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

Quote from zorud

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...

You have seen too much - “Look right here”:

I’m wondering if Rossi was aware before the demo, that there will not only be a camera in front of the center of the stage capturing the show, but also a fixed camera from the side.

When Rossi messed with the PUS/Control switch, Fabiani was coincidently covering the scene from the center camera.

Quote from axil

Karl-Henrik Malmqvist
November 25, 2017 at 5:37 PM

Dear Andrea,

Thank you for the QX presentation yesterday. One thing you could do next time...

Andrea Rossi
November 26, 2017 at 4:23 AM

Kerl-Hentik Malmqvist:

Thank you for your suggestion. There will be no further demo. Our next public action will be the launch of the product.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

But, but. but .....................

according to you One of many demos

Quote

Rossi has said that this demo is the first of many to be staged all over the world.

Quote from Tony

It sort of makes sense doesn't it? If you are the industrial partner you'd want to keep the information advantage as long as possible?

No, it does not make any sense. There is zero chance this could be kept secret if it were true.

Quote from Tony

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.

To draw your unbiased, clear-sighted conclusion about the cognitive bias in my conclusions, we must set aside information acquired from watching Rossi do the same thing over and over in different forms. Usually the way it works is that the more information that one can draw upon, the more informed the conclusions.

Your flip responses give me the impression that you're here with the specific purpose of debating.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

No, I said it wasn't proven. Penon is highly educated and said it worked. IH didn't (have) want to pay $900 million. It is possible they thought they could get Rossi's IP, develop it further themselves and postpone the need to pay for a successful test. Who knows?

Highly educated!?! If Penon believes his report he is a nitwit. If he does not believe it he is a criminal fraud.

"Who knows" is anyone with an ounce of sense. It is obviously fake.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

You still have not answered my logical question. What could Rossi possibly gain demonstrating a reactor that didn't work.

I did answer. You don't like my answer, but I answered. Rossi's goal in demonstrating a reactor that does not work is to defraud very foolish people who think it does work. He makes the fraud obvious to sensible people, in order to filter those people out. That leaves only very gullible people. The same technique is used by spam scammers who pretend they are from Nigeria. They are "deliberately implausible." See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec…berately-implausible.html

https://www.microsoft.com/en-u…ay-they-are-from-nigeria/

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Anyways, just to summarize the reported radiant power (since this was getting mixed up here and elsewhere earlier), Rossi says at 2:27:00 or so, that the area of the reactor is 0.6 cm x 0.08 cm * 2 * pi and the temperature of 2036 K (not so well measured perhaps).

That makes 48.7 W, and the radius of the plasma/reactor to be 0.08 cm, or a diameter of 0.16 cm (1.6 mm)

(48.971 W if I don't skimp on all the decimal places in the area)

I eventually gave a look at the indicated time. I think Rossi jumbled because the spectrometer didn't work as he wanted and he was getting irritated:

Quote

[2:26:21] [Rossi] So I repeat: once we had obtained with the Wien equation the temperature of 2636 K at this point we go to the Boltzmann equation where watts are equal to sigma * epsilon * T^4 * area, wherein by substitution it becomes 5.67 * 10^-8 that becomes -12 because later we will consider the area in square centimeters and not in square meters; * 1, that is the epsilon, is the emissivity; * 2036^4 becomes 4.8 *10^13 and then * the area of the reactor that is 0.08 * 2 * Pi * 0.6. Believe me: the final result will be about… between 70-71 watts, which is higher than the energy that has been calculated by calorimetry, but this is obvious because in the case of the spectrometer we go to see the real energy and 100% of the real energy that is inside the plasma, while here with calorimetry we have only, we have been able to measure only the thermal energy that has been exchanged between the reactor and the heat exchanger, so the heat passed from the plasma through the wall of the heat exchanger through the water and then we had obviously have losses here etc etc, so the efficiency of the calorimeter is enormously minor than the energy measured directly by spectrometry, but in any case even with a high efficiency heat exchanger it is impossible to reach an efficiency equal to the… to get all the energy that is inside the plasma.

