Flow meter used in 1-MW test

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Why would the pump need to be disabled when the reactor portion of plant was turned of or running at less than full capacity?


    It was OFF. The flow was OFF. The entire reactor was seen in pieces on some of those days. And yet it flowed. If you believe the data (and not the log book, and not your lying eyes).


    Also, as noted in Exhibit 5, by some magic the temperature was pretty much the same on these days, and it produced a steady 1 MW. Even though it was turned off. It's a miracle.


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Even knowing it measures only to the nearest thousand, it is preposterous to imagine that by some fantastic coincidence it came out
    at exactly 36,000 every day. It would be 35,000 one day, 36,000 or 37,000 another day.



    Not too hard to imagine, actually.


    Ah. So how would you arrange this miracle? How would you get the flow synchronized to the clock so wonderfully that every day for months it clicks over EXACTLY 36 times in 24 hours? Not late even one day? Not a little early the next?


    You don't see anything strange in that report? Hmmmmm???

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Hydrofusion probably didn't know about the intentional test failure until IH filed their Answer. It probably shocked them. But they have seen the QuarkX in action, have a license in place for a big part of the world, and will let this one roll off their shoulders. At least, if I were in their shoes and had solid confirmation of QuarkX performance, that is what I would do.



    Well, I am not to sure about all that. HydroFusion (HF) definitely knew the test was a failure at the time because they reported it. We Rossi believers at the time thought it was all over, but HF stayed with him. Even upped the ante by finding a customer in Europe for the 1MW, until IH "supposedly" killed the deal. Very confusing, but got washed out in the almost weekly inconsistencies, and then Rossi always had another new, and better gadget for us to focus on.


    Quark-X? Been there done that, not again with this guy! Prove the Ecat first and then maybe. ;)

    Quote from JedRothwell

    It was OFF. The flow was OFF.


    And your evidence for this is?


    Quote from JedRothwell


    The entire reactor was seen in pieces on some of those days. And yet is flowed. If you believe the data (and not the log book, and not your lying eyes).


    Rossi frequently mentioned back-up reactors waiting in the wings to take over when one of the section reactors needed repairing.


    Quote from JedRothwell


    Also, as noted in Exhibit 5, by some magic the temperature was pretty much the same on these days, and it produced a steady 1 MW. Even though it was turned off. It's a miracle.


    How do you know it was turned off?

    Maybe they've been posted before, but I haven't seen it : here are the English instructions for the MWN130.


    http://www.apator.com/uploads/…water-meters-dn40-500.pdf
    Key values are Q3 = 63m^3/hr for the MWN130-80


    Then : It is recommended to choose the size of the water meter so that the size of the largest expected jet flow in the system is between ... 0.3 to 0.4 of the water meter continuous jet flow Q3 for MWN130 type water meters


    That is, 18.9 to 25.2 M^3/hr or 453 to 604 m^3/day (and at 977.8 kg/m^3) 443530 to 591373 kg/day
    Compared to Rossi that's at least 12 times out of spec.


    The guide also says: MWN water meter consists of a body, measurement unit and a counting mechanism. A water jet pushes the rotor placed in the measurement unit. The rotor is placed coaxially to the body channel and via a work and worm-wheel system it drives the magnet placed on the axle. A magnet in the wet part of the water meter coupled with the counter magnet in the dry part of the water meter. Water meter gauges and wheels which sum the volume of the measured water are driven by a gear system.


    I do NOT believe it will generate false counts if there are fluctuations .. it will either run backwards or jam.


    Way out of spec (even the smallest MWN130 is too big for Rossi). But it will produce some results above the "starting flow" of 0.35 m^3/hr or 8200 kg/day. And the error diagram indicates that it will under-report the flow in this range.


    Constant 36,000 kg/day? The pump array will (If unchanged) vary by about 0.4% .. or 36000 +- 144 kg/day.
    (Each pump has 2% repeatability, divide by sqrt(24)).


