Mats Lewan’s Updates on the Stockholm Demo

Mats Lewan, who organized Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat QX Demo in Stockholm on November 24, has been compiling his thoughts about the event in a post on his An Impossible Invention Blog here:

Reflections on the Nov 24 E-Cat QX demo in Stockholm

We have covered at length on this site what happened at the demo, but since the event took place, Mats has provided some updates to his post based on new information and insights. Here are a few key new points from Mats’ blog:

“At the demo . . . Rossi several times states that the dimensions of the plasma inside the E-Cat QX are ‘0.08 x 0.6 mm.’ (49:20, 1:33:20, 1:57:23). However, Rossi later recognized that he was mistaken about the unit that should be cm. In other words, Rossi’s claim is that the plasma inside the reactor has the form of a cylinder with the diameter 0.8 mm and the length 6 mm”

“The method for measuring electrical input power was more problematic. The total consumption of the control system could not be used, since the system, according to Rossi, was using active cooling to reduce overheating inside, due to a complex electrical design. [Update 4]: One hypothesis for the overheating issue is that the reactor produces an electrical feedback that will be dissipated inside the control system and has to be cooled”

“At the demo, as seen in the video recording, Rossi was adjusting something inside the control system just before making the dummy measurements. Obviously, someone could wonder if he was changing the system in order to obtain a desired measured value.

His own answer was that he was opening an air intake after two hours of operation since the active cooling was not operating when the system was turned off.

[Update 2]: Someone also saw Rossi touch a second switch close to the main switch used for turning on and off the system. Rossi explained that there were actually two main switches—one for the main circuit and one for the active cooling system—and that there were also other controls that he couldn’t explain in detail. [end update].”

I have now dismantled the pump and I found no hidden heaters or other modifications . . . I also cut through the plastic block on which the 1-ohm resistor, and later also the 800-ohm resistor, were mounted and found no hidden devices or energy sources inside [pictures on Mats’ site]

I think these comments help clear up a few questions, especially regarding the size of the plasma which has been quite a confusing point, and to confirm that he found no hidden heating elements that could have been used to fake the heating effect.

There will of course still be questions surrounding the demo. It is impossible for the results to be verified in a rigorous scientific way since details were withheld by Rossi, and everything was carried out under his control. But I think most people realized it would not be that kind of event. Rossi has stated it has been good enough for him to secure an important agreement, but only the awaited introduction of a commercial product will answer critical questions about the validity of Rossi’s claims.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    upon a closer examination of the box this was found.

    • Gerard McEk

      So the fan was driven by a hamster, interesting… 😉

      • Stephen

        Could be an interesting feed back control mechanism if there was a cat that needed cooling 😉

    • Ryan
  • Dr. Mike

    A key conclusion that Mats makes twice in his report is that if he were an investor, he would require a better measurement of the input power to the device. I believe that he should have pointed out the 2 errors that Hurley made in his input power calculation (actually the power to the 1 ohm resistor). First Hurley used peak voltage rather than RMS voltage in the calculation, and second he divided the power by 2, rather than 7/3 (ratio of total time cycle to the time the device was on). Note that both of these errors made the Hurley’s calculated COP less than it should have been (506.66 that he calculated vs. 750-850 if RMS voltage and the 7/3 factor had been used).
    I believe that there is an error in the “Claims of the E-Cat QX” in that the internal temperature has been claimed to be just a little more than 2600K, not 2600C.
    I thought the issue of ” [Update 4]: One hypothesis for the overheating issue is that
    the reactor produces an electrical feedback that will be dissipated
    inside the control system and has to be cooled” had been resolved as an error in a calculation based on an assumption that the failed spectrometry measurement would have shown an output of 120W, rather than an expected power of about 36W for operating the QX devices at 30% power. Some 50-60W of “missing power” was assumed to be electrical feedback power, when actually there was no missing power (not even the the difference between the expected spectrometry power of 36W and the calorimetry measured power of about 23W was “missing” power).

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „First Hurley used peak voltage rather than RMS voltage in the calculation“

      That’s no problem since by using the peak voltage you can only overestimate the input. I guess he did this intentionally in order to simplify the procedure.

      An open question is how much the HV pulses contributed to the energy balance. Common spark plugs consume only millijoules per ignition ( ). So at least, the ignition energy of the QX would have to be orders of magnitude higher to be relevant.

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree Hurley was making a conservative estimate in his power calculation, but he should have stated he was doing so (rather than claim he was calculating a COP to two decimal places). It sure seems like there would not be much energy in high voltage pulses delivered to the QX devices. However, if Rossi doesn’t want to show exactly what input the QX devices are receiving from the controller, he should show a the input power is low enough that it doesn’t take much power to run the controller.