[2:29:05] [Rossi] Sorry for the very approximative… I just wanted to try to do something but unfortunately we did not have the dark and so we did not have a spectrometry. I have described to you what I have discovered. That anyway does not affect in any measure the calorimetry that we made before. Well.

Compare with this from earlier on (which was consistent with what he said in Italian with Lewan in the lost audio section):

Quote

[1:56:54] [Lewan] And, one last question Andrea: you also mentioned the dimensions of the plasma, which is, as far as I understand, there's a light inside the reactor which is fairly (?) this size: a few centimeters; but the real size of the plasma is much smaller.

[Rossi] Yes. It is about 0.6 millimeters in length and 0.08 millimeters in diameter.

[Lewan] Ok, so a really small grain. Pretty… I mean…

[Rossi] Like a piece of hair.

[Lewan] Ah. And you measured that, you told me you measured that in what way?

[Rossi] Yes.

[Lewan] With what kind of instrument did you measure that?

[Rossi] The spectrometer.

Display More

But maybe he's not measuring just the area of the plasma?

Quote from Tony

I did not deal in absolutes. I said it is in the industrial partner interest to keep an information advantage as long as possible. I believe that argument makes sense, don't you?

No, it does not make a nanogram of sense, and the strategy could not work, in any case. Thousands of people, including me, know more about cold fusion than any "industrial partner" would. If Rossi's results were even partially credible, we would know. I know about the other attempts to do Ni cold fusion. Keeping this secret would be like trying to keep a project to develop self-driving cars secret. Everyone who knows about that technology knows who is developing it and what they have accomplished.

Cold fusion is still at the level of fundamental physics research. You cannot develop that sort of thing in secret. If it ever starts to become practically useful, I along with hundreds of other people will hear about that within weeks. Who do you think these "industrial partners" would turn to for expertise? Who knows about this subject other than the people who have been working on it all these years? They are academic scientists. They do not keep secrets. Why do you think they gather at ICCF conferences for, other than to trade information?

Quote from Tony

I did not state my opinion was unbiased. You did. However if you state yours is unbiased I (as I said) don't believe you.

My stating that your conclusion was unbiased and clear-sighted was a subtle way of highlighting that it might not be unbiased or clear-sighted. I will admit to my biases; but biases informed by long experience are different from biases informed by other things.

Quote from Tony

I suppose the socratic method of dialogue can both be called debating and a path to the finding the truth, don't you agree?

The socratic method is indeed a good path to truth. What you're doing doesn't really feel like the socratic method. You're selectively replying to secondary details while omitting to rebut or acknowledge primary points that are made. Finding any little thing to quibble with is something different than the socratic method.

My apologies to the thread for letting this get so meta.

Quote from Zeus46

*Have you never heard of a steam meter?

Or sparging, which costs nothing. As far as I can tell from Penon's schematic, there was no valve to vent the stream (or hot water) from Doral setup, so you couldn't even do that.

The only place in the loop you could see the water was in the translucent reservoir tank it flowed back into. It was liquid water by the time it reached that stage. Given the temperature of the fluid between the reactor and the radiator, I think it must have been liquid everywhere in the circuit, but there was never any way to confirm that. Ridiculous!

Exactly. Due to the measuring method, it can't be known whether it was 100% steam or 100% liquid. Entirely useless, and a total waste of time. And obviously so, too - That's what annoys me the most.

But fitting one of the many types of steam meter to a pipe has to be easier (and less dangerous) than sparging that much alledged steam!

Quote from Tony

What are you talking about? I believe everyone agrees that one of the goals for the demo was Rossi showing the tech and getting in touch with potential investors and/or industrial partners, right? And don't you agree that a potential industrial partner would value some information advantage? And do you agree that in order for an industrial partner to build a factory with Rossi it is reasonable to assume they will certify that the technology works as claimed?

I believe everyone agrees that one of the goals for the demo was Rossi showing the tech

He did not show the tech in any meaningful sense since what he showed did not have input power measured and could therefore have been anything. Actually what he did is what he is good at, creating a lot of internet interest.

