Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

It is no wonder IHFB doesn't dare use his real name. The only real data that we can confirm is from FP&L. Everything else appears to have been fabricated.

The other options for consideration around the Rossi provided data are just about all off the table.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. Given the actual flow rate, if there was only 103 degree water there was no excess heat. That's the whole point of the discussion here. I am amazed you misunderstood this issue. (/sarcasm)

So, we are back to the immaculate well-founded indisputable Exhibit 5. Wait, does that mean we have to parse this exhibit into what is real and a farce? Rats.

Quote from IH Fanboy

If there is no phase change and only 103 degree water is circulating out of the plant, then Rossi has a world-changing technology.

I can't let that comment pass unchallenged. It is technically wrong.

(1) 103C liquid phase is quite possible for pressure of slightly more than 1 atm. It does not imply phase change, there is as yet no evidence of circulating water at a much lower temperature, so no implied working device.

(2) All that was measured is 103C at one point after the pump (the section at highest pressure and temperature even if parts on condenser return pipe are kept near atmospheric).

(3) We have no information that the 103C measured was liquid phase. In fact it was possibly vapour phase but there would very possibly also be unmixed liquid phase in a pipe flowing at a lower temperature than this. So it does not properly represent the mixed temperature of the circulant even at one point!

(4) We can be pretty sure, because the 103C does not much change, that it represents boiling point at the <i> after pump</i> pressure. That gives no evidence of significant phase change. Just a little bit gives you b.p.

So your comment requires so many unlikely additional assumptions it's attempted PR content will quite get lost by the time you correct it.

Quote from IH Fanboy

So, we are back to the immaculate well-founded indisputable Exhibit 5.

If it was disputable, surely Rossi and Penon would have disputed it by now.

In any case, I have the same information from other sources, and anyone can see from the data that the recorded flow rate is nonsense.

42 nails another one - if you had an $89M world beater - why would you disassemble the fluid system and leave no trace of anything but the locked container? Why would you drain and flush the system overnight before IH inspection? Why would you try to sneak the flowmeter out of the building at 6:30am on inspection day then attempt to forcefully stop flowmeter inspection when IH insisted on opening the flow meter box? There are 100+ more big why questions.

Lets ask some other questions from another angle - how much do superheated steam pipes weigh (by the foot and lets use lbs for us dumb Americans)? How are they supposed to be supported (real ones that is)?

@THHuxleynew

I think you misunderstood. Read what I said a bit more closely.

I'll give you a hint: heating 60C water to 103C takes just over 1 MW.

So what do you have left? Jed's hearsay that the flow meter was of the wrong type and placement. Looks like that is what the whole case will come down to.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'll give you a hint: heating 60C water to 103C takes just over 1 MW.

No, it does not. Rossi claimed the flow rate was 32,400 kg/day (adjusted). Divide by 86,400 s/day gives 375 g/s. 375 g * 43°C = 16,125 calories. That's 67,467 J/s, or 67 kW. So, if the input power really was 20 kW and the flow rate was as claimed, there would be a lot of excess heat. But the flow rate was 3 or 4 times lower than claimed.

Input power may have been only 10 kW. Rossi and Penon gave different numbers at different times. I do not know which is correct.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THHuxleynew

I think you misunderstood. Read what I said a bit more closely.

I'll give you a hint: heating 60C water to 103C takes just over 1 MW.

So what do you have left? Jed's hearsay that the flow meter was of the wrong type and placement. Looks like that is what the whole case will come down to.

Display More

No misunderstanding from me. You are just not reading, or not understanding, my (1) and (3). Why do you think what you state implies heating at the specified flow rate from 60C to 103C?

@Jed

I stand corrected. What I stated assumes vaporization of all of the flux. My point however remains, as agreed to by you: even if there is no phase change, there would be a lot of excess heat. This of course assumes that the flow meter was correctly installed. Can we agree that the entire question of whether the plant generated excess heat hinges on the correctness of the flow meter placement?

Quote from Bob

wait... wait... wait... YOU just said that "DEWEY IS WRONG. THE PIPE SIZE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE"

Now it is the flow meter?

That's correct. Because the pipe size FUD has been debunked.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And the conspiracy theory expands! Just look inside the plant. It was double pad-locked. You can see the size of the exit pipe. And I highly doubt it was DN40. Dewey has retreated on this point, which speaks for itself.

Boy, is it so hard for you to understand very simple things?
I told you already months ago, the pipe in question is the connection line between the 1MW plant and the "customer side". And independly from the diameter of the pipe sticking out from the container, this connection pipe could be of any diameter, because there are such things as pipe fittings to reduce or expand to another pipe size.

