Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Quote from THHuxley

    What fascinates me is what is Rossi's level of self-awareness over this? Does he do it thinking this will influence others, or for his own self-gratification, or as a way - he would rationalise - of communicating - or does he suffer MPD and do this unaware of it?


    Rossi's character is one of the fascinating aspects of this story. Others will say that he is just an everyday crank with a story, but I don't think his M.O. is that common.


    It does seem to be quite uncommon. When reading the comments, I think you just need to ask yourself, "what is the intended goal he is trying to achieve with this?" He's not actually talking to himself. It is for a purpose.


    I think to understand it better, you can start with the other fakes. For example, what was the purpose of the fake employee of the the fake customer? What was the purpose of the fake business card? What was the purpose of the fake customer? What was the purpose of the fake transmutation? What was the purpose of the supposed fake test failure with his licensee? What was the purpose of the fake data (36000 kg/day)?


    You can start to see the pattern emerge.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Quote from THHuxley: “Did this comment, which is contradicted by my point immediately above it, overlap you reading my point? Or do you want to make your reasons for thinking it clearer?”


    Do You remember &quot;the proposal to bill .75 MW&quot; (= flow 27m<sup>3</sup>) ? Do…


    Well, I don't know whether they used an 80mm tube. It would be silly given the flowrate. If not, the use of this flowmeter is even more bizzare don't you think?

    Quote from Abd

    The key legal point is that this was not the Guaranteed Performance Test, because setting up that test required the explicit, written consent of all parties to the Agreement. At the very least, it would require IH consent. IH consented to the move of the reactor to Florida, but not for the purpose of a GPT. It was to sell power to a supposed real customer. As part of that installation, performance was monitored. That would be part of such a setup.Because it was not the GPT, but rather a power installation set up by Rossi, Industrial Heat was not demanding, and did not take legal action when Rossi restricted IH access, not only to the customer area -- which was *not* prohibited by the Terms Sheet agreement with JM Products -- but also to the reactor.


    Rossi wove a tangled web. Yes, it is difficult to understand. Why focus on megawatt reactors in the first place? Why not make smaller, more affordable units? That could then be widely and easily tested?However, "difficult to understand" does not equal "must have some good reason." Rossi is not merely eccentric, as everyone knew.


    Yes Abd, as often you make good points though I've noticed that those in your audience not liking the message will filter out the "key points" and pick on anything else.


    There was a very powerful (though always flawed, because assumptive) meme that IH's actions just did not make sense - supporting Rossi while doubting him. As we get more information the exact details of what were their actions, when, and why become clearer. One key plank in this is realising that if, legally, what Rosi is doing is not the GPT, they can accept a flawed test, remain interested in whether it could actually bring new information to the table against the odds, but have no intention of paying up.


    This can be spun both ways: as IH scheming to deny a poor inventor his money with legal loopholes, or as IH doing the best they can working with an impossible partner who just might have the invention of the century.


    What does not make sense, if they thought Rossi's stuff works - even in modified form - is why they would risk so much by not paying a paltry $89M. And if his stuff does not work for them then they can do nothing other than not be generous and publicly disavow him even though there is still some small chance he may have something.




    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You may be right. I'd have to say, then, that flowmeter manufacturers are incompetent. Any engineer worth his salt would make a flow meter that is not so easily "fooled."


    The problem is inherent. An impellor can rotate both ways, but sensors to determine direction as well as movement are more expensive (you need two quadrature phase angle sensors instead of a single pulse angle sensor). When these flowmeters are used properly (with a non-return valve close to the meter, and a pipe full of liquid) there is no problem.

    Quote from &quot;Th........ &amp; Abdulla&quot;

    The key legal point is that this was not the Guaranteed Performance Test, because setting up that test required the explici


    Oh no... You need to reboot. Your FUD bot is reading the same file, posting the same FUD over and over again ... Press power butten for ten sec.... :D

    The flowmeter dissembling by IH sympathizers has been exposed for all to see.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ssis-complaints/#comments


    Look over the comments in the past few hours and the supporting specifications.


    If the IH sympathizers were so wrong on this, I can expect we will see more laid bare soon. Jed has been pretty mum as of late. Some are on the hot trail of the real party in interest in GB: turns out to be another shell company with Chinese ownership (apparently). Wow, this story just gets more and more interesting!

    Quote from Jack Cole

    It does seem to be quite uncommon. When reading the comments, I think you just need to ask yourself, "what is the intended goal he is trying to achieve with this?" He's not actually talking to himself. It is for a purpose.


    I think to understand it better, you can start with the other fakes. For example, what was the purpose of the fake employee of the the fake customer? What was the purpose of the fake business card? What was the purpose of the fake customer? What was the purpose of the fake transmutation? What was the purpose of the supposed fake test failure with his licensee? What was the purpose of the fake data (36000 kg/day)?


    You can start to see the pattern emerge.


