Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Eric Walker

I think it comes down to different epistemologies:

Group A (incl. nearly all scientists):

• Something cannot be taken to be empirically true unless you really do all of the groundwork needed to establish that it is.

Group B (incl. people distrustful of science):

• Variant 1: Something convenient (the E-Cat) cannot be taken to be false unless you can rule out all possible explanations for why it might be true.
• Variant 2: Something inconvenient (fracking causing earthquakes in the US state of Oklahoma) cannot be taken to be true unless you have no discernable dissensus among scientists.

Group C (incl. me):

• Most of the time Group A have it right. Every once in a while the sociology of the scientific enterprise gets in the way of the actual science, and you need to dig into the matter a little more to get a balanced picture (LENR).

That is an excellent summary. Except that between A and C there is a continuum of differing judgements, and different willingness to explore low probability possibilities, so the dichotomy while it makes the point is maybe unrealistic.

I think I might be missing or forgetting some piece of information, perhaps others can help fill my knowledge gaps.

According to Rossi, steam entered and exited the black insulated container in the JMP area as steam, to only turn into liquid water in a heat exchanger somewhere outside of it.

Where was the endothermic processing supposed to occur?

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.07_Exhibit_7.pdf

Quote

Q. But the conversion of steam to water occurred in the container?

MR. ANNESSER: Object to form.

MR. LEON DE LA BARRA: Object to the form.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. PACE:

Q. Where did it occur, outside the container then?

Page 235

A. Yes.

Q. Where outside the container?

A. In a proper heat exchanger that was placed not inside the container.

Q. Where was the heat exchanger?

A. The heat exchanger was in a proper room that is not indicated in this photographs. The steam through a pipe is gone in a heat exchanger that is not here.

Display More

Earlier ITT PeterMetz posted a picture from Google Streetview of the Doral facility from April 2015, apparently showing that the window with the heat exchanger was intact. I asked Engineer 42 about this over the ECW, and he posted a comparison of pictures from 2014, 2015, and 2016. They indicate that there isn't any glass in the panes in 2015, but rather screens to keep out bugs. Or in his words "There is a black mesh behind the windows that stops most of the sun and bugs entering the upper story while allowing the heat exchanger heat to pass through."

Another google images picture from April 2015 I just found from a slightly different angle shows something very interesting:

Not only did Rossi replace the middle window's glass panes with screens, he also removed the glass panes in the window above the door and put up screens. I assume he did the same with the third window behind the tree. So it appears that all three windows were open for heat dissipation.

Below is the picture where you can clearly see that although the windows above Rossi's neighbor at 7859 is intact, the panes at 7861 are not and appear to be covered (from the inside) by screens.

After I saw the picture that PeterMetz originally posted, whatever remaining credibility Rossi had completely evaporated. It has now been restored, though I still think the way he represented the customer was sketchy AF. Whatever the case, I can't believe I was duped about this, since it's actually pretty obvious. I should have done what E42 did and compare the same window across the years. Now I understand why IH did not include this in their evidence.

(edit: I realize it's possible that the glass panes are intact with black mesh behind them, but the evidence I took as devastating is no longer devastating, especially after I came to a better understanding of how the heat exchanger was supposedly set up.)

E48's most recent summary of the flow issue is below. I am indebted to him for a simple and comprehensible summary of his views, with a great diagram. Coped from this ECW thread since they don't seem to let you link posts.

Notice that he agrees with me and can here that those pumps would have 40l/h max (with atmospheric output pressure) given the spec. This does not match the flowmeter rate so E48 needs to find some way to get extra liquid into the system. He supposes - extraordinarily - that the BF units are both pump fed and gravity fed! That would be really weird - the metering pump now has as a bypass a bit of tubing from input to output. No more metering! No-one in their right minds would put together such a system.

E48 also argues that if the ecat units have a vent pipe which is lower than the top of the JMP condenser then condensate cannot be pumped into the heat exchanger. That is maybe true - but only if you accept his totally unevidenced and weird gravity feed in parallel with pumps system. And AFAIK we have no evidence of such a vent tube (I'm willing to be shown wrong though - it does not alter my case).

One way to see why this system is such a stretch (and I guess e48 is finding it difficult to reconcile all the data, hence has to go for this) is that a pump with a bypass pipe from input to output does nothing. The water flow through the pump simply flows back through the bypass pipe. Of course depending on the relative pressures in the system not all of the pumped water would go through the bypass pipe - but a lot would.

