Analysis of E-Cat QX Setup Based on Available Information (Chapman)

Thanks to Chapman for posting this comment in the thread about the E-Cat QX paper and photo here. I thought it would be useful to feature it as a separate post.

I see a lot of folks that are asking the right questions, only to be shut down by a few well meaning folks insisting on some pretty wrong facts.

Ignore all the diagrams, the speculations, the guesses. Look at the facts we know, and the actual statements from Rossi.

1. There is a 1 Ohm resistor in series with the E-Cat QX reactor.

2. There are two meters hooked up in parallel reading the voltage across the resistor, but nothing is stated regarding the applied power source.

3. The use of two redundant meters is an issue of protocol, and protects the test from bad data due to meter failure or inaccuracy, which is also the likely reason they are two completely different makes and models.

4. During the test, in the frame sample provided, we see that the resistor voltage drop is 100 mV. From this we can calculate that the series current at that time is 100 mA.

5. After powered operation for a duration of 1.8 seconds, the oil bath surrounding the reactor showed a temperature increase that calculates out to 20 watts (per second) of generated heat.

6. Rossi says that the reactor has low/negligible/nonexistent resistance. It is not stated if that assumption pertains only to the operational state, or even when “cold”.

7. When taken as a whole, if the voltage drop on the reactor really is zero, the total power consumed by the ASSEMBLY (including ballast resistor) is just the resistors 10 mW. This results in an operational COP of 2,000.

8. If all the above is TRUE AND ACCURATE, then the COP is actually orders of magnitude greater, because the resistor is actually producing 10 mW of heat directly, and ALL of the heat from the reactor is FREE, and has no mathematical connection to input power level.

9. That means that the QX is entirely current dependent, and the circuit could just as well have used a .5 ohm ballast, reduced the voltage to 50 mV, maintained the exact same 100 mA current through the reactor, and exhibited an operational COP of 4,000. Go to a .25 ballast and you get a COP of 8,000. Because the voltage drop on the ballast has no direct bearing on the reactor, but it simply sets the current passing THROUGH the reactor. This is basic electronics…

I have seen so many people talking in circles and convincing each other that Rossi said something OTHER than what was printed right there before our eyes. And folks are changing their minds and saying “yeah, I guess that’s right”. WRONG. Read it again. It says what it says.

Now, if someone has additional actual FACTS to throw in, fine. But do not just have a group hug and decide that the paragraphs in the intro suddenly transformed or mutated. Rossi said very specific things. Stick with what we know. We can theorize about the MISSING facts, but we can’t just decide we do not like, and will abandon, the actual facts given.

Either there is something fundamental Rossi excluded, or the QX is a current dependent reaction chamber that utilizes the presence of a 100 mA current to stimulate the release of nuclear binding energy from a small reserve of an as yet not fully disclosed amalgam of Li dust, LiAH, and ???. The reaction is singularly dependent on the current passing through the reactor, and yet exhibits little to no independant electrical resistance, making it susceptible to unstable runaway conditions, which require an external driver/ballast resistor to clamp max current to within safe levels. The size of that ballast is dependent upon tolerance factors and power handling ability of the selected ballast. The smaller the ballast, the higher the overall COP of the circuit as a whole.

And you want to know what is REALLY wrong with this picture? There is ONE fact that makes me doubt these numbers, and the zero resistance of the reactor… If the reactor has zero resistance, then there is NOTHING keeping him from daisy chaining 100 of them in series with a single ballast resistor fixing a 100 mA series current flowing through ALL of them, and delivering a 2KW reactor running off a single AAA battery!!! That’s technically right, but at the same time SOOOOO wrong that there MUST be something missing.

Chapman

  • Jonnyb

    Is it DC Current/Voltage or AC, if AC low or High Frequency, Spread Spectrum, if high would these meters record it? If just DC then why not have a Constant Current Source, so there is probably some element of signal here? any ideas? Don’t think we can get too much from what we know, but looks promising.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      According to AR the input is plain DC (not pulsed).

      • Jonnyb

        Thanks Andreas. Why such a big resistor? Easy to prove just put a Spectrum Analyser on the input and a small 1/4 Watt Resistor.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Why any resistor at all? Those meters have internal shunt resistors and could easily handle directly measuring 100 mA.
          However, if there is a transient voltage that creates the plasma, ballast resistors are used to prevent burn-out. If Rossi is using 24 V DC in the test shown in the paper, the input power would be 2.4 W at 100 mA. He’d still have the problem of initiating plasma discharge, but that can be done with some minor circuitry to provide a kick on startup.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It should be no problem to measure the voltage across the whole system (resistor + reactor) and to use a conventional ammeter to determine the current. Or he could use two resistors, one of confidential properties and another one for the current measurement. That way no critical information would have to be disclosed.

  • Zephir

    /* nothing is stated regarding the applied power source */

    A.Rossi said during interview, that he can run it with a battery – he said he need 24 Volts. So basically he can put two car batteries in series…

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi’s patent update specifies that a 100,000 volt potential difference is applied between the two nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube. The hydrogen many not form vigorously ionized plasma because the pressure of that gas is 6 bar when the temperature of the reactor is at the operating temperature of 2700C.

