He is phoning it in these days.

What shocked me that the second test by Levi et al. was worse than the first one.