Another ball-breaker problem is the unused tiger issue. The gravity feeds through these unused cold tigers would remain and water would be sucked through these just as much as through the operational tigers. It just does not work.

Finally there is the unbalanced pressure issue. Look at his diagram. All the BF units, at different heights, have water input, and steam output, connected together. In such a system the higher pressure at the bottom will mean that water will fill up the bottom units preferentially. Balancing this system so that all e-cats have the right level of water in is very difficult because the gravity feed bypasses the pumps and means you have no direct control over the amount of water that flow into each ecat.

E48 is pretty well driven to suppose this setup because he takes the Rossi pressure readings at the e-cat output (incredibly uniform at exactly atmospheric) as true and has to explain them. In a pumped system, normally this pressure would be higher than atmospheric. In a condensate-vacuum-driven system - such as he proposes, with the Grundfoss pump used to keep the vacuum, normally this would vary - depending on the pump - certainly it would be a big coincidence for it to be exactly atmospheric. In both cases pressures would change would differeing flowrate (as we have from the Penon data). So because the pressure is so constant he needs to find some way to get this. He makes the ecat output stream forced to be at atmospheric pressure by a gravity feed connection.

E48 changes his schematics probably more often than he changes his underwears!

So, in his latest schematic, the Grundfos pump is no longer in charge for the extra flow, but "gravity flow" of water from the "condensate header pipe" into the BFs.

This requires that the level in the "condensate header" is higher than the highers installed BF (e-cat). - Keep in mind that the (steam) pressure at outlet of the BFs is 0 barg, so you need a little bit overpressure to get anything into the BF.

So when the water level in the condensate header is about 2m high, then obviously also inside the "serpentine pipes" the water level must be at the same height - which doesn't leave any much pipelength left which could be filled with steam (and works as a condenser).

So again, where and how is the 1MW heat dissipated".

That's just one problem, don't wanna address plenty of other issues yet.

joshg

I find myself neutral over this glass pane evidence. It only needs one google picture with glass, any time in the test period, and we have no heat exchanger as claimed.

Of course, if you have High school physics or equivalent, you can validate for yourself my post showing that Rossi's claimed heat exchanger design (22 X 10m of 15cm diameter piping and 50,000m^3/hour airflow) cannot dissipate more than 100kW. I also explain in detail why Wong's estimate is not strictly speaking wrong, but very unhelpful.

I'm cautious over the heat exchanger issue because Rossi very seldom actually lies directly. He misdirects with great finesse. So I'd expect that second storey room to have been used for Rossi experiments, and just possibly to have had steam piped up there. If he were using it then replacing windows by mesh would be entirely possible - it would get hot. Or, the window may just have broken... Perhaps Paradigmnoia could present again the photographic case for there certainly being a glass pane there at some time during the test.

Rossi was clearly caught out by the heat issue, so he may have been forced into a more overt lie than usual hoping there would be no evidence to contradict it. We will see.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

@ Eric it was a couple days ago. I was replying to E48.

I would like to complete one reply here, if I may...

(My apologies to Bologna for spelling that wrong in my haste)

How full is the condenser? No condensate pump:

Your pictures visualize very well the issue which was already addressed just after the Oct. 2011 test:

How could the steam/condensate return into the water tank, when the "steam temperature" at the exit of the 1MW plant was only reported to be 103.5°C (which relates to a saturated steam pressure of 1.13 bar only)?

However, the reported fluid temperature/pressure combination works well when you assume just hot water to be circled around.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If he were using it then replacing windows by mesh would be entirely possible - it would get hot. Or, the window may just have broken...

That's what I am thinking too. - Rossi (or someone else from his team) could very well have had the idea to "open" a window, because that's what you do when it get's hot in a room/building without air conditioning.

And no, I'm not suggesting that it got hot because Rossi produced 1MW heat. - In a warehous in Miami it get's also hot without heating (or 20kW heating).

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of course, if you have High school physics or equivalent, you can validate for yourself my post showing that Rossi's claimed heat exchanger design (22 X 10m of 15cm diameter piping and 50,000m^3/hour airflow) cannot dissipate more than 100kW. I also explain in detail why Wong's estimate is not strictly speaking wrong, but very unhelpful.

Yes I read it and followed along at home. But I don't think it is the last word. You can reach desired conclusions by cherry-picking just as much as Wong can. And I don't view either of you as neutral observers. So I was looking for more concrete data. I thought I had it with the window. But that turned out to have been cherry-picked as well...

