Comments on the QX Demonstration (Michael Lammert — aka Dr. Mike)

The following post has been submitted by Michael Lammert.

Comments on the QX Demonstration
Michael Lammert (aka Dr. Mike)

     The most importance result of the 11/24/2017 demonstration of Rossi’s QX device was that there was some new information revealed on the QX device and its control. The key new knowledge includes:

  1. The QX device is not controlled by a dc current. Thanks to Mats Lewan convincing Rossi to place an oscilloscope across the 1 ohm series sampling resistor, we now know that the QX device is powered by a moderate frequency signal (on the order of 100KHz), rather than a 0.1A dc signal as claimed in previously disclosed measurements.  It appears that Rossi was not pleased that Mats mentioned that the oscilloscope was set on a 100μsec scale as can be observed in the demo at a play time of about 0:38.  If Rossi was deceptive originally with his claim that the device operated on a 0.1A dc current, it also seems possible that the device is being delivered signals with frequencies much higher than the 100μsec scale setting on the oscilloscope would show.  The time scale of the oscilloscope should have been cycled through its full range to verify that no very high frequency signals were present (1MHz-100MHz) when the QX device was operating.
  2. The control box will need a lot of development to produce a useful system. Rossi claimed that there were over-heating problems in the control box that required a rather high use of power for active cooling.  Although the input power to the controller was not measured, it seems that the controller was drawing much more power than 22W of claimed output power for the QX devices.  Heating problems in the controller are just not consistent with the output power to the QX devices being less than 0.1W.   Until this issue is resolved, the possibility of the QX devices being supplied with a high frequency signal can not be discounted.
  3. The On-Off function was demonstrated. The QX devices started in an “off” mode, were turned on to heat the water, were turned “off’ at the end of the calorimetry test, then were turned on and off at least one time during the attempt to set up a spectrometry measurement.  This is adequate to demonstrate the “on-off “ function of the QX devices, but it would have been better if the spectrometer could have been used to measure the time it took to bring the devices up to full power.
  4. The controller does not appear to have any feedback from the QX devices. Based on Mats Lewan’s slide #5, which does not show any feedback going from the QX devices to the controller, it seems that the QX devices are controlled only by the output of the controller.  (Perhaps someone attending the demonstration can verify if they saw any feedback wires going from the QX devices to the controller.)  Obviously, some type of feedback will eventually need to be added to the controller system for a commercial product, possibly to automatically control the knob within the current controller that sets the power output percentage (30% for the demo).  One implication of operating a system in such a manner is that QX devices must be manufactured to extremely tight tolerances so that groups of devices can be operated in parallel with a common controller input.


There were several other general observations that I made in viewing the demo.  First, input power to the QX devices was not measured.  Rossi continued to use his approach of attempting to measure the power in a 1 ohm series sampling resistor, then claiming that the power to the QX devices is less than this power.  If Rossi’s claim that the resistance (impedance) of the QX devices is less than 1 ohm were verified by an independent source, his method of setting an upper limit for the device’s input power would be valid.  Mats Lewan attempted to validate Rossi’s claim by testing the controller with a short circuit and an 800 ohm resistor replacing the QX devices, quite a good idea!  However, check out the demo for running this part of the experiment, which starts at about 2:30.  At about 2:31 Rossi opens the control box and make some adjustments (maybe turning off high frequency supplies?).  It’s no wonder that the oscilloscope waveforms were entirely different for this control experiment.  Any data that one tries to use from this portion of the experiment to validate Rossi’s claims is invalid.  Perhaps meaningful data could have been acquired if this experiment had been run as follows:

  • Connect a shorting wire in parallel with an 800 ohm resistor in parallel with the operating QX devices.
  • Measure any change in the 1 ohm series resistor’s waveform with this effective short circuit added.
  • Cut one lead (or both leads) to the QX devices, leaving the parallel short circuit and 800 ohm resistor (effectively just a short circuit).
  • Measure any change in the 1 ohm series resistor’s waveform.
  • Cut the shorting wire leaving the 800 ohm resistor in place of where the QX devices were originally.
  • Measure any change in the 1 ohm series resistor’s waveform.


In Rossi’s defense of modifying the controller prior to the short circuit test, it seems likely that the controller really could not be turned on when only connected to the 1 ohm series resistor.  The controller was designed to expect to see a very high initial resistance of “off” QX devices at the time when it is turned on.

I’m sure that everyone will agree that the attempt to use a spectrometer to measure the device output power was a total failure, perhaps because the spectrometer could not be aligned carefully enough to get an accurate spectrum measurement.  However, Rossi gave us the result he expected (a calculated output power of 71W).  For this calculation Rossi assumed the emissivity was 1.0.  What is his basis for this assumption?  Then he claimed that the discrepancy between this calculated 71W and the measured 22W from calorimetry was probably due to losses in the heat exchanger.  Why would anyone use a calculation based on no observed data as a basis for saying that the one part of the experiment that seemed to go well (the calorimetry measurements) really wasn’t done correctly because the heat exchanger losses were not accounted for?  Unbelievable!  Of course, Rossi did not follow my suggestion of using a control heat source to replace the QX devices so that the errors in the calorimetry (such as heat exchanger losses) could be estimated.

It certainly is not clear why Rossi decided to run the devices at 30% power, assuming that this was an actual decision.  I had previously made a suggestion that the QX devices be operated a two different power levels just to demonstrate that the output QX device power is adjustable.  I would have much rather seen the devices ran at 70% power for 15-30 minutes at a steady state ΔT, then at 100% power for another 15-30 minutes at a steady state ΔT.

There are several other things that could have been modified to improve the demonstration, including:

  1. The input water thermocouple was apparently placed before the water pump, rather than right at the input to the devices.
  2. It seems the oscilloscope was not triggered correctly on purpose to obscure the real waveform across the 1 ohm series resistor.
  3. The power dissipated in the 1 ohm series resistance was apparently calculated as the peak voltage squared divided by the 1 ohm resistance. It should have been calculated as the RMS voltage squared divided by the 1 ohm resistance.  (The RMS voltage is unknown because the applied waveform is unknown.)
  4. The factor of operation with 3 seconds on and 4 seconds off does not appear to be included in the calculation of the power delivered to the 1 ohm series resistor. (A factor of 2 is used rather than 7/3.)
  5. Rossi should have been wearing a microphone for the entire demonstration.
  6. It might have been better to have a formal Q&A session during the 60 minute calorimetry period, rather than the free for all “come and see”.



Perhaps a few scientists and engineers are satisfied with the procedures and methodology used in the QX demonstration to show the capabilities of the QX technology.  However, I believe most scientists and engineers would agree with me that there are just too many unanswered questions to declare the QX demonstration a scientific success.   The methodology used to calculate the QX device COP assumes an unverified assumption that the QX devices have much less than 1 ohm of “on” resistance, and that the controller is not delivering any unmeasured high frequency energy to the devices.

One concern with the demonstration is Rossi’s “choice” to run the QX devices at only 30% of what he considers to be their maximum output power rating.  This decision says a lot for Rossi’s confidence in the state of the QX technology.  Perhaps the largest issue in the demonstration is the fact that the controller needs to be actively cooled when it is claimed to provide an output power that is less than 0.1W.  Of course one explanation for the high controller power consumption is that a really poor circuit design was used to create the output waveform.  A simpler explanation would be that the controller is delivering unmeasured high frequency energy to the QX devices.  Time will tell which explanation is correct.

The QX device COP as calculated using Rossi’s methodology doesn’t really seem very important when considering that the current system COP is most likely well less than one.  For Rossi’s technology to gain any acceptance in the scientific community, he will need to demonstrate a system using numerous QX devices with a reasonable system COP (maybe 10-20).  My guess is that he is 1-3 years from such a demonstration, but I certainly wish him good luck in achieving a reasonable system COP.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    The “absence” of wires for feedback does not rule out feedback. The controller has access to both voltage and current waveforms, albeit with the device in series with a 1-ohm resistor. They could be using feedback based on the phase angle of the voltage and/or current waveforms to adjust amplitudes, waveshape, and frequency of the applied drive. Also, it is pretty clear that there is “feedback” that recognizes when a starting pulse has to be applied to ignite the plasma.

    I wish that Mats had at least used a hand-held meter reading RMS voltage across the device — the waveform could have been hidden. Still, even with a meter that reads RMS, the input power could have been near zero due to a phase lag of 90 degrees between voltage and current waveforms.

    • I had proposed this and had also investigated a Fluke instrument capable of handling frequencies up to 100 kHz, but Rossi wouldn’t accept any measurement across the reactor.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        If, in fact, the reactor was causing the oscillations, they might have generated power. All in all, you did a good job, considering the restrictions. From a small portion of the video record, where Rossi discovered that he did not have the reactor on while trying to measure the spectrum, it is apparent that the reactor emits light while running. Did you observe (with your eys) that light? Also, did it follow the 3 second on/four second off pattern observed on the current sensor waveform?