    What about the 750K days? Shouldn't the amount of water be reduced in proportion?


    Murray says (Ex 5) "In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation." Johnson says (Ex 18) that in June and July they had 26 full days ... so it COULD fit!


    Murray quotes the report : According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7 C and 102.8 C, respectively.


    Wait a minute : suppose 1MW day uses 36,000 kg/day and a 750kW day uses 75% .. or 27,000 kg/day.


    The average is .... TADA : 32,100 for June, very close to the reported number.


    Bottom line : I don't think that the flow meter data (other than the inconclusive stain) proves that the 1MW doesn't work. In fact, all the numbers Rossi gives .. 1MW average, 1 atmosphere, 102.8 super-heated are self-consistent with the 1MW working as a advertised.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    It was OFF. The flow was OFF.


    And your evidence for this is?


    Eyewitness accounts from people more reliable than Rossi.


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Rossi frequently mentioned back-up reactors waiting in the wings to take over when one of the section reactors needed repairing.


    Did he mention them? No one saw them, though. People did see the reactor and pumps turned off on days when he reported 36,000 kg and 1 MW steady heat.


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Also, as noted in Exhibit 5, by some magic the temperature was pretty much the same on these days, and it produced a steady 1 MW. Even though it was turned off. It's a miracle.


    How do you know it was turned off?


    I believe other people. I don't believe Rossi.


    How do you "know" it was on? Because you believe Rossi. That's the only reason. The only proof you have for any of your beliefs in this matter are unsupported statements by one person who has a long history of lying and exaggerating, whereas I have heard from multiple sources.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Ah. So how would you arrange this miracle? How would you get the flow synchronized to the clock so wonderfully that every day for months it clicks over EXACTLY 36 times in 24 hours? Not late even one day? Not a little early the next?


    What about Daylight Savings Time changes?
    Shouldn't there be 1 extra or 1 less hour somewhere? That would be something to check.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What about Daylight Savings Time changes?
    Shouldn't there be 1 extra or 1 less hour somewhere? That would be something to check.


    Good point. Okay, on Planet Rossi they will say: Russi turned down the flow exactly enough to retard it on March 13, then on November 6 he increased the flow. Yeah! That's how he managed to make it show exactly the right amount every day.


    This reminds me of the hypothesis that the pretend customer went to great lengths to hide the 1 MW of waste heat, so that no IR camera or other method could detect it. Why would anyone do that? Why would JM care whether someone is detecting their waste heat?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    So you never led us to believe that the 36,000 was something other than the fact that the flowmeter reports the value in 1000s? Never even hinted at anything else than that?


    No, I never did. In fact, I dropped hint after hint that was the reason. I was a little disappointed that no one here figured it out.


    For example, I said repeatedly, "I am sure these are the actual numbers from the instruments, in many cases." I was expecting someone to ask "how can the actual numbers from a flow meter always end with three zeros?" Ah, ha! Good question.


    By the way, I mean it when I say these numbers are probably real. I do think the flow meter probably showed something like 36,000 kg for one day or another. After they saw it come close to this a few times, they decided to go with that number and stuff it into every day from then on. This is a typical sloppy Rossi move.


    I think the actual flow rate was 3 to 6 times lower than this, but I expect the meter showed something in this ballpark.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    After they saw it come close to this a few times, they decided to go with that number and stuff it into every day from then on. This is a typical sloppy Rossi move.


    That is ridiculous. Pumps are rated (or set) for a particular flow rate and are not going to vary by 1000 kg and "come close to this [36,000] a few times"--as if the pump rate is going to be wildly variable over time.

    Quote from JedRothwell


    I think the actual flow rate was 3 to 6 times lower than this, but I expect the meter showed something in this ballpark.


    Jed ... why do you think the flow meter was SO far off? (Re-read my recent posts). Running only a few percent under the minimum. The error chart for this flowmeter shows that it UNDER estimates the flow.