    It is possible that Rossi wanted to increase the voltage used by the reactor far beyond 100 KV field patent spec to increase the strength of the electric fields that provide plasma confinement to the reactor…to make those fields highly protective and impenetrable.

    Rossi’s March article does state that a neutral dipole based plasma is formed. It is possible that the power used in the device produces a penning trap to confine the plasma so that the nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube are protected from erosion by the plasma.

    Besides the ability to confine the plasma by the tube material, this penning trap based electrode protection mechanism might be another reason for long term endurance testing that Rossi has undertaken to quality test the QuarkX(aka 5 sigma).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/Penning_Trap.jpg/1200px-Penning_Trap.jpg

    A more likely possibility for plasma containment is the Quadrupole ion trap.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Paul-Trap.svg/600px-Paul-Trap.svg.png

    The use of this trap configuration might be where the idea that the Rossi advances in his paper that support the special EMF field being a quadrupole field. The Quadrupole ion trap might serve multiple functions: ion containment, tube protection from the plasma inner surface erosion, nickel electrode erosion protection, and electrostatic activation of the LENR reaction.

    I don’t believe that the Quadrupole based electrostatic field is responsible for the LENR reaction. I believe that the specially formatted LENR active magnetic field is a polariton generated monopole field produced by KERR effect LENR Any high voltage electrostatic field would do the job of symmetry breaking the polariton current in the whispering gallery wave via the Kerr effect. activated nanoparticles.

    • Stephen

      Interesting points and ideas.

  • Well analysed Chapman. I’m curious as to the voltage needed to form the plasma when you connect several QXs in series. Did it say 100kV in the paper for one QX?

  • CWatters

    Rossi has now said it only needs DC and he runs it from 24V batteries.

  • Frank Acland

    Actually, I don’t think Rossi did really indicate that the E-Cat QX has a ” low/negligible/nonexistent” resistance. He said that it does have a resistance, but that he considered it confidential and therefore does not include it in the paper. For the purpose of the calculation, he simply ignored the resistance. So we just don’t know what it is.

    • Omega Z

      And we should keep in mind that this is a Rossi-Gullstrom Paper. Not just a Rossi paper.

    • Chapman

      Actually, he clearly stated that the resistor itself was the only resistance in the circuit. We can grant a little wiggle room, and allow that he really meant it was the only SIGNIFICANT resistance, but that clearly means the reactor resistance must be a small fraction of the resistor value, and that being only 1 ohm limits the reactor resistance to a few hundredths of an ohm.

      Sorry, but he said what he said, and he said it quite clearly.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    July 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Just asking for a clarification, if you don’t mind:

    In the latest Rossi-Gullstrom paper you report under energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01

    You explained to me in our interview that the E-Cat has a resistance, but you did not include it to keep the resistance of the E-Cat confidential, and this meant that the COP was conservative.

    My question: does this mean that the 0.1 V is the voltage across the resistance of the E-Cat and the 1 Ohm resistor combined?

    Andrea Rossi
    July 22, 2017 at 9:03 PM
    Frank Acland:
    What I said is that should the E-Cat have an R the measurements would be conservative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „What I said is that should the E-Cat have an R the measurements would be conservative.”

      No, if one puts two resistors in series and applies a voltage, the power that is taken by these resistors is proportional to their resistances (P1/P2 = R1/R2). That is, if the reactor had a significant (positive) resistance, the total input power (P1+P2) would be underestimated.

    • Chapman

      And THAT, my friend, is what we call a “side-step”.

      You asked the critical question, and he deftly avoided giving an answer.

  • US_Citizen71

    It sounds like it is a metal halide light that receives most of its heat from fission of Be8. The low power just keeps the plasma charged. It is self heating. Rossi stated early on in this saga that he was fusing Lithium with ionized Hydrogen. No new physics needed just an explanation of how the Lithium and Protons are energized to the correct level. Plasmas are energetic chaos, the small DC power input might just put enough order to the chaos to increase collisions.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I believe that Dottore Rossi stated that there was “virtually no resistance” and then framed that within the constraints of, “for the sake of our equations.” or some statement close to that. Meaning that the results would be more than significant enough to make the difference minuscule.

  • Mylan

    The way of measuring the input power is odd and relevant information is missing. Rossi is wrong that more resistance of the Qx would make the measurement more conservative. If the input voltage is let’s say 200 V, then nearly all of the voltage drop would happen around the Qx, and the input power would be significant and the COP 0.

    I fear that once again there will be a Rossi presentation leaving more questions than answers.

    Also, I wonder how they are planning to publish the paper with important data missing.

    • Omega Z

      See below-

      Frank Acland:

      What I said is that should the E-Cat have an R the measurements would be conservative.

      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      This is on going-
      Published at
      https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf

      • Mylan

        I know, but what’s your point? Rossi did not answer Frank’s question.

  • Axil Axil

    That’s technically right, but at the same time SOOOOO wrong that there MUST be something missing.

    Did you read Rossi’s theory paper? Rossi’s theory paper states that the reaction is driven by a quadrupole electrostatic field. How much power does that take to produce that field?

    • Chapman

      HI AXIL!!! We missed you!

      [Not that we were talking about you or anything… No need to go looking around. 🙂 ]

      So, come on Big Guy, lay some Physics on me!
      Tell me about quadrupole electrostatic fields.
      And make it juicy, we got a lot of catching up to do!

