Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Hmm ... it has bothered me that running 4% under the minimum gives a 5000% increase in measured flow.


    (Yes, I would have selected a model with the expected maximum flow comfortably below the maximum of the meter.)


    The "Typical error" diagram shows that it measures flow at MINUS 3% just under the minimum. This probably applies to all models.


    The full/empty pipe still has to be resolved. (Was the stain produced during the test, or for example while it was emptied for shipping). I'd love to see an accurate pipe diagram to see if it is topologically possible to run it with a non-full pipe.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    As pointed out over on ECW:


    &quot;a spec sheet that clearly shows the minimum flow rate of this model as 1.4 m3/hr <a href="http://www.bellflowsystems.co.uk/files/PDF/MWN-130-NC.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">bellflowsystems.co.uk/files/PDF/MWN-130-NC.pdf</a>.
    That would be under 33,000 kg/day and well under the 36,000 kg/day that
    is apparently in the…


    IHFB - I think perhaps you are not reading my posts? I realise I (THH) am new poster here, but the key issue is:


    (1) The flowmeter is used out of spec (1.4/hr is wrong, 1.6/hr is right fo the manufacturer minimum). You are correct, although out of spec it is only just out of spec.


    (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.


    (3) Why does this weird sizing matter?


    (a) It shows a gross lack of professionalism from whomever specified the system
    (b) It makes very possible a KNOWN error mode which famously at ICCF 3 years ago resulted in a spectacularly successful public demo of Defkalion LENR. It turned out they had spoofed an impellor-based flowmeter by running it at very low flowrates and allowing turbulence etc to make it run both backwards and forwards. Thus over-reading the real flowrate dramatically. This is well documented because engineers at Defkalion Europe worried about the setup and asked for better instrumentation before the demo. Afterwards they replicated the setup and found they could spoof arbitrarily high flowrates. There is NO LIMIT to the amount of COP artifact enhancement this method can provide - though it does require careful adjustment of flowrate - (perhaps manually) - to keep the flow unstable.
    (c) especially in conjunction with a half-full system or one which has steam bubbles in the pipe this makes the measurement completely unsafe.


    So what can we conclude from this?


    (1) This system is not fit for purpose. No professional, knowing the design flowrate, would have used this meter.
    (2) The system is designed in a way (impellor flowmeter that cannot distinguish forward and reverse flow)used at very low flowrates) that had previously allowed the high profile Defkalion demo to be spoofed.


    We do not know whether this error mechanism actually applies in this case. The detailed setup, given the way it was used, could in fact be safe enough, if a bit unreliable. Or it could be completely unsafe. We do not know whether the grossly wrong-sized flowmeter was put in with the intention of spoofing. We do not know (even if it was put in with such intention) whether it in this case resulted in major spoofing.


    There is a thread here common to all Rossi's tests for which we have independent evidence which is that there are major problems with the test setup or methodology that would not pass any normal professional review, and we cannot know whether these problems are actually responsible for the claimed excess heat results, but analysis at a distance shows this to be possible.


    If you are a friend of Rossi you can say it is regrettable that this test on which $89M rests was so badly conducted. You can perhaps speculate that the wrong equipment was used on the explicit instruction of IH, who for some dark reason wished to invalidate the test.


    If you are right IH will look very foolish saying these things in their answer because the facts will be tested in Court and Rossi's expert witnesses will have additional evidence to prove the testing nevertheless safe, or to prove that IH made these mistakes. 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. The Court process provides IH with the means to fill in that detail.


    Regards, THH

    Quote

    The stain would be caused, I would think, by standing water. I'm no plumber, but the possibility that the stain somehow indicates a flow level in the pipe seems unlikely.


    I've done a bit of plumbing - though not a professional plumber. The rust stain indicates as you say standing water level. The issue is that in a well-designed system the impellor pipe would always be full of water (think about draining down a CH system). It is very easy in a badly designed system for air in the piping to cause problems, and in this case make measurement errors. But the Defkalion spoof method requires only enough instability from steam bubbles etc to make water flow oscillate between positive and negative. It can work even with a flowmeter fully submerged in water.

    Quote

    Hmm ... it has bothered me that running 4% under the minimum gives a 5000% increase in measured flow.


    Alan, this is an example of the incorrect analysis very common here. I'm not claiming above that the 50X COP comes solely from this flowmeter. I'm saying - for the reasons above you perhaps were not considering - that it could come from this, and that the use of this meter out of spec here for an important test is totally weird. It is sized 20X too small!