    [ Since you have so much insider information, how about asking IH about the flow meter THEY "purportedly" installed? ]

    But lets take Murray's numbers, presumably from the ERV's report, and YOUR estimate of 6 times less flow.


    Steam calculator says .... 155 kW COP around 8.
    http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=1&enm=Rossi+1MW+Per+ERV%2FMurray+data&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=233&eip=20&ecp=0.06&eop=155&eoxr=1&et0=20&ep0=1&et1=68.7&ep2=1&er2=2


    Edit 3 ... 154.9 kW COP around 8.7
    http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=1&enm=Rossi+1MW+Per+ERV%2FMurray+data&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=233&eip=20&ecp=0.06&eop=154.9&eoxr=1&et0=20&ep0=1&et1=68.7&ep2=1&er2=2

    Quote from "Shane D"

    In their counterclaim, IH provided the email from Rossi where he bragged to them (IH) about getting rid of HF, by purposely rigging the ST Hotcat test to fail.


    One part of it is quite clear though. IH included these emails because they are worried about the HF/Swedish connection. They need to bring Rossi out of business. Darden even travelled to Stockholm and told a lot of people a lot of lies to discredit Rossi. The impression he gave was that of a used car salesman; great first impression facade, but slippery and empty inside. Scary guy.


    Btw, when visiting Sweden Darden refused to talk to Mats Lewan, wonder why?

    Quote

    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.


    Well I could design and build all this stuff - and my experience is enough to tell me that I'm not sure how difficult it would be. You may be in a better position than me. For me, I know it would be possible, and a prototype setup would be very easy, but the issue is production expense and more importantly robustness under field conditions. There is big difference between something that works in lab and a high reliable component for long-term field use.


    A comment on the two offset blips. That is true, and a neat solution, although it would break down at low flowrates when the impellor is oscillating for less than one rotation.


    A comment on the magnet + coil method. I'd liek to see a detailed diagram. The problem is that for any symmetricalk setup you get N & S poles of the magnet and they give opposite indications. Without additional sensors you do not know whether what you see is N or S pole and therefore can't determine direction. I sort of agree there will be some asymmetrical setup that would work for this (a little embedded permanent magnet), an interesting idea, but it is not trivial and I expect adds manufacturing cost, as well as requiring some careful detection circuity since the pulse amplitude is going to vary by 100 - 1 and indeed at low enough flowrates this is bound to miss counts.


    The only bullet-proof method, as I've said, is two quadrature phase opto sensors. It is what I would go for because most robust.


    Also, anything that requires uP processing adds a layer of complexity. I know uP costs nothing, but it may be for this sort of heavy industrial stuff that there are issues making a uP based system sufficiently robust and reliable. Finally the very simple output (pulses) would have to become more complex to convey a bidirectional signal (you would need two signal wires each with a pulse train for pos and neg).


    Anyway - given the choice between Wyttenbach's "flowmeter designers are all idiots" and my: "there are issues which make the cost-benefit for true bidirectional not worth it given that with proper design a unidirectional flowmeter is safe" I'm not convinced by W!

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What pump? There is no pressure.


    LOL. Remember this is Rossi, no controls needed because he knows what will happen.


    The conversation here is not really to my taste. Instead of arguing the tech stuff we get the pro-Rossi camp making categorical statements based on only half of the argument (thus - the claimed flowrate from this strangely specified meter is only just below spec and it is true - as I said - that this itself will not give a large error). So I agree with them on this point - and raised it myself when I first commented - but explain why the system could still be unsafe. And they do not acknowledge this and the Defkalion connection. So I'm not going to repeat matters though if anyone makes some new argument I've not already acknowledged and commented I'll reply.


    Given such a reading of facts you cannot reach any sane judgement - and while maybe politics goes best with a "make the best case you can ignoring inconvenient facts" style, tech stuff does not.

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.