        • Yes, and I have seen the E-Cat QX ‘naked’ before. The light goes on and off instantly with the control power.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            It is clear when you view this video at speed 0.25 that there are 2 powerful clicking control pulses that 1st ignite the plasma and then some time later another clicking pulse terminates the plasma.


            Watch carefully as the grow continues, at a low level, after the 1st bright light burst.

            So we learn the clicking pulses can both ignite the plasma and also terminate it.

            This may be done by using reverse polarity on the termination pulse to drive H+ ions / protons away from the normally negative Ni electrode and to stop the LENR reaction by starving it of H+ ions / protons.

            I believe what we are seeing may work like this:

            Consider 2 x 0.08mm dia electrodes, 2.5mm long, separated by say a 1mm gap. 6mm overall length. One electrode Ni and one say SS. Seal both electrodes in a H2 filled high temp transparent tube.

            Apply -1kv to the Ni electrode and +1kv to the SS electrode for a short time, say 10us.

            Plasma forms between the electrodes, disassociating localised H2 into 2 x H+ protons & 2 x electrons.

            Protons are driven by the 2kv electrical potential to the negative Ni electrode, while electrons are driven to the positive SS electrode.

            Protons arrive at the Ni surface with some KE and are driven into the Ni matrix, initiating a LENR reaction.

            Electron and proton movements also create an electrical potential between the electrodes generating a back EMF, flowing current and energy out of the reactor after the plasma ignition pulse ends.

            QX control circuits monitor the self generated electrical output as an indication of reaction strength. When the reaction slows, as H+ protons are consumed, self generated voltage drops until at some point the control circuit generates another plasma ignition pulse, increasing the supply of H+ protons, increasing LENR reaction strength.

            From the scope images it is clear there are many ignition pulses, spikes on the scope that continue until the control circuit decides to stop the reaction for a few seconds.

          • Rene

            My guess is we are hearing a relay closing then opening. There are two distinct sounds that remind me of relays. As I wrote previously, you can see the bright flash at one end of the QX.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I suspect that it is either a relay, or a “tick” due to a heavy current pulse, or an arc. In the clip above, you can also observe a light flash from the first click followed by a dimmer glow that terminates at the second click. Since there is a bright flash at the start, it is likely an arc at the starting tick. Engineer 48 proposes a reverse voltage pulse at the second click. Perhaps, but it might also be a current pulse, like those used to turn off a conducting SCR by commutating the current through the SCR.

            It is clear that the controller is pretty fancy — however, over the years, I have seen large motor control racks be replaced by small devices as high voltage IGBT’s replaced older components. The efficiencies have also gone way up, reducing thermal cooling requirements. I suspect that the power electronics industry could help Rossi with the controller size and efficiency. He needs to find the right partner. He might try this consortium:


            I have taken courses from them — excellent content in power electronics.

          • can

            Which kind of E-Cat QX did you see “naked”? Could you describe its appearance? The ones used in the demo reportedly had a 0.6×0.08mm plasma area (gap) between the electrodes. It’s been suggested in the past that at least one type is in the form of a small capillary tube and that it’s transparent with a visible gap (not clear if after and/or before usage).

          • The one I saw was similar to the one described in the Rossi-Gullström paper, with about a cm between the electrodes and a blueish light appearing between the electrodes when the reactor was switched on.

        • orsobubu

          I can clearly see, starting 1.27.30, a regular pulse of light flashing every 7 seconds. In particular, after a very brief strong starting flash at second 0, sometimes there is another strong flash at second 0.5, then a very very faint of light continuously still until second 3, then the light goes off until second 7, then pattern repeats regularly.

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for your comment. I assumed that the current controller design is fairly basic- turning on the controller with a switch to turn on the QX devices, a fixed timing cycle of energy being supplied to the devices (3sec on, 4sec off), and the amplitude or timing of the energy supplied to the devices controlling the output of the devices (30% for the demo). Although it might be possible to control the output of the devices using the phase angle, it seems that eventually some type of feedback will have to be incorporated into the control system that measures the temperature of something being heated.

  • A few considerations—as Thomas Kaminski mentions there might be a feedback analysing impedance—falling to almost zero when the plasma is activated— and also electrical signals from the reactor when in operation. Actually, I think that part of the oscillating pattern observed y the oscilloscope might be produce by the reactor, which would also explain why the waveform seen during the dummy test was different from when the reactor was active, without explaining this with any adjustment that Rossi might have done when lifting the hood of the control system box.

    Also—I suggested to Rossi to put a resistance in parallell to the reactor. At 0.3A, if you would put a resistance of for example 100 ohm in parallell, this would limit the maximum theoretical voltage across the reactor to 30V and the maximum input power to 9W, theoretically. But he wouldn’t put anything in parallell to the reactor. Which might also make sense if the control system has to sense if the circuit is open and if it needs to provide a high voltage ignition pulse.

    • orsobubu

      Mats, thank you for your work. I saw from his reaction and face, that Rossi was really disappointed by your gesture near the reactor. Can you tell us his exact words during minutes 0.52-0.54, when you return on the issue saying “e cosa succede se tocco lì?” and him: “Non toccare”? It seems this time there was a subtle vein of amusement in his voice, yet.

      Do you think is it possible have the deleted audio in the central part of the demo? It would be interesting to hear the answers of Rossi and Fabiani with guests.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      If a working hypothesis is that he ignites the plasma with a short high-voltage pulse (because how else could it happen), that excludes putting a resistor in parallel with the reactor.

      • Exactly. Thinking about it, that’s also why he wouldn’t let us measure the voltage across the reactor or across the whole circuit (the output from the control system). A normal voltmeter might break from the HV pulses. And with an oscilloscope it would have been challenging to capture the short HV pulse and then measure a very low voltage immediately afterwords. Apart from that he probably didn’t want to disclose the exact character of this signal.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes – that would also explain why he chose this unusual method. Who knows how many meters he sacrificed before he came to this point 😉

          Another idea might have been replacing the 1 ohm resistor by a slightly different one (0.8 or 1.2 ohm, for example), while leaving the QX where it was. Not completely reliable for various reasons, but perhaps good enough for a rough estimate.

          • Obvious

            Rossi has used, as far as I can tell, one particular voltmeter (a Mitek) for many years now. So we know he is careful to not burn it out.

      • Engineer48
        • Thomas Kaminski

          I suspect that the second pulse is more of a current commutating pulse like that used to turn off a conducting SCR. A relay is a possibility, but so is the “tick” you hear from a current transformer. I also think the first tick is due to a HV ignition plus arc, but it too could be from a pulse transformer. Think about the noise you hear with a typical xenon flash tube. No relays there, just a 500 volt source with a few kV trigger to ignite the xenon.

        • Dr. Mike

          Very interesting. After sending in my post to Frank, I thought I should have also suggested that the oscilloscope’s vertical voltage scale should have been tuned to a much higher voltage setting to see if there were high voltages present that wouldn’t show up on the 100mV scale being used. I assumed that the QX device had to be turned on with a high voltage pulse, but it makes sense that it also could be controlled using high voltage pulses. (Looks like Rossi’s warning to Mats to not touch anything might have been to prevent having a fried Mats!)
          Let’s assume you are correct in that the QX devices are controlled by high energy pulses. Then the real COP of the device would be the output energy divided by the energy in the high voltage pulses. A future system COP would depend entirely on the efficiency of generating and delivering the high voltage pulses to the QX devices. It would be easy to see why Rossi’s initial design of a high voltage power supply and high voltage switching matrix might be quite inefficient. However, it is not clear how efficient a controller could be made to drive 1000’s of devices simultaneously. I don’t see the size of such a controller getting down to the size of a “package of cigarettes” as claimed possible by Rossi, but it may be possible to eventually build a system with a reasonable COP if the power delivered to each device is on the order of 0.1W to 0.5W when devices are operating at full power (20W).

    • Rene

      Mats, the best test would have been another QX but without either the LiAlH or without the nickel. That blank would have similar characteristics as the presumably working QX. We could then have seen whether his controller was just doing ohmic heating or not.

      • Right.

        • Rene

          Thank you for trying everything you could, Mats.

          I am curious if you asked him if he would permit using a blank QX, and if you asked, did Rossi refuse the request.

      • Dr. Mike

        This certainly would have been the best “control” for the demonstration. We still would have to have taken Rossi’s word that the “control” was properly made.

    • Dr. Mike

      Do you know if the cluster of 3 QX device was 3 devices connected in parallel? It seems that it wouldn’t be possible to turn on the devices if they were connected in series.

  • LENR4you

    The QX could be a elektron source. With a diode in one wire you can’t see this extra current over the 1R shunt. The electrons flow the other wire back to Earth. It charges up like a storm cloud. Rossi have to discharge it and there are maybe the overheating effects coming from.

