E-Cat Plant Test Plan (Fabio Penon)

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/26/e-cat-plant-test-plan-fabio-penon/']The following text of the plan for testing the 1 MW plant written by Fabio Penon before the 1 year E-Cat plant test began, is taken from Exhibit 70 -1 from the docket of the Rossi v. IH Court case. This is a transcription of the document which can be found in the original at […][/feedquote]
  • Some comments about Penon's test plan, which you can read at the above link.


    As I said previously, the flow meter is placed downstream from the customer site.


    The loop is unpressurized, and the reservoir is open to the air. We know this because there is a gravity return from the customer site back to the reactor. That would not work if the loop were pressurized.


    This document says there were two reservoirs. I believe in the final configuration there was only one, with a gravity return, meaning the return pipe was half empty. (It has to be, in this configuration.)


    The pressure was reported to be 0 bar. That is ridiculous and impossible. It was actually well above 1 atm, enough to ensure that the fluid was water. This eliminates most of the excess heat. The flow meter was the wrong type and it was installed in a half-empty pipe, so it was drastically wrong. This eliminates the rest of the apparent excess heat.


    Rossi did not include any instrument to test for steam quality, and no procedure for testing it is described. I suppose he must have known there was no steam.


    Temperatures and other data were supposedly recorded once a day. It was done manually. So much for Rossi's ridiculous claims about millions of data points. (Not that millions of points would be anything unusual or difficult to collect in the 21st century.)


    Actually, as described in Exhibit 5, there are many days in which the data is copied from previous days, for weeks at a time. This is obviously fake data. As described in these procedures. Penon seldom visited the test, and when he came he crammed in fake data into the days he missed. It is amazing to me that anyone expected to be paid $89 million for such a half-assed effort.


    Turning to politics --


    Gluck called this an important document. This plan confirms many of the things I said previously, and some things in Exhibit 5 that he disputed. To put it bluntly, this shows that I am right, and he is wrong. This was published by I.H. So I am surprised that Gluck and others on Planet Rossi believe it.

  • The millions of data points probably came from the sensors and thermocouples inside each of the individuals reactors that made up the "tigers." According to an exhibit provided by IH, Fulvio was supposed to transfer all of this information to them. As far as we know, he didn't.

  • Andrea Rossi
    April 3, 2015 at 7:44 PM
    Desmondet:
    The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:


    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions


    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions


    1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus


    the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider


    56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions


    All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
    Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=2#comment-1068747

  • The millions of data points probably came from the sensors and thermocouples inside each of the individuals reactors that made up the "tigers."


    I have heard there were no computers there. Data was taken manually.


    According to an exhibit provided by IH, Fulvio was supposed to transfer all of this information to them. As far as we know, he didn't.


    As described in this document and Exhibit 5, they took only one reading per day. So if they had millions of data points, they did not use them for anything.


    This document says they used the highest temperature per day. You can do that with an $80 digital thermometer. You don't need a computer. I do not think can do that with the equipment they installed.

  • Andrea Rossi
    March 2, 2015 at 5:54 PM
    Vivian:
    When the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the Customer of Industrial Heat is in self sustained mode we have to spend an energy of about 20- 40 kWh/h necessary for the reactors. But it is soon to give numbers, because we have to experience the endurance and the reliability at the ssm status. We are collecting data systems every 10 seconds, so we have not lacks of matter to study…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=614&cpage=2#comment-1059440

  • data taken manually - The agreement specified that the ERV was to make the measurements. So in theory he could do that himself (ERV=Penon) each day but it sure sounds like the ERV did NOT take the measurements on each of the 350 "test" days as required. It sounds like he didn't show up but a few times and just used Rossi's data. Not exactly independent!

  • The glaring omission


    The test protocol measures heat generated assuming 100% phase change from liquid to dry steam and even ignores all other contributions.


    The test equipment includes nothing that can measure the quality of the steam, nor any information about the piping with traps etc to ensure no liquid outflow.


    In short, this test protocol is totally unworkable without other checks not included. If the outflow is liquid the assumption used here by Penon in this plan can overestimate the delivered heat by an unknown amount which could easily be COP=50.

  • The test equipment includes nothing that can measure the quality of the steam, nor any information about the piping with traps etc to ensure no liquid outflow.


    Yes. That was the point I made above. There is no equipment integrated into the test system to monitor steam quality.


    You could make up for this by sparging the steam from time to time, but I do not think this was done either. (It is not described in Penon's protocol.)


    If you sparged once a day and you got consistent numbers showing high quality dry steam, I guess it would be credible. Better than nothing. Still, I wouldn't ask for $89 million based on this estimate!