        • Bruce__H

          “It sure seems like there would not be much energy in high voltage pulses delivered to the QX devices.”

          I find it a little odd that the system needs high-voltage pulses repeatedly. How does one figure out the bounds on how much energy could be delivered by them?

    • Anon2012_2014

      How about RMS voltage ACROSS THE REACTOR with simultaneous current. My understanding is that this was not measured.

    • Gerard McEk

      I wasn’t even aware that Hurley took the peak measurements of the, I assume, amplitude modulated DC+ AC input current, not including the peaks of the starting pulses? When was this communicated?
      Obviously I agree with the remark that only the power over the resistance was calculated, which is not related to the power consumed by the QX.
      Obviously, if the QX is also a voltage source, measuring the power using the voltage over the QX plus the current would give also wrong results if the internal resistance of the QX is unknown. Maybe AR didn’t want to be revealed that the QX is a voltage source and what its properties are.

  • Does anyone have any details on the claimed replication of Rossi’s patent/Parkhomov that Nissan presented at JCF-17 in March 2017, according to the abstracts (numer 10)?

    • Frank Acland

      I contacted one of the Nissan team asking for more information about it and they informed they could not because they did not understand the phenomenon correctly, but they would publish about it once they did.

      • But they did confirm replication of the effect?

        • Frank Acland

          I don’t know what was said at the conference, I haven’t heard any reports except what was published in the abstract. This the message I received in response to my inquiry:

          “Unfortunately, Nissan can’t provide any information except conference because we don’t understand this phenomena correctly.

          After we understand this reaction, we will publish some paper in the future.”

  • An Intensive Analysis of Lockheed-Martins’ Fusion Effort

    • Pekka Janhunen

      So it’s DT fuel, only geometry differs from ITER, if I understand right.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Would the people at Lockheed prefer to be working on LENR?

    • Omega Z

      Per the Article, ITER is strangling all other endeavors by hogging all the funding. I’m strongly inclined to believe this is why they shut down F&R’s work.

  • Here I’d object A. Rossi’s claim, that reactor did run with zero-voltage drop on reactor, as this is physically impossible once you haven’t superconductor in hands. This conclusion could be simply consequence of fact, the reactor was loaded with high-frequency current source, which doesn’t provide any DC component for its straightforward measuring by common DC voltmeter. The voltage drop on reactor could be actually quite high at the time of its running, which would also explain the fear of Andrea Rossi from touching it by Levy at run time. That is to say, the power pumped by (apparently quite huge) external source into a reactor could easily reach 25 Watts, which has been interpreted as energy output by water thermocalorimetry without being even notified by DC signal of an external voltmeter. 25 Watts is energy flux which can be easily achieved at high frequencies by much smaller solid state Tesla coil, which is able to light-up common fluorescent bulb (10 – 20 Watt) at distance.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Actually, rather than a superconductor, it could in fact be a source of energy. The resistance under those conditions could actually be a negative value, since the voltage would reverse direction with respect to current flow, reversing the power flow.

      Zero resistance for the purpose of calculating COP, using the power dissipated in the series resistance, would underestimate the COP if in fact, it was generating power.

      • GiveADogABone

        The assumption of AC generation by the QX and the claim that, perhaps, 100 QX can be connected in series or parallel to one control box by two wires takes me to the basic operation of an electrical grid system :
        The voltage, frequency and phase angle must be controlled each time a generator is to be connected to a grid.

        Without synchronization chaos reigns, so these basic preconditions must be supplied and remain whilst all the QX run. It is possible that QX voltage and current are not in phase so that reactive power is produced. Stability with reactive power present has its own limits.

        The same is true inside the QX when it starts. Whatever mixture of oscillations (see the demo oscilloscope pictures) occur as it starts, the plasma must settle to one frequency, if it is to produce the displayed waveform. That three QX must have synced to one controller, to produce the displayed waveform, is another achievement of the demo in Stockholm.

  • Fortunately the Rossi Quark-X reactor could still work, until the Lipinski/Me356 fusion works. It just appears for me, that Stockholm demonstration could be easily doubted. It’s a pitty because more thorough measurement wouldn’t compromise the Intellectual Property of A. Rossi at all. Maybe Matt Lewan could bring more light into energy input/output measurements.

  • causal observer

    IMHO, the questions of “missing power” and thermalization in the controller are “high first order” causes of lingering doubt about the entire demonstration. Alternative verbal explanations are not definitively alleviating those doubts. There are too many cause and effect relationships to push through the linear text. What is needed are alternative visual schematics (starting with at least one) that attempt to explain all of the available objective information from the demo surrounding those questions. Until those schematics are created and discussed doubts related to “missing power” and thermalization will continue to place a subliminal cognitive burden on attempts to discern what is real in eCat space, for whatever that discernment is worth. While I am not qualified to create those schematics I believe that this problem statement related to their absence is valid.

