Are claims about 1MW plants flowmeter nothing more than FUD?

1st Official Post

    Hi all


    Jed Rothwell and other have made claims about the Flowmeter that are now under question because a photograph Rossi had already published appears to have a little detail in the bottom of the image, to whit a top of the line Flow-meter of a modern kind specifically made for the roll of accurately measuring both flow and temperature in the specific rage of the 1 MW plants output and placed in the exact position it is supposed to be, contrary to various FUD claims.


    I refer to the image under the title "Industrial Plant Under Test at Customer Site (2014-2015)" on this page


    http://www.e-catworld.com/what-is-the-e-cat/


    Zoomed in shot:


    Various informed and expert sources claim it is one of these:
    http://submetersolutions.com/4440-34.html


    Kind Regards walker

    Hi all


    In reply to Dewy Weaver:
    Here is a another zoom in of the picture:


    I have had a look at pipe union's on a feeder line, they do not look like this.


    Can you post up the ERV report you claim to have seen to prove what you are saying?


    Kind Regards walke

    • Official Post

    All the elbows and other unions in the pipes seen here are covered in insulation. This part is not, which suggests that it requires inspection or physical access (like a drain-cock would). It looks vaguely like a water-meter, but hard to be sure, perhaps it is a UFO (unidentifiable flowmeter object).

    If that is a flow meter, it should not be mounted right at the elbow (turn in the pipe). Most flow meter manuals say they should be mounted on a long, straight level run of pipe.


    Here is a handy guide to flow meters:


    http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html


    This specifies the turbine meters need "a minimum of 10 pipe diameters of straight pipe on the inlet is required." On the other hand, Positive Displacement flow meters can be used "when no straight pipe is available and turbine meters and paddlewheel sensor would see too much turbulence."

    • Official Post

    Why say it is FUD.
    Like what Rossi says this is what Dewey and Jed says.
    Jed have sources, Dewy is inside, and Rossi is an insider too.


    All we have is a Rossi Says where Jed confirm, that Dewey was send out of the test room because he had a thermal gun (a tool of attorneys), and IH was prevented to enter the client zone to make thermal measurements.


    I have also Lugano test where apparent huge error, that is not corrected, either by admitting, or by explaining our mistake. If there is an error, the worst mystery is not the error, it happens, but that Rossi did not warn the scientists, but enjoyed the result.
    If it is working; why not making a 1 day test to explains our error and misunderstanding?


    That is all I need to have an opinion.
    I've been a bit late. For long the support of IH to Rossi, the presence of a real client, was for me the best evidence, whatever was my technical misunderstanding.


    today I support the idea that Rossi is king in HUD, Hope-Uncertainty-and-Doubt.
    all his test were letting a mysterious possibility to be OK, and have a real LENr effect.
    even today, Jed think it may have worked, even if the client is a joke, the calorimetry a joke, the report a joke...
    we are lost in HUD.

    AlainCo said in part "today I support the idea that Rossi is king in HUD, Hope-Uncertainty-and-Doubt."


    Alain you have been a tireless advocate of LENR. This is a good thing. I am confused. Specifically are you saying not that you have doubts but that that the Rossi E-cat does not provide the COP claimed?
    If this is so is this a change? I am a bit uncertain on your thought.


    Thanks,
    Rigel

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    As far as I can tell, the 1-year test did not work



    Well Jed, after reading your other posts, this confuses me. "As far as I can tell", is something new from you. Before, everything you said was much more absolute.


    Are you being fed some new info you are not telling us about? Do you: "Have a secret, and no one else knows about...hahaha"? Do not be ashamed if you do, as it seems no one worth their weight enters the LENR inner sanctum without having a secret no else can know. :)

    Quote from Shane D.

    Well Jed, after reading your other posts, this confuses me. "As far as I can tell", is something new from you. Before, everything you said was much more absolute.


    That's just force of habit. My academese kicking in. I mean that all of the data I have from Rossi points to that conclusion. It is possible there is additional data from the 1-year run somewhere indicating excess heat. More to the point, as I said before, the error margins are so gigantic that based on this alone, you cannot rule out some heat. There is no doubt the flow rate and other parameters are wrong. But exactly how wrong is impossible for me to judge based on this alone. However, as I said, I have heard there is additional data collected by I.H. that does rule out any heat.


    There is no way it could be 50 times input, but a small excess heat COP is possible. But I am not interested in experimental evidence from a sloppy, half-baked test. If there were real excess heat it would have been easy to demonstrate it convincingly, so why pay attention to a ridiculous test?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    If we get confirmation of the latest leaked isotope shift data, then it won't matter whether I.H. thinks there was heat or not.


    The very fact that the information was leaked and no official comment has been made rather suggests that confirmation will not be forthcoming. It was my understanding that system was locked up so how did anyone take samples? This looks like deliberate misinformation.


    And of course it matters whether or not there was heat. That is what IH paid for.

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

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

Our Partners

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