      • Axil Axil

        The input power supply situation is not as simplistic as you tend to beleive.

        For your convenience, I have added a few new things to the post that I initially supplied below in this thread as follows:

        Rossi’s patent update specifies that a 100,000 volt potential difference is applied between the two nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube. The hydrogen many not form vigorously ionized plasma because the pressure of that gas is 6 bar when the temperature of the reactor is at the operating temperature of 2700C.

        Form inquiries about megavolt power supplies made by Rossi that we have heard about, it is possible that Rossi wanted to increase the voltage used by the reactor far beyond the 100 KV field patent spec used to increase the strength of the electric fields that provide plasma confinement to the reactor…to make those fields highly protective and impenetrable.

        Rossi’s initial March theory article does state that a neutral dipole based plasma is formed where there is quiescent charge separation . It is possible that the power used in the device produces a penning trap to confine the plasma so that the nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube are protected from erosion by the plasma.

        Besides the ability to confine the plasma by the tube material, this penning trap based electrode protection mechanism might be another reason for long term endurance testing that Rossi has undertaken to quality test the QuarkX(aka 5 sigma).

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/Penning_Trap.jpg/1200px-Penning_Trap.jpg

        A more likely possibility for plasma containment is the Quadrupole ion trap.

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Paul-Trap.svg/600px-Paul-Trap.svg.png

        The use of this trap configuration might be where the idea that the Rossi advances in his paper that support the special EMF field being a quadrupole field. The Quadrupole ion trap might serve multiple functions: ion containment, tube protection from the plasma inner surface erosion, nickel electrode erosion protection, and electrostatic activation of the LENR reaction.

        In summary, there are many diverse requirements for various power formats that must be supplied to the QuarkX: initial power to heat up the Quark to its operating temperature, high voltage DC power to generate to plasma and generate charge separation, and extremely high voltage power to produce a confinement and reaction activation electrostatic field

        As I have stated many time here on this forum, I don’t believe that the Quadrupole based electrostatic field is responsible for the LENR reaction. I believe that the specially formatted LENR active magnetic field is a polariton generated monopole field produced by KERR effect LENR Any high voltage electrostatic field would do the job of symmetry breaking the polariton current in the whispering gallery wave via the Kerr effect. activated nanoparticles.

        • Chapman

          I had read this when you posted it in response to Mats, and wanted to congratulate you for the great info and nice presentation! But I did not want to interrupt your flow. It is most interesting! And very easy to understand. Thanks.

          The high voltage requirement that had been previously stipulated left me at a loss as to how he had so rapidly evolved to the opposite end of the spectrum and is suddenly operating at less than a single volt, but that was just the tip of the iceberg as far as what was confusing with the latest data release.

          Thanks again for the great breakdown on the quadrupole, and the visual regarding its function. Really nicely done.

    • Bob Greenyer

      A quadrupole electrostatic field, just like Kenneth Shoulders Plasma focus device?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    One thought — your analysis considers that the QX has a resistance and you use the fact that voltage around the loop sums to zero. What if the QX is in fact, a generator? It can still have zero or any positive equivalent resistance, but produce a voltage whose sign is negative with respect to the voltage drop across the resistor.

    Again, the fact that we do not know what the voltage drop across the QX is is the problem.

    • Chapman

      I am not ignoring the possibility that the Quark actively generates a voltage or current, but if the circuit is configured as presented then such would only have the effect of dropping the reactor resistance to zero when in the operational state. That would be great, and you and I could come up with a hundred different circuit configurations to harvest that potential, but in the given setup all it would do is give a reasonable explanation for the reactor resistance to flatline when active, and for the current to suddenly spike. So sure enough, just like powering a simple LED, beyond the knee voltage you BETTER have something to clamp the sudden electron rush, hence the 1 ohm resistor.

      You see my problem Thomas? I understand the electronics, and I can see a wide range of configurations that MIGHT be what we see in the pic. But the only one that works, AND matches what Rossi SAYS, is fantastical! All the others are perfectly valid mathematically, and would be wonderful if taken on their own merits. But all the realistic solutions showing a “merely wonderful” device instead of a “freaking fantastic and bordering on magic” device would require that the associated STATEMENTS were false and misleading.

      I am just struggling with the two options. I trust the MAN, but I have high confidence in the MATH.

      But the WORST thing is that I did not even care! I saw that we were missing all the most important data, and was happy to just take the gift of a little peek behind the curtain and say God Bless Him. But I kept seeing all the faulty analysis here and folks chasing fairies, which is FINE, but then they also had to go and show frustration with those who were pointing out the fact that the math does not work, and the calculations simply are not done the way Rossi is representing, so I spoke up.

      And I certainly was not intending to seed a thread over the issue.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Again, you are making an assumption about the “resistance” of the QX. Here are a couple of “facts” (assuming a DC supply only):

        1). An ideal power supply has zero impedance. It can supply any current at a fixed voltage, including currents that enter the positive terminal or the negative terminal.

        2). A resistor is a particular lumped-parameter abstraction that is modeled in a linear system as a fixed value “R” that obeys Ohm’s Law. That is, the voltage (V in Volts) across it is related to the current (I in Amperes) through it by the value R. In fact, for a non-zero current, R = V/I is the definition of R.