  • Yes it was across the whole system. So the voltage across the 800-ohm resistor must have been about 11.5V since the voltage across the 1-ohm resistor was about 0.02V. Which makes sense approximately (ohm’s law). I was glad we measured this. Rossi had previously said that we couldn’t measure the total output voltage, but Fabiani did it without asking Rossi.

  • orsobubu

    One thing I can say, from a human point of view, is that the part between 0.52 and 0.54, when Rossi and Fabiani are joking in italian with people, is, to my eyes, a crystal clear evidence that they are absolutely relaxed and comfortable and pleased of the situation, and I cannot see in ANY way the possibility of two professional liars trying to scam such 70 special guests; from their words and above all the tone of their voice, I would absolutely exclude a trick going on since 2011 and coping with those people like that.

    • Orsobubu, I agree with your observation. And these are exactly the kind of observations I have added to various measurements and testimonials through the years, covering this story, convincing me that fraud is excluded. The only alternative hypothesis to the technology being valid that I have been trying to investigate is plain mistake or misinterpretation of results.

      • Bruce__H

        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.

        I think there is a certain amount of understandable naivete regarding the range of personalities found in others. Some people are constituted such that they can lie with perfect ease. This can even be seen experimentally in the EEG — I have colleagues involved in such research. Most people (people like you and me I assume) have a measurable brain reaction when caught in an intentional untruth. But some people (about 1% of the population in Western civilizations) do not. Internally, when you and I are caught out, there is an “uh-oh” reaction. In contrast, when these others are caught out in the same way their internal reaction seems to be an absence of the “uh-oh” reaction and a consequent train of thoughts that go something like “OK, this guy didn’t buy that one, let’s try this”. Such people are often intelligent, glib, and superficially charming, but lack empathy and so are manipulative and ruthless. Ordinary people, to their own credit, have a tough time imagining such a state and so are fooled easily. Even psychologists who regularly interview these extraordinary people report being fooled and misled. I can direct you to some of the literature on this if you would like.

        • Dr. Mike

          Consider one more possibility: Rossi has something, but he is working hard to make it appear better than its current state of development. This seems to be the case for the original “e-cat” and the “hot-cat”. With the QX device he put together a demo showing a very good COP (506.66). (Nothing like having a COP measurement to two decimal places when there were obvious errors in the calculation.) However, most scientists and engineers really don’t care about what number was derived for the device COP as insufficient data was taken to measure the actual device COP. The key information from this demo was that the current system COP is most likely much less than 1.0. I don’t see how Rossi will attract much financial support until he demonstrates a reasonable system COP.

        • Rene

          That 1% tends to find themselves as corporate officers, politicians and some entrepreneurs because that skill helps keep them in positions of power, power over or take from those in power.

        • Bruce_H, did you ever meet Rossi?

    • Stefenski

      Yes ,seems genuine body language.

      But it’s a pity he’s such a control freak. Share it with the world . That’s what new ideas are for. Let it get out there a have other’s advance the phenomena.
      Service to others is the only true religion.

      Don’t want another Maurice Ward.

    • psi2u2

      Good point.

  • orsobubu

    And from your post I have the proof you cannot read human nature with 100% certainty. The only worry by Rossi wasn’t his fraud could be exposed, but, exactly to the contrary, that too much of his industrial secret could have leaked from the pointed insights by Lewan.

  • Stefenski

    I am wondering if it was exactly 1 Ohm – as the readings don’t make sense.
    eg measured 0.02V(0.02A) across the 1 ohm resistor.
    which would have been 16V across a the 800 Ohm
    (0.02A * 800 ohm = 16V)

    But only 11.5 V across whole thing !!

    or the 800 resistor was around 600

    • Andreas Moraitis

      If I understood it correctly, the 1 ohm resistor remained in place, while the QX was substituted by the test resistors. But I guess the main reason for the discrepancy you mention might be the inner resistance of the power supply. That would require a more thorough analysis, though.

    • Obvious

      At home I was able to get 1.75 A through a 1 ohm 10 W resistor. It heated to 70 C, and the resistance increased to 1.3 ohms. It is supposed to be 1 ohm within 10% (a real cheap resistor). Good resistors of this size would be within 5%. Not too many handheld meters can measure less than 0.1 ohms, because the meter leads’ resistance starts becoming an issue. The best way is to use a good voltage supply, and use Ohm’s law to check the resistance.

      With strange waveforms, the DC voltage measured across a resistor or circuit can report all sorts of “wrong” values.

  • Rene

    Working on controller: deja vu – all over again 🙂
    And I agree that the power and COP demo overall could not labelled a fraud, but only because he made it close to impossible to either independently verify positive results and nearly impossible to determine primary observations that could disprove his claims.
    What I declare as fraud was his manipulation of the controller while Mats was trying to determine power levels. Mats was told he could do that, but Rossi interfered and hid his interference until confronted recently. And, his answer of manipulating heating vent holes is dismally weak.

    • psi2u2

      Why is it weak?

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree with you that “his answer of manipulating heating vent holes is dismally weak” as the control box was opened a second time and adjustments were made on the side of the box. As I stated in my post, it is quite possible the control box just wasn’t capable of operating under the conditions of the “controls” proposed by Mats so Rossi made some adjustments to either prevent disclosure of IP or to prevent frying some of the components in the control box.
      With the issue of the power consumed by the controller being a major issue at the demo, Rossi is going to have to demonstrate a reasonable system COP if he wants to attract new capital for his venture.

  • georgehants

    Well after watching and reading all the expert comments for two and a half days it is very clear that the “demonstration” as any kind of proof that Rossi has a device capable of giving any excess energy is zero.
    They are using words such as “I think” “it is possible” “clicks could be” Rossi says he did this with the control box, “my guess is” etc. etc. and generally going round in circles.
    Any serious investors must have turned up for a couple of days holiday, as turning up and your own engineers etc. not being able to examine and dictate conditions is worthless.
    Rossi’s plans are his own, but those of us hoping that a new form of energy has been discovered to help Humanity have gained nothing.
    Back to waiting for an open, repeatable conformation from anywhere in the World.
    Good luck to MFMP

    • Pekka Janhunen

      A couple of pages back I advertised a paper by Andras Kovacs et al, which is on page 159 of Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, volume 25 (the most recent volume). The link can be found e.g. on (the official page of the journal seems to be down).

      I know the authors of that paper and I have followed their work. They think (or at least the lead author seems rather convinced) that they have LENR. If that is so, it is interesting because their recipe (which is described in the paper) is such that it should be straightforwardly repeatable. It is also interesting because their experiment does not contain hydrogen, but only copper, nickel and lithium, and no other stimulation method except heating to 1200-1300 C.

      So, now that this recipe has been published, it would be interesting to see others try and replicate it. I am not 100% convinced at the moment that they have LENR, but explaining the observed heat, radiation and radio emissions by conventional means seems hard (= I didn’t succeed when I tried).

      • georgehants

        Pekka, thanks for that, any news of a possible repeatable conformation is Wonderful, let’s hope others can be helped by this publication.

      • Ged

        Very interesting! Thank you, Pekka, for bringing this to our attention. Seems a perfect target for MFMP!

    • As proof I agree, but the more I lok at the details and understand the measurements and the characteristics of the control system, I see a clear indication that the QX works as claimed.

      • georgehants

        Mats, many thanks but my personal interest is in helping all people and the World, it is now almost 8 years since Rossi first declared that he had discovered a technology that could help to achieve that.
        I would not deny for a second that Rossi may be genuine, but as I have written, this demonstration has not helped in the battle to help the World one iota.
        One makes one’s own decision about if the World matters more than Rossi’s desires and acts accordingly, I think.

        • That is an important thought. But I think that history shows us that the world is more complex than that. Only afterwards, if ever, can we tell what helped the world most.

          • georgehants

            Mats, History certainly speaks the Truth allowing for the terrible corruption and censoring that has occurred since the beginning of time and it is not a pretty picture.
            Millions of lives where lost by the delay in penicillin becoming freely available and of course we could get into hours of rhetorical discussion of the causes of the delay, or of those millions dying and suffering unnecessarily today for lack of clean water etc.
            One picks the thinking that suits one best, I think.

          • Yes, and what I think that we don’t know yet is how this technology will best survive the powers that don’t want it to spread over the world.

          • georgehants

            I so agree, then it is up to each one of us to simply do what we can to help the situation, or not as the case may be.
            It is us that are witnessing and making History today.

      • Tobben Heibert

        Thanks for doing an important job Mats, but i must ask. Have you seen any promising signs that this not will lead to just five moore years of waiting? Time is an important factor to judge a fenomens existans when you don’t got much else to hold on to. If something dosent show up it probably don’t mean much impotans to the world. I dont think Rossi hav much moore time to keep the world waiting, or much time to keep you waiting, Mats.

