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

• OK .. I got the on/off duty cycles (0.56 on 0.44 off, 8.3 sec period) from the video above. (Thx). The on/off period is too short to see if there is the exponential rise/fall of output.

The waveform is complex, so I analyzed it with ....

Hi Alan. As usual I admire your commonsense and empirical take on things. However I am afraid I don't understand much of what is going on in your spreadsheets. For instance is this a temperature waveform you are trying to model? What do the symbols like D and V12 mean?

• Hi Alan. As usual I admire your commonsense and empirical take on things. However I am afraid I don't understand much of what is going on in your spreadsheets. For instance is this a temperature waveform you are trying to model? What do the symbols like D and V12 mean?

Sorry ... I was in a bit of a rush.

R1, V1, I1, P1 are resistance, voltage, current and power across the 1 ohm.
Ditto R2 .... which is 0 ohms (conductor), 800 ohms or Qx (unknown equivalent)
V12 is voltage across both components, ie power supply peak voltage.

I'll have to correct the folowing, which are confusing :

D at the top is the duty cycle ON ratio (0.56) but later on means DC!

W was meant to be the ELECTRICAL "Waveform factor" (as seen on the oscilloscope) ... but that's confusing with W for Watts!

Here "D" is "DC" "S" is sinusoidal (just given for reference) and "D+S" is DC offset plus S for Sine.

Values are 1.0 for DC, 0.707 for Sine, 0.612 for DC + Sine ...

• Revised spreadsheet and screenshot .. no change to data

DC Supply

• Revised spreadsheet and screenshot .. no change to data

DC Supply

l

Alan,

In your opinion, based on everything you know and have seen, does Rossi have a device that produces Energy Out > Energy In

• He may, or he may not. This "demo" was null, inconclusive.

He apparently wanted to keep the waveform secret, by not showing the voltage across the Qx/800 ohm or (equivalently), the power supply. The voltage across the resistor reveals everything about the "shape" of the waveform -- but he chose to hide the "amplitude" data (voltage) which would have proven it works.

All original ecats, excluding the "heat exchanger" test : strong indications.
Levi's water test: probably.

"The Customer" 1MW .. too much hidden to be conclusive, but probably.
The "IH acceptance \$10M 1MW" : probably.

Doral : who knows. Penon is self-consistent, but may not reflect reality.

Hotcats : errors or omissions in the IR calorimetry, possible errors in the connections : inconclusive.

Qx : probably, but not proven.

• Alan Fletcher: you list a bunch of inconclusive or even null results and yet you conclude that all these things probably work. Why?

I'm not sure I can give you an answer in the time I have available.

Leaving out Doral (fake customer, heat dissipation, flow level questions) ... the alternative explanations were not (in the most part) conclusive either.

ps: The best experimentalist in the whole saga is Mats Lewan.

• AF, I guess “probably” means something different to you from what it means to me.

Depends what resolution you're using :

x2 : unlikely | probably

x3 : unlikely | possibly | probably

x4 : unlikely | possibly | probably | likely

... disproven | ... | probably | ... | proven

# Words of Estimative Probability (CIA!)

 100% Certain 93% give or take about 6% Almost certain 75% give or take about 12% Probable 50% give or take about 10% Chances about even 30% give or take about 10% Probably not 7% give or take about 5% Almost certainly not 0% Impossible

On the CIA scale I think I'd have to go with "chances about even" ... but at the 60% level

• Why isn't it just a sum of sines ... something like this (500Hz + 410 Hz)

It could be, I guess. Perhaps wave interference forms lower frequency patterns.

• It could be, I guess. Perhaps wave interference forms lower frequency patterns.

When 2 sine waves are summed together the resulting waveform has an amplitude envelope that varies at frequency = f1 - f2. If the 2 sines are close in frequency then, of course, f1 - f2 is small and so the amplitude modulation has a low frequency. I thought it was common knowledge, but perhaps it isn't.

In acoustics the phenomenon is called "beating" and you can hear it.

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.

• I was loosely aware about frequency beatings; I didn't associate that with the waveform.

• Cleverly orchestrated, designed and tested means of misdirection?

Doral was anything but clever, orchestrated or designed. It was a farce from start to finish. That was clear to me five minutes after seeing the data.

Some of the other experiments have been much more convincing, as I said several times. You have not found a problem with them, and neither have I. Subsequent events cast doubt on them, but no one has found a problem or an indication of fraud. That does not mean there was no fraud.

• I am convinced that inside the 'controlbox' (if it is a controller at all) is a 12V battery (AGM for cars, or for use as solar ups power supply e.g.)

There is a grey 230V wire going in the box that is probably connected with a battery charger.

At the end of the demo the battery is discharged the voltage is 11.52 V what is normal for an empty battery.

The overall voltage of the system is 12 Volt. see Video:

"So, the total voltage of the system is 12Volt" - Mats Lewan at 02:42:26 confirmed by Fabiani and Rossi.

The switch-intervall of the controlbox is ~14 sec (see timestamp of the screenshots),

~0 Volt 02:41:44

11.52 Volt 02:41:45

~0 Volt 02:41:58

11.52 Volt 02:41:59

~0 Volt 02:42:11

11.52 Volt 02:42:19 (visibility delayed covered by Rossis head)

~0 Volt 02:42:25

11.52 Volt 02:42:26

~0 Volt 02:42:38

11.52 Volt 02:42:40

~0 Volt 02:42:51

11.52 Volt 02:42:53

~0 Volt 02:43:05

My assumption is that a fully charged battery was used which has done all the work, hence the short test period, the thin wires and the secret fiddling with the control box.

## Images

• I did spend some time trying to work out what was under that white cover. It did not seem to match the case for the power supply from the Doral photo.

• "So, the total voltage of the system is 12Volt" - Mats Lewan at 02:42:26 confirmed by Fabiani and Rossi.

Doesn't compute for me. I listened to parts of the video and there was talk of switching the scope from the 1 ohm to the 800 ohm. Mats said he expected 1/800 .. but Fabiani and Rossi seemed to disagree.

But I originally got the 0.02 V across the 1 ohm (for my calculations ) from Mats' blog -- with the current 0.02 amps. Applying that current to 801 ohms gives 16V supply voltage.

Also, as Mats noted, the waveform for this test was totally different from the live test -- though it's just the ratios that matter.

• Doesn't compute for me.

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.

• 0.015V instead of 0.020V across the one ohm resistor would give you your 12V. (12V/801 Ohms=0.01498 Amps or appx 0.015V across the 1 ohm resistor) And 12 V storage batteries are a bit higher than 12 V when fully charged. How accurate was that 0.02V? How do we know?

• A pulsed discharge of a 12V battery with current values of 5 and 15A with a period of 14 seconds would look like this.