        3). Power measured in a lumped-parameter component is defined as VxI. The sign of V and I enter into the calculation and power dissipation can be both a “positive” value in the case where the current enters into the more positive potential side of the lumped parameter, or “negative” where the current enters the more “negative” side of the lumped parameter.

        4). A voltage source (ideal) can either provide power or absorb power, depending on the direction of the current flow with respect to the more positive terminal. Current that “leaves” the more positive potential side means the voltage source is providing power.

        5). A resistor always dissipated (absorbs power), turning the electrical power into heat. When the current changes direction, so does the voltage potential at the terminal relative to the other terminal.

        Now given those “facts”, we still do not know what the QX really is because we do not have a measurement of the voltage across and the current through the QX device taken at the same time. In fact we do not even have a measurement taken at any time of the voltage across the QX. It is possible that the QX winds up “generating” a voltage of the same magnitude but in the same voltage direction as the applied voltage (QX is a “source”). It is also possible that the voltage across the QX is nearly zero, but in the same direction as would be if it looked like a simple resistor. We don’t know!

        Another confusing fact is the emergence of the 24 volt “battery” in Rossi’s latest interview with Frank. You can interpret it a number of ways, but even though he says that the applied current is “DC”, we do not have a circuit diagram of how it is really applied to the QX, so we do not know how to interpret it.

        I am going to go out on a limb here and state (without any real facts to back it up) that there is a complex, non-linear supply that is set between the 24 volt battery and the 1-Ohm/QX circuit. I think that it is hidden in the grey metal box on which the QX and Calorimeter is sitting. This supply somehow “ignites” the QX plasma and then switches to the DC 100mA current, using an efficient conversion. One possibility is an efficient switching regulator instead of a linear regulator. This also implies that the QX is, in fact, a complex, NON-Linear impedance. Rossi’s statement that the supply is DC is a partial fact — the state is DC only after the “ignition” phase.

        I think we will have to hold our breath and await further information.

        • Chapman

          As expected, a Brilliant analysis!

          If you hop over to the other thread, you will see GADAB was just theorizing specifically about the QX having an NDR zone.

          You guys are onto something, and I think you are sneaking up on the source of the mystery! It may well be that exact Non-Linearity that Rossi identified, and started exploring, that lead to the QuarkX in the first place.

          The one thing we CAN guess, as you have already done, is that there is a lot more going on over on the power supply side than a simple precision digital DC power supply!

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Rossi confirms part of what I “guessed”:

            Andrea Rossi
            July 23, 2017 at 1:57 PM
            Oystein Lande:
            Our power source can be either 120 or 220 V AC, or we can use 24V DC batteries.
            Obviously your calculation is wrong, because one thing is the voltage at the power source, a totally different thing is the voltage that goes to the E-Cat through the circuitry of the control system.
            In the same Gullstroem-Rossi paper you can read the voltage measured by the 2 voltmeters.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

        • US_Citizen71

          I believe the QX is at heart a metal vapor light. “The electric arc in metal-halide lamps, as in all gas discharge lamps has a negative resistance property; meaning that as the current through the bulb increases, the voltage across it decreases.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-halide_lamp#Ballasts

          Negative Resistance – “In electronics, negative resistance (NR) is a property of some electrical circuits and devices in which an increase in voltage across the device’s terminals results in a decrease in electric current through it.[4][5]

          This is in contrast to an ordinary resistor in which an increase of applied voltage causes a proportional increase in current due to Ohm’s law, resulting in a positive resistance.[6] While a positive resistance consumes power from current passing through it, a negative resistance produces power.[7][8] Under certain conditions it can increase the power of an electrical signal, amplifying it.[3][9][10]

          Negative resistance is an uncommon property which occurs in a few nonlinear electronic components. In a nonlinear device, two types of resistance can be defined: ‘static’ or ‘absolute resistance’, the ratio of voltage to current {displaystyle v/i,} {displaystyle v/i,}, and differential resistance, the ratio of a change in voltage to the resulting change in current {displaystyle Delta v/Delta i} {displaystyle Delta v/Delta i}. The term negative resistance means negative differential resistance (NDR), {displaystyle Delta v/Delta i;<;0} {displaystyle Delta v/Delta i;<;0}. In general, a negative differential resistance is a two-terminal component which can amplify,[3][11] converting DC power applied to its terminals to AC output power to amplify an AC signal applied to the same terminals.[7][12] They are used in electronic oscillators and amplifiers,[13] particularly at microwave frequencies. Most microwave energy is produced with negative differential resistance devices.[14] They can also have hysteresis[15] and be bistable, and so are used in switching and memory circuits.[16] Examples of devices with negative differential resistance are tunnel diodes, Gunn diodes, and gas discharge tubes such as neon lamps. In addition, circuits containing amplifying devices such as transistors and op amps with positive feedback can have negative differential resistance. These are used in oscillators and active filters.