        • Talking to Rossi I understand that he wants to proceed now. He doesn’t want to wait years.

          • Deffoda Jonnyto

            In 2011 he also said that it would only take 1 year to get a product ready for industrialisation. .

          • Slightly optimistic. However, one year later he ran into some nice guys from North Caroline that essentially blocked him for a couple of years. The only good thing is that he learnt a few things on the road, and also came up with some bright ideas for the next generation E-Cat.

          • Rene

            Approach 7 years on that 1 year claim.

          • Tobben Heibert

            So before next christmas we will know if Rossi is for real or not. One year is plenty of time to deliver. Im looking forward to an end of this story, and hopefully it ends up well.

          • Vinney

            This device working at 30% capacity had a conservative COP ( measured in its own circuit) of 500.
            The size of the control box is not an issue in industrial applications supplying minimum 1MW of heat (one controller for thousands of Ecat QX modules).
            It is ready for power station installation, where there is both 24/7 availability of trained personnel and high level of security.
            I would like to know why Rossi doesn’t create a separate company that sells the energy component (or leases the equipment) and allows the public to invest in it.
            He still maintains 100% of the Ecat IP and any improvements, as people are investing in this second company based on energy efficiency and projected growth of the installed sites.
            Of course to get viable figures, he will need a few pilot installations and a manufacturable prototype.
            (These plant will be large, secure with remote and onsite monitoring, and engineered for reliability, thus also expensive).
            This would also aid in his negotiations with an industry partner for massive production, as they can start immediately on improving this prototype, and thus cashflow.
            From recent announcements, he intends building such plant anyway as he is seeking customers that demand copious amounts of heat.
            Why not let investors into such a separate company which will get him millions to develop his plant. I have seen many far less attractive company propositions get funded millions on various capital markets.

          • Possibile progress. I think some steps need to be taken first. An industrial or investing partner seems to be Rossi’s first priority, before building a demo plant. But then I suppose what you suggest is one possible application.

  • They are still working on independent replication and they are stil interested. I haven’t discussed the demo in detail with them.

    • psi2u2

      Do they have plans to publish their results at some point? When? It has been a long time and their silence has been variously interpreted.

      • I think they will, when and if they have results that they are totally confident with. They’re not there yet, as far as I know, and it might take some time. Observe that they have essentially no help from Rossi.

        • psi2u2

          Thanks. Please send them encouragement and thanks when you have a chance.

  • Irao, I think that you’re right and that you’re wrong.
    It’s correct that the control system must adapt to the impedance of the reactor. But it’s wrong to claim that no conclusions can be drawn from the dummy resistor tests (if you trust Rossi with not having manipulated the control system before the dummy tests, and personally I accept his explanations). Any EE student can understand that too.
    Most have concluded that the reactor needs a high voltage pulse to ignite the plasma, and that the low resistance of the plasma then requires the control voltage to be decreased immediately. The short-circuit dummy showed a similar voltage reading across the 1-ohm resistor as with the reactor in operation, which is a good indication of the control system’s behaviour when the plasma is active. The 800-ohm test, on the other hand, revealed both that the control system would increase output voltage at an increased resistance, but only to about 12V. It therefore also revealed that when the circuit resistance is 800 ohms, which should have produced about 50W dissipated heat at 0.25A, the current in the circuit only arrived at about 20mA and the power consumed by an hypothetical reactor with a high inner resistance would therefore not be close to the thermal power released. And any resistance lower than 800 ohms would, at 0.3A, result in a lower consumed/dissipated power.
    At this point, many have also concluded that the reactor produces some kind of electrical signal in itself, that makes the situation more complex, but that would not increase its power consumption.

  • Yes, one private, for me.

  • Gerard McEk

    Dr. Mike, I like your summary of the event.
    The questions is why Andrea intended to show us this, while exposing some details he might have wanted to hide. At least the resulting COP has, as he could have known, no value because it is not independently verified. Showing a black box generating only 20 watts of power will not impress many. I am sure many investors weren’t impressed. Even for his enthausiastic followers (to which I calculate myself) this presentation brings more confusion than believing it really works. So why???
    One good thing it could be the result of this event: it may have given replicaters inspiration to try this also and I hope they will succeed this time. 😐

  • Dr. Mike

    I believe a very valid question might be : Why didn’t Rosii wait until he could demonstrate that the output of some number of his devices was producing significantly more power than the power consumed by the controller? From a scientist/engineer’s viewpoint I can see why you might see the demo as a failure, but at least now we know that the key factor to Rossi’s success will be in the controller design.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe it isn’t that difficult to replicate the QX. Obviously there is no need start doing the in the miniature form of the QuarkX. I would do it in a small vacuum chamber, using a Hvac turbo pump. After having a good vacuum I would fill it with H2. Pressure is obviously unknown, yet. Via a glass insulated feed through to which internally the Nickel electrodes are connected having similar distances and sizes as Andrea, we can feed the DC currents. I would use HV (positive) starting pulse of minimal 1 kV, a similar negative pulse to stop it. It is thought that the plasma may generate a sine wave shaped current due to acoustic shock waves. These waves are of a different size and frequency due to the different shape of the reactor room.
    It is thought that just Ni and H2 would already cause LENR effects. Enhancements can be reached by adding Li.

    • Dr. Mike

      Such a system might work for experimental purposes. The problems that I see include how would you be able to measure the amount of excess heat generated, and how would you prevent the Ni from overheating if you were able to generate a significant amount of excess heat?
      You have a good point with not needing Li. With Rossi’s claim that the reactor chamber is only 0.08mm in diameter and 0.6mm long, it really doesn’t seem likely that there is anything in the reaction chamber other than some hydrogen gas.

      • What he said is that the plasma has that dimension. I don’t think he said anything about the reaction chamber, and my impression is that the chamber is much larger. In the Rossi-Gullström paper the distance between the electrodes is said to be 1.5 cm.

  • A few things became clear after this demonstration. 1. Rossi Clearly has a device that creates excess heat. 2. A controlling system for the device is proving to be a challenge for commercial use. 3. Rossi is very concerned about others catching up with him. 4. A commercial e-cat product is still years away (unless they produce a simple on/off device). 5. Brilliant Light Power is in the Lead to produce and introduce a working Emerging Energy sourced device.

    • I doubt no 5.

    • Omega Z

      If the controller is Rossi’s main issue, should he overcome that soon, he will be ready to start designing the coupling of many QX reactors of a usable format. Then production can begin.

      Regardless whether Rossi or BLP is 1st, both will have to start with just a few operations to work out real world problems before mass production could begin. Any false start could be fatal to any business plan.

  • orsobubu

    I discussed these issue many many times in past years, both here and in JONP, going down in detail to Marx theory for the linkage between the social development of productive forces, the materialistic structure of capitalistic system and the ideological domain of the ruling class. I do not normally support any conspiracy theory. Man can not change the substantial course of history with plots. If so, we will still be in the time of Egyptian pharaohs, of course, because who holds the power could organize infinite conspiracies to keep it forever. Historical changes take place because productive forces and social classes create continuous revolutions. But, we must recognize it, the whole course of history is made up of plots, an infinite number of them.

    Now let’s suppose Rossi is actually ahead of everyone and has something really big. We know that it would suffice a cop 6 for the power output to be potentially disruptive. It seems to me fair enough that at Fleischmann and Pons’ times, MIT put in place a number of plots to silence discovery, ruin any academic career, and cast the eternal shadow of ridicule on any serious attempt to resuscitate it. But, if Rossi has something in hand, it means that those who hold that academic-scientific power today know everything. It is not possible – if the supposition I have made is true – they buried the whole thing 30 years ago and today, with all the information available on recent LENR developments, they ignores it completely: surely someone has tracked very precisely the looming menace.

    In support of this, we know that not only some maverick, but many authoritative public institutions and large private companies are pursuing advanced research in the field. So, matching the hypothesis that Rossi has come to something important, with the fact that his repeated series of demos, declarations, announcements, etc. is objectively wrapped in an apparently calculated cloud of uncertainty, one possible explanation of what happens is that those who hold power, not being able to change the course of history, as we have seen at the beginning, are forced to curb it and condition it with a series of plots, leading for example with strong arguments the protagonists of these researches to keep a pace of development much slower than would be desirable in a society free from particular interests.

    I have to say that almost nobody here has ever supported my scientific, bolshevik interpretation of history, while Rossi, in past years, perhaps because he studied with prominent italian marxists, is well aware of these problems, though he doesn’t agree of course on the solutions, since he strongly wants to be part of the capitalistic leadership of the world, not strictly because of money greed, but for the control of his creature and for a sense of personal reward from society. I remember perfectly (and I have stored it somewhere) an old video interview where he ponders precisely about social implication of his discovery, differently from his usual claim that “all energy sources will be integrated”.