    We have other question marks about this test (data inconsistencies). It is not needed to work out exactly how the X50 came about to show that the measurement is unsafe, and that there was no need for this. It is certainly true that mass flow calorimetry in this system could, in the right circumstances, be safe. In this case if the customer required phase change energy the real big error would be measuring the amount of phase change (how much steam, how much water, in the output pipe). Pressure and temperature will do that only if the output flow is well-mixed with no standing water, and unless it is done carefully phase change error alone could result in a X50 error.


    The gross unprofessionalism of the pump sizing in this case gives is no reason to suppose that the more difficult task of doing output phase change measurement correctly is done without error.


    But we have as yet no information on this. All we know (rumoured) is that the output pressure is supposed to be 0 all the time which does not make much sense. With luck in Discovery more data will emerge?


    Suppose the Rossi test is mismeasured in a way that allows this COP=50 from a combination of flowrate and output phase mis-estimate. Do you expect IH to be able to prove this?


    All one could do without re-instrumenting the system would be to say that this is possible and could result in the apparent high COP.


    The significance of the pump is that it is clear fingerprint of a gratuitously wrong test setup.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxley

    It is sized 20X too small!




    To small or to big -that's the question!

    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.


    TH: The only person who saw this crucial flow-meter was, an at most medium skilled IH agent. The model number ...-80 indicates a tube width of 80mm. I guess this diameter for the water tube is crazy and most likly a cheat!! On the public E-cat photos we see much thinner tubes.


    The only explanation to name sub-model -80 is to invent a fact to serve as an argument.


    What I expect from either party is to provide the information about the model/tube size.


    If they used the badly dimensioned flow-meter, then this would be only an indication that the responsible engineer was incompetent.


    But: What would happen? The error rate would increase by a few "%" not much. One could easily reproduce this error with a simple test.


    The real danger from this Exhibit 15 is with IH. If their man cheated, than they are out!


    But what do we really expect? IH new all time, that the test run sub-optimal and was just a kind of development run. They (IH) claim to show the judge bill's sent to a customer, which is wrong. If ever bills were sent, then IH sent the bills...


    Final conclusion: AR and IH are both professional cheaters. We can't believe any of them. Even 10000 words of ABD will not help to build up any more credibilty for IH, the same holds for Rossi, who all the time knew that his test never run as expected.

    Quote from Rends

    To small or to big -that's the question!

    The legal point is missed. It is not that the flowmeter was giving deceptive readings. It is that Penon was actually engaged by Rossi and was not willing to interact with the IH engineer. It is that the questions, before the report was issued, were stonewalled.


    Rossi had refused to admit Murray until the "test" was finished. So, then, finally, the excuse exhausted, Murray gets to see the setup and has questions, and Penon basically disappears.


    The problem with "meter below minimum flow" is that the precision will be poor and that a meter under such conditions may function erratically. It is even possible that if there is turbulence, it will give wildly exaggerated readings. This was not the meter to use for the task. Whether or not it is a source of actual error is, then, unknown.


    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.


    Read the email in which Rossi argues that IH should allow the reactor to be moved to Florida. Consider the idea that the customer was in a hurry to get his process going. So, at the end of a year, where is the customer's concern? Supposedly this customer wants more plants. But what about this one? Supposedly they had a process set up there, using a megawatt of heat. Supposedly, it was working fine. The rental was for two years. What happened? As soon as Rossi finished the "test" -- his real purpose, not sale of power, which was actually costing him a lot of money -- the reactor was shut down, padlocked. There is no clue that IH withdrew from the power supply agreement.


    However, the sham was exposed, there was no more point. Before the end of February, Rossi had engaged Annesser and was refusing to cooperate on patent issues, as required by the Agreement. He knew the jig was up.


    However, what Rossi "knows" is a matter of speculation. I could say "should have known" and "behaved as if" -- in some ways, but he isn't sane and the behavior of the insane is not easily predictable, unless one knows the person well and knows the syndrome.


    Rossi is currently carrying on a conversation with himself on JONP. I was skeptical when I first saw claims he was creating fake posts, but seeing those posts again and again, with identifiable language and style .... it's Rossi.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    TH: The only person who saw this crucial flow-meter was, an at most medium skilled IH agent. The model number ...-80 indicates a tube width of 80mm. I guess this diameter for the water tube is crazy and most likly a cheat!! On the public E-cat photos we see much thinner tubes.


    I can of course not know whether IH have put false information into their answer. It would be unwise - either witnesses will have to perjure themselves or in court the material alleged will be shown to be wrong. Since IH seem to have good legal advice and be following it by the book I'd not expect that.