          Because they are nonlinear, negative resistance devices have a more complicated behavior than the positive "ohmic" resistances usually encountered in electric circuits. Unlike most positive resistances, negative resistance varies depending on the voltage or current applied to the device, and negative resistance devices can have negative resistance over only a limited portion of their voltage or current range.[10][17] Therefore, there is no real "negative resistor" analogous to a positive resistor, which has a constant negative resistance over an arbitrarily wide range of current." – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance

          I think treating the QX as a metal halide light might help to understand the power system. I have to admit it is a bit beyond my scope of knowledge, but it seems to help explain what we are seeing in the paper.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I posted the idea of an apparent negative resistance some years ago with regard to the Lugano reactor (where it was probably inappropriate, but might have explained the atypical resistance drop). It makes much more sense in the case of the QX. And a negative resistance could explain why AR considers his measurement method to be “conservative” (otherwise it would be the opposite).

  • Leonard Weinstein

    The information quoted is nonsense. Using a 1 Ohm resistor in series with the QX and measuring the Voltage across the resistor only determines the current of 0.1 A. If there is a resistance of the QX, this does not drop the current, it is only determined by the measurement across the known resistor, but the total voltage is not given. The claim is made that a 24 V battery was used for power. If no controller is used to adjust input voltage, that means the QX has a 23.9 V drop across it. The input power to the QX is thus (24- 0.1) X 0.1=2.39 W. If the output is 20 W, the COP is 20/2.39=8.37. If the output power is 10 W, the COP is 10/2.39=4.18.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If a controller were used, the COP can be larger, but Rossi stated that 24 V was needed. Rossi stated the resistance of the QX is very small, but some additional evidence is needed to support this claim.

      • Chapman

        Exactly so.

        The IDEA of a super low reactor resistance creates the impression of impossible COP levels, and leads to configurations like daisy chaining, but experience tells us that it is unlikely to be the case. A more realistic answer is a reactor resistance somewhere between 10 and 100 ohms, which gives a COP that is more realistically in the range expected.

        But Rossi listed the input energy as just the resistors 100 mV, with the clear representation that this was the important voltage. Now, if the Quark has a 220 ohm resistance, and a voltage drop of 22 volts, then he can power it all with 22.1 volts and have a COP of 9. That is LOVELY. No arguing that is GREAT. But it invalidates a huge chunk of what he presented! How could he possibly say that the resistance of the resistor is the only resistance in the circuit if he knows the Quark has a resistance 220 times HIGHER? How could he represent that input energy is 10 mW when he knows that the energy input is a full 2.21 W???

        These are not minor discrepancies, or “close enough for government work”. Rather than having a situation where the reactor resistance and voltage drop are negligible compared to the resistor, we have a situation where it is the RESISTOR that should be totally ignored, because it’s contributions are swamped out by the much higher values of the reactor. It means the resistor has NO driver or swamping function, and does not significantly alter the total current or drop a significant voltage, and it’s only purpose is to provide a convenient “tap” for showing in-line current. This works just fine for me, and I have no complaint if that is the case, other than the fact that it means Rossi put out a fantastically false report. A real steaming pile of BS. And I am just not ready to embrace the idea that he did that. It answers the MATH perfectly, but calls the man into question.

        So we either have an incredible device with operating levels far in excess of anything we dreamed of, or…
        we have a really great device that works every bit as good as advertised (COP between 10 and 30?) over the last year, but we see evidence of Rossi putting out false and misleading data when there was no need to go there. I mean, it is not a matter of omitted data, but clear and intentional trickery!

        So, I am torn. Do I trust the math, and suspect the man? Or do I ignore the math, and have faith that somehow all the impossible numbers add up as stated?

        • Leonard Weinstein

          I suspect that Rossi either made a mistake that seems to indicate limited understanding of basic electrical circuit math, or he does know the value of the small voltage drop across the device and wants to keep the details secret. If the later, there had to be a voltage dropping circuit from the 24 volts quoted (as needed), and this is effectively a resistance or active electrical equivalent. Since Rossi used a two-stage process (or more) to increase COP in other systems, he should also be able to do something similar here (use one QX output to heat several to reduce input power). If his 1 MW system test was valid, it likely used a multiple stage system this way to reach COP 80 or so.

          • Chapman

            Sounds about right.

            I tend to believe he made no mistake, but is tap dancing around trying to share what he can but still keep his secrets safe. I don’t fault him for it, but he sure is frustrating the heck out of everyone who is trying to “read between the lines”, when they have not grasped the fact that every other line was intentionally omitted!

          • Omega Z

            Keep in mind that the paper piblished on arXiv is authored as “Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi”

            This would require both to be wrong. While not impossible, it reduces the likelyhood. As to Rossi withholding details to prevent others from figuring out what is actually happening in the QX. That is precisely what Rossi has stated. And to do this would have required Gullström’s approval.

            Way over my head, but what would the resistance be of Plasma.

          • Chapman

            Plasma physics goes over my head too. I understand the functions and force interactions, but the math is just so much greek at that point. I will leave it to Axil and Zephir.

        • Rene

          He is making a claim based on carefully omitting or claiming confidentiality the important data points needed to determine the power input to the device: the total voltage across the system (1ohm resistor and reactor) or the resistance across the reactor. I am not torn at all, as I consider Rossi’s comments on the matter as deceitful. He is hiding something again, and he’s willing to deflect attention to keep that hidden, whatever that may be.