And don't you agree that a potential industrial partner would value some information advantage?

I don't know what you mean by that in this case. How does a demo that shows nothing give anyone an information advantage? Rossi pretended he measured the input power, and generated pretend COP. So presumably that info is OK. So why not measure input properly. At such high COP as Rossi claims it is completely irrelevant whether 20, 100, or 1000 for purposes of industrial usage. What Rossi has obscured is the information about whether his stuff works or not. Is that what you meant? Because I think an investor would normally be Ok with public disclosure that the technology they invested in was real.

And do you agree that in order for an industrial partner to build a factory with Rossi it is reasonable to assume they will certify that the technology works as claimed?

Only if they are (a) existent (b) reputable and (c) not foolish. These qualifications are needed because so far all of of Rossi's partners have been non-existent (see court info), not reputable (Defkalion), or foolish (IH).

Quote from Zeus46

But fitting one of the many types of steam meter to a pipe has to be easier (and less dangerous) than sparging that much alledged steam!

Yes, of course.

I believe there was a gadget to separate steam from water, but Rossi removed it.

I think a a valve of some sort is often included in a large industrial boiler. I have seen one in a Hydrodynamics gadget installation. I do not mean a valve that would vent all of the fluid (steam or water). That would be extremely dangerous! I mean a heavy hose attached to the outlet pipe with a spring loaded valve that looks like an oversized garden hose sprayer. You squeeze the handle and steam comes shooting out. Not all of the steam from the whole pipe! Just a sample, to check the steam quality.

If there had been something like this in the Doral circuit, I expect a stream of hot water would have come out, instead of steam.

Quote from Zeus46

Exactly. Due to the measuring method, it can't be known whether it was 100% steam or 100% liquid. Entirely useless, and a total waste of time. And obviously so, too - That's what annoys me the most.

But fitting one of the many types of steam meter to a pipe has to be easier (and less dangerous) than sparging that much alledged steam!

Barry West was debriefed by Murray in July 2015 while the 1-year test was ongoing. In a memo he wrote following the debriefing, Murray said "It was indicated that there was a steam flow sensor installed in the system by Dr. Penon. This sensor was located in the steam line between the source and the sink but the device "burned out" at some point and therefore no mass or volume flow is readily available". (235-11 page 32).

Source and sink refer to the ECat plant and the JMP plant, respectively.

Other things burnt out at the Doral plant too. By the beginning of the official 1-year test on Feb 23 2015, the configuration of the ECat plant that Penon had visited only days before had radically altered due to burnouts. I assume that steam flow sensor was one of the casualties.

The final item in Murray's memo reads in part "BW noted that Dr. Rossi and Dr. Penon have heated arguments in Italian when he is present at the facility."*.

I'll bet!

* "BW" is Barry West.

Quote from Bruce__H

Barry West was debriefed by Murray in July 2015 while the 1-year test was ongoing. In a memo he wrote following the debriefing, Murray said "It was indicated that there was a steam flow sensor installed in the system by Dr. Penon. This sensor was located in the steam line between the source and the sink but the device "burned out" at some point and therefore no mass or volume flow is readily available"

Cheers Bruce, I hadn't known that. Perhaps Penon does deserve some credit.

One does wonder how it's possible to "burn out" a steam meter though. All I know is that most would stop working when flooded with excessive amounts of water...

Quote from can

I eventually gave a look at the indicated time. I think Rossi jumbled because the spectrometer didn't work as he wanted and he was getting irritated:

Compare with this from earlier on (which was consistent with what he said in Italian with Lewan in the lost audio section):

But maybe he's not measuring just the area of the plasma?

Display More

Well then, if we go back to mm from cm the output is miniscule.

The majority of the math he used is straight from the Gullstrom-Rossi report, including the conversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to suit cm² instead of m².

And then we have a few orders of magnitude problem with the fluid heating demonstration. Perhaps his reactors simply prefer to heat liquids uber alles.