    • What changes the world and the history are the inventions, from the knife, the stone ax, the wheel and the printing press to the steam engine and the internet. No one has ever been able to stop a good invention. Or as Leonardo di Caprio said in the movie ‘Inception’:
      ‘You know what the most infective thing is? An idea!’

      • orsobubu

        Yes, but consider this. The history, the progress of humanity is made by inventions. But who creates the inventions? Man obviously. Let’s take inventions in ancient times. They are efforts of the genius of individual personalities. As
        we approach the modern world, a collaborative social structure is
        increasingly needed because the inventor be successful, and he is more and more
        distanced from the individual artist, thinker, craftsman, experimenter. Think about Watt, Edison in comparison with Archimedes… the same can be said of modern business. As
        it moves away from the origins of industry, the figure of
        the single innovative capitalist (Rockefeller, Ford, …) vanishes in front of managers and exexutives within a large corporation.

        also the modern inventor increasingly takes on the figure of the
        researcher supported by large workgroup shared through increasingly
        socialized capitalist structures, and even when it is the figure of the
        single inventor that stands out, it is precisely because he is at the
        head of
        a development team, and in any case he himself could not have emerged
        except as a by-product of a highly collaborative, academic or productive structure. We
        can see this with Rossi and his spasmodic pursuit of a large corporation,
        and in any case under costant threat of being overcome by capitalist competition
        by major competing industries.

        we are witnessing the gradual fading -by means of of the material structure of
        production (totally socialized) – of the political superstructure (still property of an increasingly narrow class), which is already totally
        inadequate to manage the huge potential of
        the structure, hence the unmistakable contradiction of the contemporary
        world, which will necessarily require its overcoming.

        this is perfectly visible today by observing robotization, artificial
        intelligence, internet, cryptovalues, open source, 3d printers, and so
        on. It
        is in this sense that, in the introduction to the critics of the
        political economy, probably the most important script ever in social sciences, Marx describes class struggle as the historical engine
        driving the development of productive forces, that is, the dependence of
        superstructure on the structure, the development of
        humanity as the dialectics of social production relationships.

        • georgehants

          orsobubu, many thanks for putting what is pure logic and common-sense into such a scholarly comment, just add that with the tremendous technological advances in modern times, one might have hoped that the social morality may have advanced in line.
          We are still in the same position, mainly, as earliest man where the strong muscle ruled, but now it is those most able to manipulate the system that gain and control, exploit the rest.

  • Stefenski

    There’s no need for extra wires as part of a feedback system.

    The circuit is part of a closed loop . Sort of ‘phase locked loop’ type concern.
    With current & possibly unknown oscillation from QX (not shown on scope) being optimized by that loop, (which resides within the black box unit.)
    The clicks of a relay (possibly), were divorcing the sensitive electronics from the loop prior to blasting out a pulse.

    just guessing

  • I don’t think any of the LENR companies have any proven beyond doubt positive results. I don’t think Rossi’s old device works, and I don’t think his new device works. The ultra-hot power supply is a giant red flag of fraud and negates 100% any claim of a positive COP. Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice, shame on me. Simplified hot fusion is a proven technology, but not a commercially viable technology as yet. I can only hope hot fusion at a cost effective rate is coming soon. I think LENR may be a mirage.

    • psi2u2

      Interesting double standard.

    • Ged

      Hot fusion is still net negative. No positive output hot fusion exists.

    • Aha.

    • Steve Bannister

      Before concluding that LENR is a mirage, you should be aware of the work of Storms (formerly of Los Alamos), Hagelstein (of MIT), and others equally credible. They all conclude it is real albeit without accepted theory and probably requiring new physics. They are driven by their results and the knowledge that successful commercialization will be a landmark in human history and economic development. And they do real science. I agree with others here that development needs a major research effort. Rossi and others have produced experiments that hint at the real potential and deserve thanks for that. And you should be aware that the work of Robitaille (Ohio State) strongly suggests the physical model of the Sun is best represented as condensed matter, not a gas model. This further suggests to me that the hot fusion model may be in question even there.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      DT plasma can burn, but produces huge 14 MeV neutron flux material activation, and pure DT burning would require 100% tritium breeding efficiency which is unrealistic. I do not know if it would be realistic to increase temperature so that also some DD burning would occur which would alleviate the tritium breeding problem, but even if so, the neutron activation problem would remain.

      At least in a thermal plasma, so-called aneutronic fuels do not burn because bremsstrahlung cooling exceeds fusion warming (Todd Rider’s thesis, 1995). They might burn only if heated from outside, but doing so is energetically possible only if the bremsstrahlung X-rays could be converted to electric energy with high efficiency. Among the “advanced” fuels, D+He3 is less impossible than the others to burn, but He3 is not obtainable and even if it would be, DD side reactions would create the neutron activation issue.

    • Omega Z

      With the fall of the U.S.S.R., Both the U.S. and Russia were extremely concerned with all the nuclear physicists on both sides that would soon be out of work.(It was even a topic in the news papers.) They were concerned that they would put their skills to work for foreign nations. This is when major funding for hot fusion commenced. Whether it was actually feasible didn’t matter. No one thought all these out of work physicists would take that path, but even if just a few was worrisome. They created work to keep them employed.

  • Ged

    Very thorough and thoughtful analysis, with great suggestions. Thank you, Dr. Mike!

  • DocSiders

    If the QX reactors really do operate at very low “controller” currents (“essentially like a normal conductors” according to AR), then a single controller should be able to drive dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of QX Cells in parallel…instead of only 3…as was done in the demonstration.

    So why not run enough reactor units (9 reactor cells should be sufficient) to heat the water at a rate above ~100 watts to exceed the controler’s active cooling requirements… thereby demonstrating the TOTAL system operating at over-unity AND demonstrating a high COP/cell at the same time?

    • I think that a feedback electrical power from the reactor may be the challenge. And such a feedback increases with the number of reactors.

      • DocSiders

        If that current is “coming from the reactor”, that current should legitimately be measured as output and (if possible) used to further heat the test fluid (the water). I wonder why that energy is just being drawn away and expelled via the cooling system.

        • Obviously that is the goal. But it’s probably challenging at this point of the R&D. You’d have to capture that electrical power and feed it into a resistor without influencing the circuit which it is part of… Try that one, while also managing the control of an almost unknown nuclear reaction.

  • I think the control system is a challenge, partly because of electrical feedback from the reactor, and I don’t think it’s possible to feed it from a battery yet.

  • Until now, R&D has been essential and it has taken time. Some is still missing.

  • Piper

    Was the 1 ohm resistor a wire-wound, helical cut thin / thick film, or carbon-ceramic composition? If dealing with a high frequency waveform imposed upon the controller connection wiring, the choice of resistor construction could affect voltage readings.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      The resistors and the pump were both given to Mats according to Rossi.

  • Dr. Mike

    We don’t know how much power the controller is presently consuming, but a controller power goal might be to achieve 0.1W-0.5W per QX device (with devices operating at full output power). It really doesn’t matter if the prototype controller was using 50W or 500W, as its performance needs improved dramatically before a useful system can be built with the QX devices.

    • Rene

      I am not certain only .1-.5W was being delivered. It may have been much more. I just hope it was significantly less than 20W.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    With 60 W system input and 20 W output we had a COP of 0.33 for converting electricity to heat – indeed anything but impressive. If we would include the heat that is emitted by the control box we might end up with a value slightly greater than 1. However, an economically useful application would require a system COP of at least about 4. It seems that there is still a long way to go.

    • Dr. Mike

      It also seems to me that there is a long way to go. I think Rossi will have a hard time attracting funding until he can demonstrate an efficient controller and a reasonable system COP.

  • DrD

    Hi Mike, all,
    Only just read this and yes it’s a very good summary with which I agree except as posted by Stefanski: a degree of feedback can be established without extra wires.
    I’ve always been a believer in Andrea and always gave him the benefit of the doubt when it came to technically incorrect information. He does well trying to answer all our questions.
    However, the crude method of estimating (approximating) the power for such a “spikey” waveform seems inexcusable. Especially disturbing is the fact that he actual thinks that measuring the power in the 1 Ohm is good enough and doesn’t seem to appreciate that if the reactors are’nt resistive (as seems to be the case) it could make a huge difference to the power calculation. They might actually have moments when there are 10’s or even 1000’s of volts across them. With a few 100mA, that’s a lot of power. All credit to Mats but I don’t believe that work around is foolproof in the case of highly reactive components like the reactors (plasma?).
    Also it was a needless failure to place the input thermocouple in the wrong place. A large portion of a pumps power goes into the water. Maybe negligible but who knows.
    So, I am very dissapointed. I still hold out hope that he has something but not only does it still look a long way from being a commercial product but I say with great reluctance that I don’t believe this demo has demonstrated excess heat for the reason you gave.

    BTW didn’t he say 12 noon Miami time? It was all over by then.