          And yes, with a resistance of 220Ω can yield an input power of 2W and COP 9ish. But what if inside the concealment box there is a DC to DC buck boost converter generating 200VDC, COP becomes 1. All this is speculation, of course, but by carefully concealing the basic total system voltage Rossi creates a careful scenario of wide interpretation, enough to cause a lot of argument. That’s shameful at the very least.

      • Rene

        There will be a controller. Arc lamps have negative coefficient resistance (not negative resistance). From Wikipedia:

        Power supply requirements
        A 1 kW xenon short-arc lamp power supply with the cover removed.

        Xenon short-arc lamps have a negative temperature coefficient like other gas discharge lamps. They are operated at low-voltage, high-current, DC and started with a high voltage pulse of 20 to 50kV. As an example, a 450 W lamp operates normally at 18 V and 25 A once started. They are also inherently unstable, prone to phenomena such as plasma oscillation and thermal runaway[citation needed]. Because of these characteristics, xenon short-arc lamps require a proper power supply.”

        Here is an example of a power supply/controller:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:HLR-SHORT-ARC-SUPPLY-B.jpg

    • Thomas Kaminski

      This calculation is completely bogus. The 24V or line 120/220 VAC is the power supply used to power the controlling circuit. By Rossi’s comment:

      “Our power source can be either 120 or 220 V AC, or we can use 24V DC batteries.
      Obviously your calculation is wrong, because one thing is the voltage at the power source, a totally different thing is the voltage that goes to the E-Cat through the circuitry of the control system.
      In the same Gullstroem-Rossi paper you can read the voltage measured by the 2 voltmeters.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      Also, the thermal system was a very important part of the design as discussed here:

      “Mike Phalen
      July 23, 2017 at 5:47 PM
      Hi Dr. Rossi,

      It sounds like you are saying that a 24 volt battery can drive both the control system and power the Ecat.

      Can you tell us how many watts the control system consumes?

      Andrea Rossi
      July 23, 2017 at 9:22 PM
      Mike Phalen:
      No and it is not relevant to the COP of the E-Cat QX. By the way, I can say that such consume mainly is due to the cooling system and the heat can be recovered. We have a strong overheating of the electronic components due to the high temperature of the reactor that by conductivity through the copper cables reaches the circuitry. It has been a struggle against the time: how to exchange heat soon enough and efficiently enough to avoid the burn of some essential component. We burnt a lot of control systems before finding the solution, because the normal thermostatic systems were useless, due to the time lapsed between the set and the real exchange of enough heat to save the components. It seems stupid, but it was not. We tried without success all the traditional systems, but for one reason or another, they were either not efficient or too “dirt” ( like immersing all in dielectric oil). Most of our unreliability issues came from this problem. At the end we found the solution.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      Further, Rossi states that the controller can be used with up to 100 devices:

      “Frank Acland
      July 23, 2017 at 7:18 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      How many 20W E-Cat QX reactors would you be able to operate from a single control box like the one you used in the recent Gullstroem-Rossi paper?

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

      Translate
      Andrea Rossi
      July 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM
      Frank Acland:
      One hundred.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      Trying to make sense out of the calculation based on limited information is a wild guess. We need to wait for more information on the control system.

  • Guru Khalsa

    Just one thought. It seems to me there is not enough information given to verify the claimed power comsumption. Wouldn’t it be simpler to measure the voltage across the circiut instead of across the resistor, and then there would be no need to make assumptions about the reactors resistance. But Rossi doesn’t do this. Let us assume the reasons are to proctect his IP.
    Two possibilities occur to me:
    1. there is an oscillating wave added to the input current that would become apparent under more scrutinizing measurements.
    2. the current in the circuit changes directions

    • DrD

      He said in this Demo it’s pure DC to avoid complications in power calculations.

      • Guru Khalsa

        You are right he did say it was plain DC.

        Still you got to wonder what can he hide by measuring the V across the resistance, instead of measuring the V across the circuit the I in the circuit and not telling us what the resistance is. The latter would clearly give the Power without giving away the reactor Impedence if that is what he wants to hide.
        If this is what the demo is going to be like, I’m sorry but it will be worthless. There has got to be something he is not telling us, and saying trust me its just like silver doesn’t work for me.

  • Oystein Lande

    Now Rossi says QX have the same conductivity as Ag….

    I guess the 1 ohm resistor is therefore main resistance in the curcuit and he has a control system that reduce the input total voltage to some 100mV.

    The only possibility for his calculation to be right.

    • Bob Greenyer
      • DrD

        And Rossi and Mills converge.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is all down to electrons and their analogues – it matters not what they are but what they can do and how you can control them and derive energy from them.

    • GiveADogABone

      Have a read of this and see what you think, the last sentence in particular :
      https://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/electronic-ballast
      Ballast Basics:
      For a lighting device based on electric gas discharge to work, the ionization of gas in the tube is necessary. This phenomenon takes place at a relatively high potential difference and/or temperature than the normal operating conditions of the lamp. After the arc is set up, the conditions can be brought down to normal. To achieve this, three types of methods are generally employed: pre-heat, instant start and rapid start. In pre-heat, the electrodes of the lamp are heated to a high temperature before the voltage is impressed upon them through a starter. Instant start ballasts were developed to start lamps without delay or flashing and use an initial high voltage in place of raised temperatures. Rapid start ballasts make a tradeoff between pre-heat and instant start and use a separate set of windings to initially heat the electrodes for a lesser duration and then, using a relatively lower voltage to start the lamp. Another type, programmed start ballasts is a variant of rapid-start. Any of these starting principles may be used in the ballasts. Initially, when the gas is unionized, it offers a high resistance path to current. But after the ionization takes place and the arc is set up, the resistance drops to a very low value, almost acting like a short circuit. If all this current is allowed to pass through the lamp, the lamp would either burn out or cause the power supply to fail. Thus the ballast needs to perform the current limiting.