    • Dr. Mike

      There was no “missing power” and any feedback electrical energy “thermalized” in the controller was minimal (<2W), if any. Rossi will never release his schematics for the controller unless he chooses to do so in a patent application. For now the controller used in the demonstration should be assumed to be very inefficient at driving 3 QX devices at 30% power. We'll have to wait to see if Rossi is able to improve the controller efficiency when driving many more QX devices at full power. While it is regrettable that an error was made in the original claim that there was "50-60W of missing power" by an e-catworld reader, it is much better for those that are trying to figure out what's going on to make an occasional error in interpreting the data than for no one to attempt to figure out what is going on. Personally, I have had to correct an entire post because I found out that my assumptions were not correct in the original post. Not a big deal!

      • Omega Z

        IMO, This controller was for R&D purposes and it’s efficiency or optimization was of very low priority. No sense in investing much time and money in it as long as it got the job done. Especially as there is a possibility that changes could possibly be required during the focus on the QX reactors.

        I’ve seen projects that look oh so pretty that turned out to be paper weights whether it just didn’t work or they ran out of funding before getting to that point. I’ve also seen projects that looked as though they scrounged parts from the local junk yard that worked great even if it looked like crap.

        The thing about the latter is that it’s much easier to find funding to pretty it up if the device is known to actually work.

        If the QX works as stated and Rossi is ready to exploit it as a marketable product, experts in the electronics field can now be brought in to optimize the control box. Surely this should take but a few months.

        • Dr. Mike

          I agree that it is easy to see why an R&D control box might be quite inefficient, and that there doesn’t seem to be any reason that it can’t be redesigned in a few months. If we assume that Rossi’s claim that the QX devices are receiving less power than the 1ohm resistor is true and that the power to the 1ohm resistor is no more than Hurley calculated (0.045W), then it should be fairly easy to design a controller operating 100 QX devices that consumes less than 50W. The controller would only have to be 10% efficient at converting input power to control signal output power with 5W left over for a cooling fan to achieve this 50W. If Rossi does not announce a new controller design within a few months that eliminates all overheating problems (even if he doesn’t demonstrate it), then perhaps the QX devices are receiving more power than claimed.

    • LarryJ

      You’re labouring under the mistaken impression that the demo was intended to “prove” something. It wasn’t. It was a sales pitch for financing and apparently it served its intended purposed, therefore a success.

  • Gerard McEk

    Mats intents to organize a symposium in Stockholm:
    I am sure it will go better this time Mats!

    • Hope so! If everyone helps spreading the word about the conference I think it can become a great event.
      Also, all suggestions on qualified and interesting speakers are welcome. I plan to have a few more on the program.

      • SG

        Andrea Rossi? 🙂

  • Anon2012_2014

    I would prefer it on the leads leading into the reactor, not on the power supply. I want everything going into it and across it integrated. Then I don’t need to care about what Rossi has inside the power supply.

    • roseland67

      I do,
      I want to know GTH,
      Grand Total Heat.
      His little black box can be treated as such, doesn’t matter to me.
      What is total Energy Into his entire gizmo and what is Energy Out of same.
      My guess for the last 7 years has been “about the same”,
      and since January, 2011,
      almost 7 years ago now, no one can prove different because there have been 0 competent energy measurements.

      • Anon2012_2014

        I can redesign a power supply. If the device doesn’t work, I can’t redesign anything. I have no idea if Rossi’s device works. His black magic power supply I don’t care about. It’s camouflage to me, i.e. it obscures the truth.

  • SG

    I’m a little confused by what you say here. It was always referred to as a demo not an independent test, by all involved. Am I missing something?

  • There seems to be increased interest for the Swiss-Russian startup Syntestech, focusing on transmutation applications through LENR, aiming at producing rare or valuable elements. As far as I understand they base their technology on work of Parkhomov, thus maybe with connections also to Rossi and E-Cat technology.

    Here’s their blog on Medium with some interesting pieces:

    They aim at raise funding through an ICO—the new phenomenon based in the cryptocurrency world:

    To understand ICO:s—Here an piece in Fortune:

  • GiveADogABone

    May I suggest that you separate your thinking about the DC and AC components of the waveform? There is no theoretical difficulty with the AC current reversing (about 80,000 times a second), independently of the forward DC component, whilst the summation of the two is always a forward (but variable) current. The suggestion is that it is AC power that is transferred from QX to controller. It seems that currently that AC power is dumped and becomes waste heat.