    • Dr. Mike

      The 12 noon Miami time was the expected time for a recorded video of the event, not a live broadcast. It took longer to get the video ready than expected.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Your comment of “a large portion of a pumps power goes into the water” might not be true in this case. The pump used in the demo is for accurate volumetric metering, not efficient movement of fluid, however if you look at the parts diagram for the pump, most of the power dissipating components are housed in the metal case. Note that the metal case has fins for dissipating heat. The lump mechanism that touches the water is housed in plastic and only touches the heat dissipating portion through a plunging rod coupled to a diaphragm. It is not likely to conduct much heat compared to the heat capacity of the fluid.

      According to Rossi, Mats was given the pump. It would be an easy test to see how much the water warms due to the pump. My guess: 0.2 C — what is yours?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Agree. Although, had it been done, sceptics would have said that the controller box, which is large, contains a battery.

  • Rene

    The amount of power required to trigger a very small gas tube is not going to be much different than what it takes to trigger a flash lamp. It amounts to low power. This kind of trigger circuitry has been around for quite some time in the past, found in cameras.
    And, the current required to sustain the plasma is very low too by Rossi’s own admission, so that too could be run on a very small battery, like this one that I just used to take a flash photo.
    The scope show some high frequencies being sent through wires and that too, if it is 100mw only needs about 1W of input power. Let us all stop pretending it takes 60W+ to do this sort of thing.
    And finally, Rossi did mention, even stress that hundreds of QXs could be run off of one controller, but that to me is just him trying to cover up the fact his controller sucks at efficiency.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      Correct. Not much energy needed to ignite nor maintain 3 x 0.08mm dia x 0.6mm long Hydrogen plasmas.

      When they ignited the QX plasma with the lights out, for sure the colour matched that of Hydrogen discharge tubes.

    • Stephen

      Thanks Rene, I was wondering about this some how and was a bit worried that very high voltage spikes could be an important factor in the over all supplied power. And what that might then imply regarding the heating in the ECat.

      It seems on the oscilloscope we see a change in pattern when the ECat QX is Off. Compared to the interesting wave form when it is On. Do you know if this is consistent with the circuit being open at the ECat QX when Off, or does it correspond to a weaker voltage signal across the resistor due to a very high resistance at the ECat QX when it is Off?

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I think it is obvious that the controller sucks at efficiency, but the critical question is why does it? I suspect that it is due to two reasons. 1). The algorithm requires a complex computation and is currently implemented on a high-power processor. 2). The power output section of the controller is designed for correct operation, not efficiency and is thereby inefficient, like a Class A amplifier rather than a Class D device. If, for example, the device had to provide milliamps under run and kilovolts to ignite as a Class A driver, it would dissipate a lot of power at the run state in order to have a voltage swing that went to a kilovolt.

      As for #1 above, applying systematic engineering to the problem will solve the power issue. Take, for example, the way graphics controllers in PCs are providing supercomputer levels of computation at modest powers. As another example, the video pipeline in a Raspberry Pi processor provides gigaflop levels of performance at less than 5 watts for about $35.

      We will not know until the technology is released. However, it is fun thinking about it.

      • Omega Z

        I have considered #1 a possibility. When called upon to do heavy calculations, Processors can draw a lot of watts producing a lot of heat and burn out without enough cooling power.

        • Rene

          Not on many ARM based processors.

      • Rene

        I just don’t believe it. I run complex sound analysis noise meters performing ffts in real-time, sending data to servers, etc. It all runs on raspberry PI computers, sending on 802.11N or ac powering the RPI, the WiFi, the meter, peak power 10W, more like 3W average.

        I can conjure up excuses for Rossi’s lack of design efficiency but I’m done doing that for him. And as for the high voltage, my old Panasonic Lumix camera has a fine 500V flash tube controller that consumes tens of milliwatts when triggering. Again, with off the shelf parts for such things being decades old, there is no excuse for the inefficiencies. Not only that but you can buy seriously good software defined radios that deliver 100mw-1W at 800Mhz to 3GHz at decent efficiencies. These too are off the shelf parts.

        He is sabotaging himself by not picking the right engineers for his needs.

        • Dr. Mike

          In his blog Rossi told Pekka that “Our situation is more complex by orders of magnitude” when Pakka suggested a using high voltage discharge from a capacitor to produce a high voltage pulse efficiently. Without knowing what Rossi needs (or thinks he needs) in his control system, we can only guess why he is having over-heating problems. Don’t you think Rossi now realizes he needs some real help in his controller design?

          • Rene

            I can imagine Rossi now sees some hard problems mainly how to make a glass tube that does not shatter in less than 1-5 years of continuous operation, and how to drive a reaction at low duty that generates COPs > 20.

            He is not operating his QX tube with a reference plane, which is how smaller flash lamps work. He is operating it in series mode since only two wires go to the QX. That does add some complexity. Thankfully this is known art for continuous arc xenon/krypton lamps. Existing controllers know how to monitor the current and detect imminent quench. They use pre pulse methods to keep things going. It seems like those spikes during the on-time part of the QX could be that kind of method at work. Again, that’s all known art. I am assuming a lot here, that the tube is actually flashing several hundred times a second. Or, perhaps, those on-time pulses could be some H+ loading process, his secret sauce.

            I am looking to find some literature on continuous plasma lamp controllers to see about heir efficiency just to get a sense of what the known art has for efficiency.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Rene, you are probably correct in the fact that he does not have the proper engineering personnel working the problem. However, in his defense, power electronics takes a special breed of designer.

          As for the Raspberry Pi, I am impressed. The Pi 3 outperforms the Cray YMP benchmarks (a $20 Million machine circa 1990). Still, a gamer’s graphic controller or a quad-core i7 run about 100 Watts — on the order of what Rossi says his controller requires. Where closed loop control is required, delay is often important as systems become inherently unstable when delay is present. My work with the Raspberry Pi and non-real time Linux leads me to believe that the Pi might not be up to the job.

          For SDR tasks, the higher-end devices often use dedicated PGAs for the compute pipelines. They are also showing up these days in neural nets and video processing. A few of the higher end devices and you are at 60 Watts. Is it possible he used those?

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree with you that if the controller only has to deliver ~100mW of power to a QX device (operating at full power), a well designed controller should require less than 1W of input power per device. Does the controller really only have to deliver 100mW (or less) per device operating at full power? How long will it take Rossi to get an efficient controller build that incorporates all functions needed to operate the QX devices and operate the system using those devices?

      • Rene

        It may take Rossi a long time. He never got his warm-cat controllers working properly. That he had to sleep in the IH demo plant to hand tweak them demonstrated their lack of autonomous operation.

        From the scope readings in the video, I see 6-10 high voltage spikes across the frame. I think it was set to non-gated free running 100us per division (please correct me on that), so maybe a millisecond sweep? There is one or two trigger pulses to start the plasma every 10 seconds. I’ll assume 500-1000V for each of those. the starter pulses need to deliver only a tiny amount of power to trigger an arc. I’d be surprised if it’s more than 10 joules, though note that if those happen every ten seconds that is equivalent to an average of 1W of input power. The other repeating pulses per second are larger than vertical divisions, but since they seem to appear while the plasma is formed, my wild guess is 100V each. These could be keep-alive pulses or they could be part of the secret sauce to get protium shoved into the nickel – another wild guess on my part. But the question here is how many joules are being delivered, how many of those pulses happen in total? That could end up being another 1-10W average. so here we see the COP dropping to low numbers.

        Finally, I was curious why Rossi lowered the duty time to 30%. He mentioned he wanted it to run at low risk of failure during the demo. That’s a reasonable answer but what I believe what he did not disclose, having read the following article (and others) is that the risk of flashtube failure has a lot to do with the explosion energy of the gas as it heats up. If those multiple pulses during its on-time are really re-igniting the plasma, then at 30% the risk of the tube shattering is low. 50% gets to high risk. I’m afraid that along with controller problems, Rossi has a shatter failure issue. My guess is his 5 sigma testing was about finding out how hard he can drive the QX before it shatters past the desired lifetime. I suggest that the 30% duty cycle is the safe limit for long term operation.

  • sam

    November 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    I am the CTO of an important company in the aerospace field. I am following your publications and tests since the Bologna event of January 2011 and I think the test at the IVA of Stockolm has been a masterpiece. The measurements made are all fully satisfactory to us and it is clear to me that you made a technological miracle. I am reading in the blogosphere many comments of amateurs lecturing about this and that without knowledge of the matter, but I can assure you that our experts I am talking with are extremely impressed, even shocked, by what they saw in the video, that we scrutinized second by second.
    We can help you to resolve the overheating of the control box easily.
    We will contact you next Monday, so you will know me. I cannot expose myself in a blog.
    Godspeed, Andrea and see you soon.