    Sparging periodically would be similar to running a flow calorimeter without a flow meter, and then periodically measuring the flow with a bucket and stopwatch. Someone actually did that. I saw an example of it not long ago. I do not understand why that person did not use a flow meter, and I do not understand why Rossi did not monitor steam quality. My guess is that Rossi did not want to know the steam quality.

  • The pressure was reported to be 0 bar. That is ridiculous and impossible. It was actually well above 1 atm, enough to ensure that the fluid was water. This eliminates most of the excess heat. The flow meter was the wrong type


    So was the pressure transducer (an inapproriate model).
    The proposed pressure transducer for measuring the steam pressure (OMEGA model PX-309) is only for an operating temperature of -40 to 85°C (-40 to 185°F).
    http://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX309.pdf


    When such model is installed on a steam pipe, then the >100°C fluid temperature would sooner or later (rather sooner than later) fry the electronics inside the measurement cell.

  • data taken manually - The agreement specified that the ERV was to make the measurements.


    Let me repeat, I heard that data was taken manually and there were no computers. Perhaps I am misinformed or confused. Perhaps there were computers as well as a manual record. I myself always keep both. But anyway, as described in this protocol and in Exhibit 5, one data point per day was recorded for the official report.


    There is nothing wrong with a one-data-point daily summary, but you should also include some data by hour and by minute. It is a little odd to record the highest data point only instead of the average, as described here. I have never heard of that before. Let me guess that it was done because they have a digital thermometer with a high-low feature.

  • Where is this internal water tank located?


    What do you mean, where? Sitting next to the reactor. I don't follow your question.


    The description says:


    Quote

    "The water is so recycled to the internal tank in a closed loop. * The water is distilled water. **


    The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank into the internal tank by gravity."


    I do not understand the point of this design. I do not think the final configuration included two tanks, but I could be wrong about that. When I first read this yesterday, I thought perhaps the external tank was placed there to ensure that the pipe from the customer site to the external tank was kept full, so that the flow meter would work. But you don't need a whole tank to do that. Just a few feet of pipe to form a U. So I don't get it.



    * This means closed, but it does not mean pressurized. Ed Storms guessed it was pressurized, like the loop in a water radiator. As I said, if it were pressurized you could not use a gravity return.


    ** I do not see how it could be distilled water if it is connected to the "water line with a floating valve." I assume that float valve opens from time to time as water evaporates or is lost to small leaks.

  • Jed - my point is not about the "correctness " of manual measurements, it is that Penon was required to be the one who took the data and not Rossi.
    Ok if Penon took the data manually each of the 350 days, but it is not Ok if he delegated that to someone else.

  • This was published by I.H. So I am surprised that Gluck and others on Planet Rossi believe it.

    Well, technically, it was published by Rossi, not IH. by including it with the IH response. Rossi had provided a copy of a proposed protocol. IH replied referring to the Penon test plan, a later document, and including it as "Exhibit 1," which is the last pages of document 70.1, the Rossi attachment to his hearing notice.


    Statements in the responses of IH to Rossi are the first statements we have that are made under penalty of perjury. Gluck is again demonstrating lack of clue. Ged on e-catworld is also running a number on the "pipe must be full" idea, appearing to me to completely misunderstand fluid dynamics and hydrostatics, and, of course, absolutely certain that he is right, even if the actual condition of the pipe will depend on conditions and he doesn't state what would be necessary, he just makes assumptions, mostly not explicit. Peter still does not understand where the pump is placed (in the Penon plan, which may not be what was actually done.)


    In the Penon plan, it appears there is gravity flow from the customer condenser through the return pipe and flow meter, in a straight line, into the external tank. Then water again flows through a float valve into the internal tank, and is pumped from there. If this is how it is, then the flow meter is not in the lowest part of the circuit, that part would be in the iinternal tank.


    However, perhaps there was only one tank, but, again, the lowest part of the system would be the tank, not the pipe with the flow meter. It is not completely clear to me that the return pipe is open at the end. If it is immersed in water there would be back pressure from that and indeed the pipe might fill, perhaps back to a matching level, perhaps on the other side of the flow meter. I am not prepared to claim that the flow meter was full of water, merely that so far, we have a clue that it was not (Murray's observation of a rust line), and no evidence that it was. If the pipe empties into the tank, i.e., is in the air above the water level in the tank, and with the low flow rate used, I would expect it to not be full.