    Where you are right is that an 80mm flowmeter is anomalous and I'd not expect any normal engineer to use it in this system. Unless IH have made a big mistake however it exists. Quite how it got used will be a most interesting question for the Court proceedings don't you think?


    Quote from W

    But: What would happen? The error rate would increase by a few "%" not much. One could easily reproduce this error with a simple test.


    I think perhaps you have not read the report i linked from Defkalion Europe's engineer showing how at low flow rates (like this) impellor (like this) flowmeters could be induced to read high flow rates when in fact the average flow was small. I'm not saying that happened here. But equally since as far as we know all the conditions for it to happen existed I would not rule it out.


    Whether this system works OK (though with maybe 10% error due to size mismatch) depends on issue of flowmeter siting, is there a non-return valve and where is it located, what is the overall system layout, etc. We cannot tell. We can say that for the system to grossly over-read flowrate is a possibility made larger by the flowmeter specifics we now have.


    Regards, THH

    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.


    IH are claiming in their answer that the IMW test is not the GPT, and in as far as they authorised it, they did so for non-GPT reasons. It seems they have a decent legal argument there given the discrepancies they note. Also, it is plausible given their (equally plausible) overall story of an out of control Rossi who nevertheless they wanted to give every benefit of the doubt to.


    More interesting however is exactly who specified this clearly wrong flowmeter. I'm guessing that it was Rossi or Fabiani or Penon - and not IH. If, as I think somone here rumored a while ago, the flowmeter used was a replacement made by Rossi that will be interesting.

    Quote from &quot;Abdulla FUD master&quot;

    The key legal point is that this was not the Guaranteed Performance Test ... At the very least, it would require IH consent ...



    What the XXXX are you talking about????


    Darden did sign the 2nd amendment... Rossi did sign the 2nd amendment. If the intent from Darden was to leave out some signatures to be able to wriggle out of the agreement (as stated in the CunterFUD) it only makes him (and you as well Abd who goes on about it ad infinitum) infinite douchebags and inferior ?human? beings.


    The reason for a game like that can only be to make Rossi believe it was a GPT and to delay everything for 2+ years to pocket IP and probably work as a proxy for larger interests. It is so XXXXXXX obvious. And YOU going on vomiting FUD all over the place only proves you are part of this dirty game.

    Quote from Rends

    Quote from THHuxley: “<b>It is sized 20X too small!</b>”



    Quote: “EXHIBIT 5 INITIAL QUERIES FOR M. ENG. FABIO PENON AS TO MEASUREMENTS OF 1 MW PLANT (at 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral, Florida; February 16-17, 2016)
    from Industrial Heat - Joseph Murray…


    My mistake. I meant - it is sized so that the reading is 20X too small - it is indeed 20X 9in measurement range) too big!

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Rossi is currently carrying on a conversation with himself on JONP. I was skeptical when I first saw claims he was creating fake posts, but seeing those posts again and again, with identifiable language and style .... it's Rossi.


    There can be little doubt of that if you conduct a detailed analysis. It is striking and brazen. I don't think he even cares that people know. It's all fun and games -- a behavioral masterpiece. The machinations of the great puppet master. It's the same MO with the fake customer, the fake customer's director of engineering, fake comments, fake data, fake formula, fake transmutation, fake plant. Where does the fake end and the real begin?

    Quote

    There can be little doubt of that if you conduct a detailed analysis. It is striking and brazen. I don't think he even cares that people know. It's all fun and games -- a behavioral masterpiece. The machinations of the great puppet master. It's the same MO with the fake customer, the fake customer's director of engineering, fake comments, fake data, fake formula, fake transmutation, fake plant. Where does the fake end and the real begin?


    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.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    That's it [low accuracy]. The flow-meter has anyway high tolerance.


    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?


    THH

    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?


    I would bet he's doing it on purpose because he enjoys reading the reactions of other people from the LENR blogosphere, which he clearly closely follows.

    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 "the proposal to bill .75 MW" (= flow 27m3) ? Do You believe that they really used a 80mm tube ??


    I'll wait to see who faked who!

    Quote from THHuxley

    (1) The flowmeter is used out of spec (1.4/hr is wrong, 1.6/hr is right fo the manufacturer minimum). You are correct, although out of spec it is only just out of spec.


    This sentence removed, too 'doxxelicious'. Alan


    As for stating that the flowmeter is out of spec, despite it being in spec according to the two manufacture specifications that I linked to (as further discussed in additional detail over at ECW), I think you are being willfully blind.

    Quote from THHuxley

    But the Defkalion spoof method requires only enough instability from steam bubbles etc to make water flow oscillate between positive and negative.


    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."

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.