    Andrea Rossi
    November 28, 2017 at 6:44 AM
    Thank you for your attention to our work…waiting for your contact on Monday!
    You know that to contact me you can email
    [email protected]
    Warm Regards,

    • Stephen

      It sounds like he really wants to resolve this power supply controller issue. And that he is honestly pursuing it.

      I hope he can find the right solution confidently and quickly as I think for almost everyone if he is able to do this it would remove all doubt.

    • Dr. Mike

      It would be great if Rossi can get some good technical help on improving the efficiency of his controller. However, for a CTO to make the statement: “We can help you to resolve the overheating of the control box easily” without having any idea of what output the controller must supply the QX devices does not make sense. Although an aerospace company may have some personnel with expertise in high voltage electronics, Rossi might find better support with his controller issues by enlisting the help of a company that builds pulse generators and other high voltage electronics.

      • psi2u2

        Regrettably, one must also raise the question of the legitimacy of this communication from a linguistic POV. I am not sure the writer is a native English speaker.

        • artefact

          Not every “important aerospace company” is from an English speaking country.

          • Omega Z

            There are many aerospace companies and they understand very well the problem of electronic overheating issues. They have dealt with them many times over the years.

            As you point out, Not every “important aerospace company” is from an English speaking country.

            I would also point out that, Not all CTO’s are necessarily native to the country in which they work. The Aerospace industry poaches skilled workers from all over the world in order to obtain the best in their field. This is very common in the U.S. who’s combined Aerospace budgets of those in this field is likely larger then the rest of the world combined. NASA alone has a budget of 20 Billion$ and growing fast. Deep pockets.

            Note I’m not saying it’s NASA as they and Rossi already have paths of contact and could contact him anytime without posting on JONP. It could be one of a number of U.S. companies, but I doubt that also for the same reasons. Thus, I find it very likely it’s a foreign aerospace company.

          • psi2u2

            Correct, of course. I look forward to hearing that the controller problems are being solved through Rossi’s collaboration with the anonymous CTO.

        • orsobubu

          It seems italian to me, because it is exactly as I would have written it, and infact I instinctively thought “What a fine English is this!” hehehe

          Anyway, it is strange he choosed to “burn” his reputation exposing on the blog as the first contact

    • Rene

      That anonymous letter reads to me like this: “Hi, I’m Anika from Russia. I saw your cute QX demo, send me pictures. “

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Bull. If it was dissipating 1500 watts, the cover over the controller would have been too hot to touch, yet Rossi lifted it with his un-gloved hands. Think about it — put a 1500 watt toaster oven in a covered container for over an hour… Even 500 watts would have caused a too-hot-to-handle box.

  • Dr. Mike

    I believe that one possible reason Rossi has not made “simple” measurements to demonstrate the COP of his .devices is that he is keeping secret some aspect of the operation of the devices. Another possible reason for not making “simple” measurements is the devices are not really achieving as high of COP as claimed. For example, it would have been quite “simple” to run the original E-Cat at a high enough water flow to measure the heat produced without a phase change in the water. It is unfortunate that we are going to have to wait until the controller efficiency is improved to see what system COP Rossi is able to achieve with the QX devices.

  • Omega Z

    I believe Matts supplied both the pump and resistors and they were returned to him. Matts could easily double check these items.

  • Ged

    Ironically, a COP of 1.1-1.4 of the Hotcat is indeed far superior to the negative COP of all hot fusion attempts! Even a COP of straight 1 is better.

  • Ged

    I haven’t had time to watch the event, so I can’t add anything in an informed manner.

    All I can add is that if the 1 Ohm resistor was upstream in serial of the reactors, measuring across it will indeed give the power flowing through the wire going into the reactors (if the meters can accurately measure!!)–the control box is irrelevent for the calorimetry after all, so isolating just the QX feed wire by the resistor test is a valid and sensible enough thing to do if everything is played straight (the total consumption is practically interesting but meaningless for just testing the QX itself; except that measuring from the outlet prevents issues with waveform fooling meters post PSU).

    However, as you and others point out, for that to really be valid requires that the meters can accurately measure the voltage given the waveform–and that the resistor acts normally given the waveform. I don’t know enough about the meters or resistor or waveform to say if they can, but your post and others seem pretty sure that they can’t, so I agree (easy enough for odd waveforms to mess things up!). I guess that is the real spot to look at and verify. Also, I am assuming the resistor is indeed in serial on the same wire, but as I mentioned I haven’t watched yet to see if that is true.

  • scottlshman


    Soon Dr Rossi will have to talk to Elon Musk as their mutual attempts to clean up the environment will eventually converge.

    Suppose an electric vehicle had a QX heat generator supplying steam to a tiny turbine driving an alternator. This would run continuously until the battery was fully charged. If the vehicle was used as a taxi for instance the turbine would run as soon as the taxi drove off plus recharge the batteries whilst waiting for the next fare.


    • AdrianAshfield

      I think a closed CO2 turbine or Stirling engine would be better.

    • From my book, An Impossible Invention, chapter 18:
      – – – – –

      A special business segment Rossi did not value much was venture capitalists. I had even heard a rumor that Carl Page, brother of Google co-founder Larry Page, had organized a meeting between Rossi and Elon Musk, super entrepreneur and founder of PayPal, Tesla Motors and SpaceX, but that Rossi had cancelled the meeting at short notice, reportedly irritating those involved. When I asked Rossi if it was true he didn’t remember any such meeting nor did he know who Elon Musk was. However, he said:

      “Some venture capitalist from California has contacted me but there is so much fraud in that industry—there are a lot of people talking about huge opportunities and availability, but then when you go into the concrete, you discover that there is a lot of fake. Then the concrete proposals are also so small that they don’t interest us. Sometimes someone has wanted to invest half a million dollars to see what happens, but you know, I already spent half a million dollars in research. We do not need them.”

  • psi2u2

    It is possible.

  • Rene

    I’d definitely like to look through them, especially the scope ones. This is less about exposing his secret sauce, but more about determining how much energy is getting poured into that little tube.

  • Dr. Mike

    I made my guess at 1-3 years. I’ll stick with my estimate that it will be “several years” after a demonstration of a reasonable system COP before Rossi has a commercial product for sale. (In my 10/29/2017 post I discussed the scope of the task Rossi faces in getting up an automated production line and verifying the reliability of the QX devices fabricated on that line.) The question is: what progress will Rossi’s competitors (perhaps Brilliant Light Power) make in that time period?

  • Done. It’s 1 ohm.

  • No way. The pump was operating for quite a while before the reactor was started, and the temperature didn’t move a bit.

  • MeyerF

    here the 140 comments are not found on
    something is wrong …
    Please correct

  • Pat

    As an EE, I might mention that the power waveform is not that mysterious. It appears to be a a simple sum of two sine wave. Given the signal shape, the amplitudes of the two sine waves appear similar. I did not understand if the scope time scale was 100uS per division (a normal way to describe it) or that the time frame across the entirety of the display was 100uS. Of course there is about a 10:1 difference. The frequencies of the two sine waves is apparent. No wonder Dr. Rossi was not happy about that info getting out.

  • buddy, can you spare an erg?

    The one thing that is 100% crystal clear at this point is that Rossi deliberately obfuscates. As an IP developer, I sympathize. However, for me it disappointingly evokes the spontaneous thought of “too big a conspiracy to be fraud”, which I would REALLY like to get past. Also, I agree with Dr. Mike on the 1-3 year horizon for a commercial *prototype*, given the present rate of development, which is likely to persist unless Rossi engages some significant partner resources. Last, development often become *more* difficult once the “big challenge” of discovery is completed, and real world embodiment approaches. Those aren’t foothills, those are himalayas in the distance. My psychic bets are now spread among Rossi, BLP and Brillouin.

    • Dr. Mike

      In my 10/29/2017 post I tried to point out some of those challenges that Rossi faces before achieving a reliable product. Now add having to develop of a highly efficient controller to the list of challenges. I agree that those are Himalayas in the distance.

  • Scott Beach

    Rossi’s E-Cat is starting to look like James Patterson’s Power Cell.

    Patterson obtained a U.S. patent on his “cold fusion” energy generator. However, he was not able to turn his invention into a successful commercial product.

    Philo Farnsworth invented a cold fusion device that worked, but it required 100 units of energy in to get 90 units of energy out. So it was not a practical energy generating device.

    LENR and the “Rossi effect” are probably real natural phenomena but maybe they are not commercially viable means of generating energy.

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree that “commercially viable” is what everyone is looking for.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “Philo Farnsworth invented a cold fusion device that worked, but it required 100 units of energy in to get 90 units of energy out. So it was not a practical energy generating device.”

      That was rather ‘hot’ fusion at very low pressures, with all the expectable radiation signatures (which are often missing in LENR experiments).

  • nietsnie

    It all begs the question, “What was Rossi really attempting to accomplish?” He’s clearly cagily hiding details. Maybe that’s because he’s protecting his patent, and that would be very legitimately reasonable, I think. But the hiding itself causes doubt about the whole demonstration since, without the details – nothing is proven.