What if the pipe flange at the customer side is DN40 (e.g because there are just a couple of radiators with a DN40 connection), then it wouldn't be far fetched when they used a DN40 piece of pipe for the connection from the container to the customer side.
And of course, you can dismantle that pipe without the need to enter the padlocked container.
Do you get this?

Quote from IH Fanboy

What I stated assumes vaporization of all of the flux. My point however remains, as agreed to by you: even if there is no phase change, there would be a lot of excess heat. This of course assumes that the flow meter was correctly installed. Can we agree that the entire question of whether the plant generated excess heat hinges on the correctness of the flow meter placement?

The placement was wrong. It was in a gravity return pipe without a U. It would have worked with a U, but as far as I know there wasn't one. There are other issues:

There is other evidence the return pipe was half-empty.

The type of meter was wrong. It was far too insensitive.

It was not tested or compared to a direct measure, as far as I know.

The data is nonsensical and could not be real. It is far too consistent, even given the insensitivity of the meter.

The meter wasn't correctly installed. That is what Exhibit 5 says. If that Exhibit is wrong, Rossi would have responded with corrections. Valid answers would probably have brought him $89 million, or at least, they would have given him a leg to stand on in the lawsuit, so I am sure he would have responded if he could have.

Quote from JedRothwell

The reactor as specified in the patent does not work

Which patent, and which specified property can't be achieved?

Quote from JedRothwell

But the flow rate was 3 or 4 times lower than claimed.

How is this known?

Quote from Forty-Two

Boy, is it so hard for you to understand very simple things?

Do you feel such adhoms bolster your points?

Quote

I told you already months ago, the pipe in question is the connection
line between the 1MW plant and the "customer side". And independly from
the diameter of the pipe sticking out from the container, this
connection pipe could be of any diameter, because there are such things
as pipe fittings to reduce or expand to another pipe size.

What if the pipe flange at the customer side is DN40 (e.g because there are just a couple of radiators with a DN40 connection), then it wouldn't be far fetched when they used a DN40 piece of pipe for the connection from the container to the customer side.

Yes it would be far fetched. It would be idiotic. And as I've said before, if Rossi or his team downsized the exit pipe to DN40 then they would be imbeciles, and I would mark them all up as entirely incompetent. It would be so easy to prove. Dewey says they took pictures and measurements, but has always dodged the simple question of whether Exhibit 5 was accurate in stating that the piping was DN40. Now his mantra is: the pipe size doesn't matter. Do you think Dewey is stating that the pipe size doesn't matter if the pipe size really was DN40? Think about that one.

Quote

And of course, you can dismantle that pipe without the need to enter the padlocked container.

So you think Rossi ripped out the pipe from the outside of the container? Like that wouldn't go unnoticed. Your conspiracies are ridiculous.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'll give you a hint: heating 60C water to 103C takes just over 1 MW.

Seems to be around 1.3 MWh for 36000 kgs water and typical ERV tank and steam temperatures.

But anyways.. (that should be COP to Almost Boil Water, below)

Quote from JedRothwell

The placement was wrong. It was in a gravity return pipe without a U. It would have worked with a U, but as far as I know there wasn't one.

And if your buddies are telling you the truth, then IH wins. Now, let's see if they can prove it. Based on the track record of Exhibit 5 so far, I'm not too optimistic for IH.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Because the pipe size FUD has been debunked.

Whether the pipe was 1.5" or 3" it could not possibly have carried 1 MW of steam. As I said, if you think that 3" pipe is sufficient for that much steam, you have no idea how much steam that is. Even for a low pressure steam radiator circa 1900, there is no way they could use a 3" pipe. The houses I grew up in had steam or water radiators with 1.5" or 3" pipes, depending on how far from the basement the steam had to go. That was with a 10 or 20 kW furnace. See:

http://usboiler.net/library/US…lper/offline/download.pdf

An apartment building with a steam radiators would have a furnace of a few hundred kilowatts. The steam pipes were 6" to 1', running up the hallways or through the bathroom. Like this:

Bear in mind there are multiple steam pipes in an apartment building. Not just one. The pipe you see here would conduct 10 or 20 kW of steam, for as many apartments as there are floors, but not to every apartment on that floor.

If that were a low pressure steam pipe for heating purposes, in a large building circa 1900, carrying anything like 1 MW of steam, it would be 1 or 2 feet in diameter. Like this:

(With steam radiators circa 1900, the pressure is close to atmospheric. The steam condenses and the water runs back down the same pipe it comes up in. Hot water radiators have two pipes, and for a large house, a circulation pump.)