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

    Why arent physicist adressing the elephant in the room??


    Who on earth can state that there is no voltage drop in the reactor????

    True, plasma can have low conductivity BUT to generate plasma you have to have VOLTAGE!!! and thereby resistance. His avoiding this in his calculations and thats the only reason he can state energy production with COP.

    Why arent Mats Lewan adressing this?


    Im really frustrated, Rossi is still trying to kill "lenr" with his stupid demonstrations and you are all fuelling this muppet show by showing up and giving him spotlight.

    LENR is real but you are all mislead by the greatest puppest master...

    So I suggest you all get your head out of the sand, go back and focus on real data, real experiments and real theory.

    This is the clearest shot I can find of the temperature : presuming the Qx turns on and off instantly the time constant of the rise and fall is too long to see any exponential rise/fall at 10-second intervals. Thus it neither proves nor disproves that the Qx could be a resistor-heater fake.
    3774-stockholm-demo-061-jpg

    In the simplest comparison, there was only one QX device, measured two different ways.


    The two measurement methods and their respective output calculations should agree with each other, subject to the relative uncertainty of each measure. Therefore the magnitude of the uncertainty of the respective output calculations can be qualitatively assessed by comparison to the magnitude of the mean of the two output results calculated by different methods. If the magnitude of the either output calculation exceeds the magnitude of the mean of the output calculations, then neither output calculation can be considered to be representative without further data from this device. With only one example of each method, using this demonstrated device, there is no way to determine which is more representative than the other, although both might be considered representative if they closely agree.


    Fusio - if you read this thread the deficiencies in Rossi's demo - i.e. it demonstrates nothing - have been quite well argued and not refuted anywhere.


    my Durapot slab has a COP of 63600 using the 1 ohm method.

    26 mV DC across 1 ohm resistor in series with slab.

    43 watts out of slab.

    Quote from damn_right _man

    But what do we really now know ?

    There will be no further demo. Our next public action will be the launch of the product.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    So you can bet on most of the future speculation on this forum will be codswallop. We know what the QX is supposed to do, but there is no proof it works or doesn't work. We won't know more until the product is shown, unless Rossi reveals it in his blog.



    I'm not a physicist, but I've been saying since the Gullstrom paper that the second issue with the experimental setup is that the reactor's resistance might not be constant.


    So, nothing new, but you did phrase it better than me.


    1) We need actual input power to the reactor

    2) We need it for the entire duration of the experiment


    Again, I am not a physicist, but how does the reactor even receive any energy if R=0? Hint: R varies with temperature.

    Quote from bang99

    I will do an upload to GoogleDrive and gonna post the URL here, access to everybody until DL limit exceeds.
    I will delete the file some days later.


    It works, many thanks. The most interesting parts are the discussions in Italian with other people. It seems clear (and openly acknowledged) that rather powerful discharges were occurring and Rossi really didn't want people to get too close to the Quark X because of this.


    Some notes I took, transcriptions I made; will continue later.



    Try


    External Content youtu.be
    Content 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.

    By the way: a brief discharge of say 1500V, which seemed appropriate for a 0.6mm gap, would be lethal with the currents potentially involved, which might have been much greater than what the 400mV scale of the oscilloscope suggested. The oscilloscope graph went off-scale during that pulse, so there's no way to know the exact value, and it seemed quite a loud spark.

    Since I have those exact clamps, perhaps I should test their resistance to the ends of the horizontal bar to the base plate? The clamps swivel over a set of rivits. Probably when squeezing something the resistance should be very low. But just a bit loose, where they might arc against the QX ends, the resistance could be something...


    Edit: A quick test shows the expected quite low to negligable resistance. The highest resistance is when the clamps are backed off all the way and it becomes loose.

    Also where the bolt threads into the end of the actuator is a potential problem spot. The threads are crappy inside the clamp actuator rod, and quite loose on the threads of standard boots. The bolt would have to be cinched in there tight, and not rusty to make a good connection.

    Quote from can

    By the way: a brief discharge of say 1500V, which seemed appropriate for a 0.6mm gap, would be lethal with the currents potentially involved, which might have been much greater than what the 400mV scale of the oscilloscope suggested. The oscilloscope graph went off-scale during that pulse, so there's no way to know the exact value, and it seemed quite a loud spark.


    50 to 100 kilovolts

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.