  • @JedRothwell,


    During the Validation, the tank connections were described thus: (patent application 61821914, but 14262740 is essentially identical, but without specific diagram indicators)


    "[0016] The water contained in the two tanks, placed at the sides of the reactor shelter,
    is conveyed by pumps in the reactor shelter. The water is then heated by heat produced by the
    reactors to vaporize into steam. The steam is collected in the two tubes of the steam line. The
    steam is then conveyed to the outside of the reactor shelter housing the water pump and
    flowmeter. The two tubes are then combined into a single tube."

    "[0017] The vapor is then passed through an air exchanger 1 and an air exchanger 2
    until the steam condenses. The condensed water is then conveyed into the water reservoir which
    is placed inside of the reactor shelter in the experiment. The water is then conveyed to water
    tank 1 and water tank 2, where the temperature of the water is measured."

    So in Doral we have:


    "The cooling water is contained in a tank, placed inside the plant, that receives the water
    from an external plant.
    It is conveyed by pumps in the units E-Cat, where it is heated to vaporize. The steam is
    collected in one tube of the steam line, which conveys it to the outside of the shelter.
    The steam is then passed through the customer's facility, where it cools up to its
    condensation.
    The water is so recycled to the internal tank in a closed loop. The water is distilled water.
    The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve,
    so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows
    from the external tank into the internal tank by gravity."


    And:
    "-temperature probe for measuring the cooling water temperature at the inlet of the shelter.
    It is located in the internal water tank, containing cooling distilled water"


    From this I gather there is an internal tank, located somewhere in the Plant.


    I realize that the Plant has been heavily modified since Ferrara.
    By internal tank, do you suppose they mean something like "common fluid rail"?

  • Jed - my point is not about the "correctness " of manual measurements, it is that Penon was required to be the one who took the data and not Rossi.
    Ok if Penon took the data manually each of the 350 days, but it is not Ok if he delegated that to someone else.


    I suppose that technically he could delegate part of his task, but delegating it to Rossi would be a bridge too far, if this were a Guaranteed Performance Test. If Penon was merely an engineer designing a test procedure, and checking on it periodically, then so what?


    The appearance from the document is that this was *not* a Guaranteed Performance Test, even though Penon called himself the "ERV." Because that could have escaped notice by someone just looking at the technical details, such as an IH engineer, that is not enough to establish acceptance of a GPT. We have not seen, however, any of the Darden side of this correspondence, which is where GPT acceptance, if it did take place, would have been.


    The appearance at this point is very strong that Rossi was manipulating the situation to create a "GPT" without actually obtaining consent, and allowing himself to be in complete control, and Penon allowing him to record the data wouldn't have made sense in a GPT, but was acceptable if this was really being run for Rossi's benefit and as a sale of power and to show investors.


    As happens when I study something for an extended time, a general picture of what happened is emerging. I need to remember that such are interpretations and not fact. They should always be rebuttable, and, again, in spite of what some believe, on Planet Rossi and even elsewhere, Rossi has himself so far provided almost no evidence in response to the IH counterclaim. He has not Answered yet. His original filing is now looking a bit tattered.


  • Hence I do not understand the flowmeter issue?? Or do you believe there is fraud involved?

  • Not like it's news, but the man is such a bullshitter.


    All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.


    The referee was apparently there only once every four months. It appears that data was manually recorded at least part of the time.


    Quote

    Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay.


    Weirdly stated. Rossi is obsessed by COP, the customer would not really care that much about COP and they were not paying for COP, but for delivered power as steam. (There is that Rossi trope again. 1 MWh/h is power, not energy -- same as 1 MW, which will always be 1 MWh/h. Unstated is that this was full time, so so much energy per day. Small point.)


    Quote

    They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters.


    Rossi is claiming that the customer measured the energy as well as what was determined by his own instruments. This was clearly not the reality.


    Quote

    Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts.


    And that is why concealing what was in the customer area would have been fine for a sale of power, but deadly for a Guaranteed Performance Test. The customer requested invoicing for nominal power, these were not measured quantities, they were multiples of 250 kW, either three or four. This would be why IH has called those invoice requests fake. The purpose of all this has become clear: to create an impression that real power was being sold. After all, if a customer is willing to pay for it, it must be real!


    Quote

    So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96&cpage=2#comment-1068747


    This was his "magnificence." Ah, he had them so fooled! The snakes, they never intended to pay him, they pretended his devices didn't work, so they deserved to be fooled! Who would ever suspect that he would pay for his own fake power?

  • * This means closed, but it does not mean pressurized. Ed Storms guessed it was pressurized, like the loop in a water radiator. As I said, if it were pressurized you could not use a gravity return.


    I don't see that pressurization necessarily precludes gravity return. Of course it can depend on the specifics of the circuit. Please clarify that point, Thanks.