    So then – why demonstrate at all? True believers will still believe, detractors will likely not believe under any circumstances, and those on the fence will continue to develop their calluses. Who, at the demonstration, was it intended to impress and convince? Is there a class of interest that does not already fall into believer, detractor, or undecided?

    • Dr. Mike

      You ask a good question. My guess is that the demonstration was mainly for potential investors. Rossi is not protecting patents (which require full disclosure to be valid), but he is probably trying to protect intellectual property that is not yet patented (which he should be doing). Let’s hope that eventually Rossi will be able to demonstrate a system where the input electrical power going into the controller is a small fraction of the heat delivered by the QX devices. If input power and output power are measured to reasonable scientific standards, everyone should become a “believer” in his technology even if no one knows exactly how the excess heat is being generated.

      • nietsnie

        Yes – yet he, seemingly deliberately, avoided measuring input and output power such that anyone who is not already a believer should become one. He has a long history with demonstrations now – and years worth of competent people showing why his demonstration is not adequate and describing how a slam dunk demonstration could be designed. It’s hard to understand why, after all these years, his demonstrations lack that. Will potential investors be less critical? I suppose you could make the valid point that they have in the past…

        • Omega Z

          This is Rossi’s 1st Demo since Bologna in 2011. Everything between then and now is just stuff leaked from private testing. Yeah, And people wonder why Rossi is so cautious about his proprietary information being exposed.

    • Rene

      My not-so-happy thought: It was an investors demo, to show, along with evidence of 5 sigma accomplishment (based on whatever criteria he felt would draw people), that the QX works. He probably had a pre-meeting with them, likely told them of the present limitations, disclosed the horrid inefficient controller. He probably let them peek at it all under mega NDAs. Then he invited the next tier of non-NDA interested parties to help him convince those investors all is right with the QX.
      But it’s not all right. There are huge problems to resolve, quite a but of engineering to do, which others would do were it not for his secrecy and micromanagement tendencies.
      A production QX is not going to be 1000s of fragile tubes that shatter every year +- a month. If it really works, and there is an inkling of damaged evidence that it does, it has to be heavily reengineered. There will have to be some slab based metallic ceramic structure, a honey comb of little reaction spots press fit in the right atmosphere, bolted, integrated fluid channels, etc. to make slab cat, a device that you feed energy from either side and those thousands of honeycomb reaction sites generate kilowatts of heat all nicely heat spread that the integrated fluid channels send off to do work.
      Now that’s my vision how something like that has to be manufactured, and there could be other variations, but my point is that such a thing needs many years of engineering development to move from delicate tube QX and become a reliable and robust product.
      From a prototype plasma tube to a production

    • georgehants

      nietsnie, understood, but you seem to be referring to what the vast majority do, give opinions.
      Logically and scientifically there can be no “believers” or “disbelievers” only those following open-mindedly pure Evidence and not being influenced by opinion at all.
      Those sitting on the fence are the True scientists etc. waiting for that Evidence.
      Rossi so far has shown nothing that scientifically can be described as Evidence of an energy device capable of a higher output than input.
      Closed-minded science is a disaster of incompetence.(genuine UFO’s, Cold Fusion etc. are impossible)
      Open-minded science is the only logical science and so far Rossi’s acceptable scientific Evidence is zero.
      Mixed in with this, one as a Human can have Hope, I Hope that Rossi is genuine, but if he is then the nearly eight years wasted up to now will take some justification based on the damage that lost time could be causing.
      That of course is a purely Moral debate and nothing to do with the only job of science, to find the Truth.

  • sam

    November 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    When the E-Cat QX will be industrialized, how much do you the COP will be affected by the consume of the control box?
    Andrea Rossi
    November 30, 2017 at 9:05 AM
    The COP will not be affected by the control system by means of a heat
    recovery system. The recovery system can recover the heat dissipated by
    the circuitry. Without the heat recovery system not more that 10%.
    Warm Regards,

    Claud of Silent Minority
    November 30, 2017 at 8:24 AM
    Andrea Rossi,
    Thank you for sharing with us the domo of the E-Cat QX: priceless!
    Andrea Rossi
    November 30, 2017 at 9:02 AM

    Claud of Silent Minority:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,

    • Dr. Mike

      The only COP that counts is the system COP. So if the QX devices have a maximum power output, the maximum COP of the system will be entirely determined by the input power to the controller. While it is possible that some system designs might be able to recover a small portion of the heat generated in the controller, there is a good chance that adding this feature to the system design would not be cost effective. Also, in many if not most system designs it would be inefficient or impossible to use heat from controller, For example, consider a system that produces steam in which water is returned to the heater at 70C. The return water could be used to capture some of the heat from the controller only if the controller was operated at a temperature above 70C. If the reliability of the controller electronics required a maximum operating temperature of 50C, it would not be possible to transfer any of the heat generated in the controller to the output of the system.

      • sam

        Italo R.
        November 30, 2017 at 11:49 PM
        Dear Dr. Rossi, you wrote:

        “…The increase of power is proportional to the quantity of modules…”

        in the Stockholm demo the controller produced about 60 watts of heat to be dissipated for feeding 3 modules.
        But does it mean that feeding 100 modules, the power to be dissipated would be about 60/3 * 100 = 2000 watts?

        Kind Regards,

        Italo R.

        Andrea Rossi
        November 30, 2017 at 11:53 PM
        Italo R.:
        No. I said that the power of the E-Cat is proportional to the number of modules. The heat dissipated by the control system decreases. In a nutshell: increasing the number of modules the heat produced by the E-Cat increases proportionally, while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially.
        Warm Regards
        Remember that all the heat dissipated by the control box can be recovered with COP 1.

        • Dr. Mike

          The portion of Rossi’s statement “while the heat to be dissipated ( or recovered ) from the control box decreases substantially” makes no sense at all. The controller must supply more power to drive more devices unless the controller is receiving power from the QX devices. If that were the case Rossi would have claimed that no modifications were needed in the controller at the demo. His last statement: “Remember that all the heat dissipated by the control box can be recovered with COP 1” is not true as was explained above.

          • Omega Z

            It sounds as if Rossi’s controller is oversized for the application of just a few QX reactors. Very understandable for a prototype controller as you would build it to deal with any energy demand during R&D. This issue will be eliminated once optimized.

  • Zavod

    What a pathetic joke this has become

  • Montague Withnail

    You are trying to place an attempted commercial demonstration within the context of a scientific proof, and I understand why you and many people want to do that but it simply won’t work.

    You cannot successfully commercialise a product based on a principle for which there is no accepted scientific proof, it is trying to build a castle without a foundation – it will collapse before anyone can move in.

    We need to stop pretending that what Rossi is doing is making any contribution to a scientific proof of principle, he is not and has no interest in doing so. That’s up to him and if people want to skip the proof stage then that’s up to them. Most of the world is going to need a proper scientific proof, repeated many times, and witnessed and verified independently by the most credible scientists in society. I dearly wish I could say that this was a first step towards achieving this, but that would just be fooling myself. It wasn’t, and we should all accept that and continue a search for a real first step that will really bring forward the potential of LENR to change the world, everything else is a distraction.

    • Dr. Mike

      It may be difficult to commercialize LENR before a theory is established, but perhaps not impossible. It seems that without a theory there will always be a high probability that a better experimental device will be discovered before the previous one can be commercialized. I have to agree that the QX demonstration really didn’t represent a first step a scientific proof. A demonstration of more heat out of a system than electrical power into the system would make a reasonable first step.

    • Omega Z

      That this technology can’t be deployed without an ironclad theory is a bunch of Academic Poppycock. Most of the world will adopt this technology regardless of your personal opinion.

      • Montague Withnail

        Who said iron-clad theory? Not me.

        I would be content with a rigorous, well designed and independently conducted experiment carried out in line within recognised scientific practises and repeated on several occasions by different parties without unexplained differences in results. Normal and correct procedure is to publish a full methodology and results, this should be peer reviewed prior to publication.

        I am not asking for the details of the manufacture of cells to be published, only that they be tested in line with the above. I have followed LENR optimistically for about 6 years. I am ready to invest and I am ready to commit my career, but I will not be taken for a fool. Proper proof, then investment.

  • Dr. Mike

    Unfortunately, Rossi has not claimed that the control power per device will be small when he tries to operate 100 QX devices from a single controller. Instead, he claims to be working on methods to recover excess heat from the controller. What evidence do you have that the controller will become more efficient operating 100 QX devices (if it really can operate 100 QX devices)?

    I do understand that much of DEMO was based on “Rossi’s claims”, rather than something really demonstrated. What “totally wrong conclusions” do you believe that I have made regarding the DEMO? Based on the DEMO do you believe each QX device can output about 20W or do you believe that the DEMO showed an output of about 7W per device?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.