    I have been talking about Rossi's fake users on JONP, here and E-Scat World since I joined this forum...and on E-Scat world until I was banned for bringing up topics like this. You will have those such as Colwyn and Sufferkoll (and a few others on Planet Rossi) who will continue to deny that Rossi has sock puppets all over the place, but it is so incredibly obvious and apparent. Rossi creates these fake puppets so that he can answer questions that he wants answered in the way he wants them answered and in his time frames. He also loves to bring in fake female users to praise and support him...hilarious to me what an amazing amount of females magically have appeared who have interest and deep knowledge of LENR lol! Rossi has finally stopped using obvious grammar and sentence structure elements such as the odd extra spaces before and after parenthesis and certain wording that we have been pointing out to him for months, but he still inadvertently uses so many obvious identifiers in his puppets. I believe his communication gap causes him to make most of these glaring mistakes that are so easy to detect. One would almost start to wonder if there is a mental and/or emotional problem adding to the fake puppet world. As pointed out also, it is amazing that Rossi has so many hours a day to not only answer questions on JONP to legitimate posters (probably a smaller number nowadays than the sock puppet population over there) but also to all of his sock puppets while somehow finding the time to develop the QuarkX to great magnificence! That last sentence was hard too type without laughing.

    Quote from THHuxley

    (2) The flowmeter is too large for the system by a factor of 10 or more. "Out of spec" in this case means the measured flowrate is only 2% of the maximum flowrate. The manufacturers recommendations are to size the meter so expected flowrate is 30%-50% maximum.


    Well said. This is what I had in mind, but you have clarified the issue. It wasn't just the fact that the flow meter minimum is above the actual amount measured per day.


    Quote from THHuxley

    What we can say is that the details we now know support IH's contention of fraudulent behaviour from Rossi, although quite a bit more in the ways of detail is needed to substantiate it.


    I believe they have a great deal more evidence. Evidence about the flow meter behavior, and also about various other aspects of the test such as the heat release in the customer site. Perhaps they are still assembling this evidence.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Quote from THHuxley: “(you need two quadrature phase angle sensors instead of a single pulse angle sensor)”


    Or maybe fit a diode. <img src="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />


    Does that work? I think magnet/coil sensors will not tell you direction unless you have commutators, which is a good deal more complex. And, anyway, I think they want the device to be magnetic field tolerant and therefore would use opto-senors. maybe there is some neat way of getting direction from this I'm not seeing?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    You may be right. I'd have to say, then, that flowmeter manufacturers are incompetent. Any engineer worth his salt would make a flow meter that is not so easily "fooled."


    Defkalion had three national instrument engineers setting up the ICCF-18 demo. Whatever spoof method that existed in the system was designed by National instruments. Those NI engineers must be worth there salt. NI is not interested in fooling people.


    IHFB - you've lost me. Where is what I've said wrong?


    THH

    Obvious LENR G • 5 hours ago
    LENR G:
    How about a flow meter rated for 20 times the flow it should be measuring ?Cheers



    Ged Obvious • 4 hours ago


    Not a problem. Look at the spec sheet, it was used well within its linear range at these temps. It's a good flow meter with great range, and the spec sheet even quantitates the error on log scale for if you use it out of range. It reports 3% less flow than in actuality if you use it at -half- its lower rating point.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxley

    Does that work? I think magnet/coil sensors will not tell you direction unless you have commutators, which is a good deal more complex. And, anyway, I think they want the device to be magnetic field tolerant and therefore would use opto-senors. maybe there is some neat way of getting direction from this I'm not seeing?


    A moving magnet/static coil does away with any need for commutation, and the electrical output polarity of a coil/magnet with the correct geometry would of course be dependent upon the direction of travel of the magnet. Insofar as magnetic fields are concerned, shielding from the steel case would normally be adequate -it could of course be boosted with a layer or two of Co-Netic or Mu-Metal.


    If you want to use opto sensors it is equally simple to use two sensors close together to read signals from a rotating perforated disc. The sensors - which incidentally cost pennies - need to be closer together than the perforation on the disc that is a simple matter to arrange. If the sensors are thus spaced appropriately you can tell from the opto-triggering order which way the disc is rotating.

    Quote

    No, they did not. NI withdrew support before that. They were unhappy with the setup. The ICCF-18 demo was made by Defkalion.


    I saw the entire demo. It was completely automated, it's still on YouTube. Defkalion personnel could not has done that automated and instrumented demo on their own hook.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    I'd have to say, then, that flowmeter manufacturers are incompetent. Any engineer worth his salt would make a flow meter that is not so easily "fooled."


    Any instrument can be fooled. There are always failure modes. As long as they are listed in the user manual and clearly explained, it is up to the user to avoid them. It is not possible to make an instrument that cannot be "fooled." If you make it impervious to one set of problems it will be open to another set.


    I believe that Defkalion and Rossi both deliberately induced problems. As I wrote earlier, all of the problems they induced are described in this guide to using flowmeters:


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


    So, an educated user looking at their setups, who performs the normal, recommended verification steps, would have caught the problems. I believe I.H. did perform these verifications and did catch the problems. Gamberale also performed them, but unfortunately he did that after many months, and after the ICCF-18 demonstration.

    Quote from axil

    Just like Defkalion, the flow meter canard is being dusted off again to steal the IP from another hapless inventor.


    If you read Gamberale's technical description, and you look at Defkalion's data at ICCF-18, you will see that the problem with the flow meter was real. It was not "dusted off." The meter was wrong, and the results were fraudulent. Defkalion was at fault, not Gamberale. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf


    If you seriously believe that Rossi's flowmeter accurately recorded exactly 36,000 kg per day, you have a screw loose. You do not understand flowmeters, flowing water, pumps or calorimetry.

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.