      • Oystein Lande

        Yes, since the paper states a 1cm gap between electrodes, Rossi needs to apply some of the above ideas to start the QX I imagine….

  • DrD

    Hi Chapman,
    Why do you struggle with this?
    Asuming it is LENR then what’s the problem with needing no (or negligible) power to keep it running. He called it SSM. It might actually need more power to shut it down.
    That is how nuclear reactions work; be it, fusion, fision, hot, cold or Other. As you know the output comes from E=mC^2.
    There’s much Rossi hasn’t told us and much of what he has said is not very clear for example the current debate over the cores resistance and did he measure V across the core plus the fixed resistor or just the fixed resistor. On the one hand he said the latter but in a seperate explanatation (about being conservative) it can only be the former. Either way it’s not that important except to us trying to understand things. If the COP were only 2 then it becomes very important.
    It’s very clear that when he says the cores resistance is zero he is being flippant like many of us do now and again. What we (he) means is in context of the main resistor (1 Ohm) so he’s measured A cores resistance (at an unspecified temp) and it’s <<1Ohm but doesn't wish to say exactly what it is and I'm sure it does vary with temperature. It's probably about 0.1 Ohm or maybe 0.001 Ohm or — simply just negligible compared to 1 Ohm.
    As for the COP; well it's a useful figure of merit but for a nuclear reactor it's a bit meaningless. For any nuclear reactor its infinite but if you include the control system etc it becomes finite. On the other hand if you also include the energy from the lost mass then it's <1. So which definition you chose is a matter of choice. Neither is strictly incorrect.
    Trying to second guess him and work it all out is all good fun though and it's looking very hopeful in my opinion. Pity about the domestic units though.

    • Chapman

      I was struggling with the zero resistance nonsense, and the reported input energy. Both are clearly wrong, but why would he SAY it? Well, if the thinking around here is true, and it does work the way this discussion is leaning towards, then I am satisfied that Rossi was reporting only the conditions existing during the critical operating phase, and the voltage/current conditions DURING the time a productive COP is being generated.

      I can accept that as being a fair representation of “what is important” even though it leaves out the majority of the critical operational data. I guess it is a matter of justifying the bad data release. On it’s own, the data was self contradictory and unworkable, which calls everything into question. All I wanted was ONE plausible explanation of a bigger picture where the presented data could be independently true, even though it was only a selective sample extracted from a much more complicated whole.

  • Omega Z

    “New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper”

    Gullstrom did the testing of the QX along side Rossi before putting this paper forward. So while Rossi wholly admits to withholding certain details, it had to be with Gullstrom’s approval. There would only be an issue if Rossi didn’t admit to withholding info…

  • blanco69

    The chat below is a great read and I see lots of detailed analysis of voltages, currents, arcs and other whiz-bang science stuff like plasma. However, I have to ask, “What happened to the nickel powder with the Hydrogen gas thingy? Ecat, I think it was called – It fuelled this disccussion for about 6 years and promised to usher in a new era of abundant free energy. That one seems to have been dropped. I wonder if we’ll see another court case in 6 years where the Quack Cat gets dropped in favour of yet another secret, left field and unvalidated technology that has a starting COP of, oh I dont know, 10,000! However, I do love the ‘Lets stick to the facts’ chat. That should take about 1 minute.

  • GiveADogABone
  • Rene

    Here’s an example to consider. The calibrated shunt in series with the inverters is 0.1Ω and the meter is reading 3.3millivolts. What is the current? What is the power flowing through the shunt? Is this the same as the power consumed by the house loads? What else do you need to determine that? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed6b49446a8510e493334c0825bf2021d413920c49917b883f8d3a630bf7a3ec.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbee706a4fa0d1195eec2f462effbb80f1c0b3ff638827933f3e750979e49951.jpg

  • Dr. Mike

    Chapman,
    Thanks for your thoughts on the E-Cat QX and for the discussion which has led to the many questions that have been asked of Rossi by Frank and others. Based on Rossi’s answers to these questions, I now don’t believe it is even necessary to see the October demonstration of the E-Cat QX because we already know what will be shown. First the input power will be claimed to be no greater that 10mW because there will be 100mV being shown across a 1 ohm resistor (with 2 meters even!) and everyone knows that the E-Cat QX has a resistance much smaller than 1 ohm because Rossi says it is so. Any non dc input to the E-Cat QX will not be shown with an oscilloscope because any such signal will be claimed to be proprietary. However, any high frequency signals going to the E-Cat QX will not deliver any significant power to the device because Rossi will say it is so. The output power calorimetry will the temperature rise of a small amount of oil after 1.8000000 sec of heating. Everyone surely will agree with Rossi that this is the best way to determine the power output of the E-cat QX, after all this is the way he has always measured the power output of the device. Will the calorimetry technique be verified by having a 20W heater heating the same amount of oil for the same time? There really won’t be a need to waste time verifying the calorimetry procedure because Rossi will say that it is not necessary.
    I was actually hoping that Rossi would show a measurement of the power going into his controller so that the system COP could be calculated. However, in his answer to Mike Phalen on 7/23/2017 Rossi claims the power consumed by the controller is “not relevant to the COP of the E-Cat QX” so don’t expect to see any information presented that would allow the calculation of the system COP. Although Rossi claims 100 E-Cat QX’s can be controlled by one controller, he made no statement as to whether the power consumed by the controller is independent of the number of devices being controlled, is proportional to the number of devices being controlled, or something in between. Of course, everyone will surely agree that the power consumed by the controller is not relevant because Rossi says it is not.
    Dr. Mike

