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

  • One detail to add: If Rossi was a normal person pursuing normal investment opportunities, he would try to conduct a demo that was not readily open to such basic critiques. The demo might not convince skeptics, but it would be good enough to elicit from normal, intelligent people the question of "ok, that was interesting and not obviously flawed; now what should be done as a next step to look into this device's performance?" T


    Yes, and this seems to be exactly what was taking place, regardless of any number of tries here to make it look otherwise

  • Yes, and this seems to be exactly what was taking place, regardless of any number of tries here to make it look otherwise


    To the contrary. One is tempted to conclude that not only was the demo seriously flawed, it was intentionally flawed, which is both mysterious and thought-provoking. (But also somewhat predictable at this point, given the history.)

  • To the contrary. It is becoming apparent that not only was the demo seriously flawed, one is tempted to conclude that it was intentionally flawed, which is mysterious and thought provoking. (But also somewhat predictable at this point, given the history.)


    It could certainly be intentionally "flawed". At least we can be sure not all information was revealed. The reason for this could be argued from any direction I suppose. So I don't understand you point here otherwise than having a personal opinion. Seems like you try to cover all exits...


    All witnesses however seems to agree there were potential investors/partners lining up to meet with Rossi, so in that respect and according to general sentiment from witnesses it does not seem at all that flawed. So in that respect it doesn't really matter you arguing something happened that did not happen here, or?

  • It could certainly be intentionally "flawed". At least we can be sure not all information was revealed. The reason for this could be argued from any direction I suppose. So I don't understand you point here otherwise than having a personal opinion. Seems like you try to cover all exits...


    Not trying at all to cover all exits. I predicted that the demo would be intentionally flawed in early October:


    I predict that there will be an element of willful shoddiness to the upcoming QuarkX demo, going beyond the minimum needed to make it hard or impossible to verify any claims that are made. These demos seem to have become a game for Rossi, perhaps to see how people react.


    I may have gotten the motive wrong; one is tempted to consider even darker possibilities. But if the demo was intentionally flawed, at a minimum there is the whiff of manipulation.


    All witnesses however seems to agree there were potential investors/partners lining up to meet with Rossi, so in that respect and according to general sentiment from witnesses it does not seem at all that flawed. So in that respect it doesn't really matter you arguing something happened that did not happen here, or?


    The dark interpretation is clearly that this was a means of sifting through possible marks. Is that what happened? I don't have enough information to conclude one way or another.


  • "flawed" is simply a word with applied value of the user. "secretive" could actually mean the same thing and make much more sense considering the available information and agreed upon goals of the demo (investors/partnering etc). Agree you're only covering all exits at the dark end. You seem to be quite narrow minded in that regard.

  • If "flawed" is a simply word with applied value of the user than "secretive" could mean the same thing and make much more sense considering the available information and agreed upon goals of the demo (investors/partnering etc).


    The word "flawed" has a pretty straightforward meaning in this context. If Alan Fletcher is willing to call the demo a null result, one can safely conclude that there is little support for the claims that have been made in connection with it, for Alan is willing to bend over backwards to give Rossi's demos a charitable interpretation. Needless to say, it didn't have to be that way. It was a result of a choice Rossi made, possibly consciously,


    Quote

    Agree you're only covering all exits at the dark end. You seem to be quite narrow minded in that regard.


    It is not "covering all exits" to not conclude what one does not know. Regarding being quite narrow-minded, this is not really true. I've been following developments related to Rossi since 2011 or 2012. I started out with a very charitable view. Here is an early post of mine to the Vortex mailing list, in May 2012:


    Agreed. I wonder whether a lot of the frustration with Rossi is more just a residue of people's initial skepticism towards cold fusion in general. The first reaction is to disbelieve any suggestion of cold fusion out of hand and for that reason to adopt the initial assumption that Rossi is lying. Once the reflexive doubt about cold fusion wears away, some of Rossi's unguarded public statements can be distracting. But when one listens to him speak in an interview, he sounds pretty reasonable. And if his inventions end up doing half of what he's reporting, I think humanity will owe him a huge debt of gratitude. In light of all of this, it seems safest to withhold judgement and see where things go.


    Here is another post of mine from November 2012:


    I very much doubt his [Rossi's] claims are fraudulent -- it would be a very impressive fraud, more impressive than the alternative possibility that he's simply been flighty and loose with the details. I'm kind of rooting for him, and I find his interaction with the public a source of amusement. My suspicion is that he's stumbled onto something. I have questions about whether it will see the light of day anytime soon.


    Over five or six years, one begins to discern a modus operandi. One begins to form opinions about where things might be headed next.

  • Quote

    Vortex-L wrote:

    Agreed. I wonder whether a lot of the frustration with Rossi is more just a residue of people's initial skepticism towards cold fusion in general. The first reaction is to disbelieve any suggestion of cold fusion out of hand and for that reason to adopt the initial assumption that Rossi is lying. Once the reflexive doubt about cold fusion wears away, some of Rossi's unguarded public statements can be distracting. But when one listens to him speak in an interview, he sounds pretty reasonable. And if his inventions end up doing half of what he's reporting, I think humanity will owe him a huge debt of gratitude. In light of all of this, it seems safest to withhold judgement and see where things go.


    There is true wisdom latent in this poster who can perceive reality as it is.

  • Eric Walker wrote:

    I very much doubt his [Rossi's] claims are fraudulent -- it would be a very impressive fraud, more impressive than the alternative possibility that he's simply been flighty and loose with the details. I'm kind of rooting for him, and I find his interaction with the public a source of amusement. My suspicion is that he's stumbled onto something. I have questions about whether it will see the light of day anytime soon.


    Good for you. You actually make a lot of sense here. I guess you simply fell into a cognitive bias trap investing so much time and effort in your position. Hard to quit I guess.

  • I haven't viewed the whole video. People (not just para*) keep popping up with "the voltage was reported to 11.52 V across the entire system" and "use the current from before, 0.09 A". If those numbers are important, why aren't they in the report?


    I think the reason is that they are Lewan's measurements from the dummy tests he was allowed to do rather than the "official" Rossi-provided values that were used for COP calculations.


    ~11.52V was the voltage across the reactor with the 800 Ohm resistor instead of the QX, during one of those tests.


  • The only thing about tyhe ni

    You can't get away with games like that. You inserted the output of the QX into the equation and pretend ohm's law still applies

    And why not? The "official" evaluator thinks that the power of the 1 ohm resistor is the "input" to the system for calculating "COP" -- and that a resistive network describes the Qx.

    I just used v = i*r (ohm's law) and w = i^2*r (electrical power law)

  • corrected in red.

    not that now it makes more sense but it's what he said.


    From my understanding the control system does not output the same votage/waveform because it does not detect that the QX is in the "on" state after the plasma-generating impulse.

  • Someone I work with told me there is a specific population of people "who believes in their own lies".

    He was considering the possibility on Rossi... Today, we ignore that controversy. He have more useful to prepare. Me, I'm tired. why not just ignore?

    I guess Bruce H. is too modest to re-post his ECW comment from today, s..

    I disagree with this. One of the conclusions surrounding Mr Rossi's activities over the years is that the possibility of him simply misinterpreting his own results has become rather small. Of the 3 possibilities -- he has something, he is deluding himself, he is purposely fooling others -- the middle one has pretty much disappeared leaving the other 2 as the only real considerations.

    ...

  • SOOO?? the only smart guy that downloaded the first release disappeared and deleted his posts??


    Interesting...what happened to Ahlfors btw? Obviously he went back from the end in this thread and carefully deleted all his previous posts, easy to spot based on the time of deletion... ?? Seems he's gone completely quiet...

  • Someone I work with told me there is a specific population of people "who believes in their own lies".

    He was considering the possibility on Rossi... Today, we ignore that controversy. He have more useful to prepare. Me, I'm tired. why not just ignore?


    Not really credible. At least Fabiani seems to know almost equally much about the inner workings of the E-Cat QX control box. Also, what is much much more common (everyone of us affected, both sides of the fence) is cognitive biases and motivation connected to them.

  • Interesting...what happened to Ahlfors btw? Obviously he went back from the end in this thread and carefully deleted all his previous posts, easy to spot based on the time of deletion... ?? Seems he's gone completely quiet...


    Ahlfors got offended that Rends (LENR-Forum admin) amended one of his comments that included a snide remark in Italian, which Google Translate incorrectly translated as an insult, and deleted his previous posts in protest.

  • From my understanding the control system does not output the same votage/waveform because it does not detect that the QX ...

    That’s why the entire idea of a “dummy run” with 0 Ohm and a 800 Ohm resistor is complete nonsense. - It doesn’t proof anything, even when Rossi wouln’t be caught red handed flipping some switches.


    Any electronic hobbyist can build a power supply which checks the type of load on it, and changes it’s mode automatically according to the load.

  • A pity, if the original youtube video of the "conference" with the full audio coverage was lost! This could have been a good source for better understanding what happened in Stockholm, but maybe also another nail to Rossis QX coffin? There is a plan why the first video was removed, edited and re-uploaded, now without audio for most of its parts...