  • Axil Axil

    It seems to me that in LENR a plasma can have two configurations: one without the LENR reaction active and one with the LENR reaction active. When Rossi measured the resistance of the plasma, what state was the plasma in, the LENR on state or the LENR off state?

    According to Rossi’s e-Cat patent, a heater gets the reactor up to operating temperature, then a stimulant signal is applied to the reactor to turn the LENR reaction on.

    Rossi can control when the LENR state is on or off by turning the LENR stimulant signat on or off, that is how the power production of the LENR reactor is regulated.

    According to the theory paper, the stimulant is a quadrupole magnetic field.

    It also seems to me that measuring the resistance of the plasma is complicated and uncertain when the LENR stimulant is on and the LENR reaction is active. So it is probable that Rossi measured the Plasma resistance when the LENR reaction was off.

    It would be nice to know what the resistance of the plasma is under both the on and off reactor state.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Also to be considered: SSM vs. non-SSM, possibility of plasma interruptions (other points mentioned below). AR will convince observers only if he provides a more conclusive measurement setup in the planned presentation. But maybe it is sort of a strategy not to leave the ‘Cat’ too far out of the bag.

    • GiveADogABone

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole_magnet
      ‘Magnetic field lines of an idealized quadrupole field in the plane transverse to the nominal beam direction. The red arrows show the direction of the magnetic field while the blue arrows indicate the direction of the Lorentz force on a positive particle going into the image plane (away from the reader)’

      So, a negative particle coming out of the image plane experiences the same force direction

      The QX plasma contains a neutral beam current but the positive and negative particles travel in opposite directions. That means both positive and negative particles get focused together or dispersed together. Enough to switch the LENR on and off while keeping the arc operational?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_focusing
      ‘a sequence of divergent and convergent lenses’
      Enough to make the beam go down the hole in the QX electrode wherein sits the LENR fuel?

  • Omega Z

    “if most of the space is taken up by the QX.”

    Perspective- The QX is 10mm in lenght and a diameter of 5mm. It makes up a small portion of the exchanger. Also, even though the QX gets extremely hot, it is very small with an output of about 20 watts.

    “why such a short time was used”

    The short time 1.8 seconds was the sampling rate. Sampled every 1.8 seconds. We don’t know how long they ran the device. If you’ve followed JONP, You surely understand this paper is inconclusive. It is a work in progess. I’m sure you know this so I have to wonder why you promote FUD.

  • Frank Acland

    AR did answer my question quite clearly when I asked why the test was so short at 1.8 seconds — he said it was nonsense. I followed up asking what the 1.8″ referred to and he explained it was part of a formula meaning ” we measured a speed of heating of 1.58 Celsius degree every 1,8 seconds in a mass of 11 grams of water.”

    It was when I suggested that 1.8 seconds was a seemingly arbitrary period of time he just said it was, “due to our kind of calculations.”

  • Omega Z

    Carl-Oscar Gullström is the author of the paper.

    I doubt someone early in his career being involved in a taboo subject to begin with would just let Rossi make changes without Thoroughly reading through the changes.

    In addition, it was published so they could obtain input for improving the paper. It is not a complete work. Why do people read this as said and done.

  • Rene

    Thank you Abid. I was using the same language Rossi wrote for his QuarkX. Your analysis is quite good and the reason I took the time to use a real world working example is to demonstrate how totally bogus are the measurements Rossi claimed. BTW, at the time of the measurements the two house inverters were delivering 5A and 2A each at 120VAC, so total consumption 840W. The shunt is in series with batteries measured at 56VDC at the time (their max is 59.2VDC), and as you noted, given the low readings across the shunt, this suggests a trickle charge. PV panels provided the power to the house.
    This is the kind of information you really need to assess anything about the QuarkX. Just stating the voltage and resistance of a shunt is far from sufficient. You need total system voltage, not just the shunt. You need to know if the circuitry in series with the shunt is generating power. You need to know if there are any other power sources involved.

  • Omega Z

    You posted-“if most of the space is taken up by the QX.”

    Where the size of the Quark is readily known-10mm in lenght and 5mm in diameter. Your statement is very misleading.

    The sampling rate is 1.8 seconds. You make it sound like a single data reading. It would be nonsense to believe that. Your statement is very misleading.

    The paper was published by Gullstrom(the Registered Author) as inconclusive so as to obtain input from a wider community. You only take issue with this as it involves Rossi. Had it been a group from MIT or some such, it wouldn’t be a problem.