Quote from joshg

Yes I read it and followed along at home. But I don't think it is the last word. You can reach desired conclusions by cherry-picking just as much as Wong can. And I don't view either of you as neutral observers. So I was looking for more concrete data. I thought I had it with the window. But that turned out to have been cherry-picked as well...

That is not good enough. You will not find anything i cherry-picked, because I used Wong's data and did the same calculation properly, rather than using a gross estimate. There is no comparison so for you to say this is disingenuous.

The window can't be cherry-picked, in the sense that any glass pane over the test run period proves the heat exchanger was not used on that day, and therefore the Penon 1MW data is wrong. I'm waiting for whether such a photo exists (someone will post it).

Quote from joshg

Not only did Rossi replace the middle window's glass panes with screens, he also removed the glass panes in the window above the door and put up screens. I assume he did the same with the third window behind the tree. So it appears that all three windows were open for heat dissipation.

What is seen in E48's photos could also be windows with glass panes and black paper loosely attached behind them and are not necessarily screens. Could they have been screens? Perhaps. But recall that the window that is the important one is the one that was in the middle, where the ingress and egress occurred, according to one of the depositions. Here we see a good view of the middle window in April 2015 (courtesy Paradigmnoia):

That is clearly a reflection of clouds that we're seeing, despite imaginative suggestions that it might be steam instead. Could there have been an error in the deposition, and really it was the window over the door where the steam heat vent was created? I suppose. But we're still so far away from a realistic scenario in which 1 MW of heat is being vented out that the conversation feels unmoored at this point.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is an excellent summary. Except that between A and C there is a continuum of differing judgements, and different willingness to explore low probability possibilities, so the dichotomy while it makes the point is maybe unrealistic.

I will almost allow a gradation between A and C. But my great hesitation to utter the word "LENR" anywhere near PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com, and the hostility that LENR as a possibility is still met with in some circles, and the fact that many people in the LENR-related forums feel the need to assume anonymous alter egos, tells me that maybe A and C are a bit distinct.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

posted a piece on ECW, just before I was blocked from posting, that showed the poly seals and therefore 50 C max operating temperature.

Okay, these are the pumps that take water from the reservoir, which was reportedly at 60 deg C, or in some reports even hotter. So that's too hot. I suppose that if the pumps were run for a few days at this temperature they would be okay, but probably after months they were damaged.

Quote from Roger

I believe you've been in touch with some military who told you things, just like IH/Cherokee told you things. We're now seeing how those hearsays are unraveling.

On the contrary, everything they told me was confirmed by Rossi himself, in the Penon report.

Quote from Roger

We don't know yet about the heat exchanger, whether it's real or not (but given what we know about the rest of the set-up and surroundings, there's no reason it couldn't have been where Rossy says, check ECW)

No, that is impossible, for the reasons given by Smith. You cannot make holes in the floor or electric wires vanish overnight. Invisible pipes do not exist.

Quote from Roger

Do you realize how much ad hoc theories you have to create in order to come to the conclusion that it's not a banal business/IP dispute

These are not "theories." The fact that there are no holes in the floor and no electric wires is an observation, not a theory. It is irrefutable proof that there was nothing in the mezzanine. That discussion is closed. You want to leave it open because you entertain ad hoc theories. You are doing what you accuse me of.

Rossi's other claims violate elementary thermodynamics. I wouldn't call that theory. More like laws of science. It is as if his claims violate Newton's laws of motion, or Ohm's law. No educated person should think twice before dismissing everything Rossi claims as a flat out violation of junior-high science and common sense. Instead, we have people waving their hands and claiming that a pipe at less than 1 atm magically leaks steam from one location and "scoops" up that same steam at another. This is comic-book science.

Regarding screens in the windows: If you look at the current Street View July 2016, there are clearly glass panes in the middle window and the window above the entrance. Why would Rossi be repairing them in February 2017?

Also the middle window in April 2015 Street View do not show much reflection but neither do the windows below or either. It's a stretch to blow up a fairly low resolution pictures and from the artifacts claim there is no window or a screen. Other windows along that street look similar. There is one window that is jet black from one angle and dull grey in another. I don't see any discernible differences among all these windows.

Also Rossi testified that they removed the entire window. Clearly the frame is still in place in every picture.

I did see E48's original posting about this and he claims that the two left lites (viewed from the front) are missing. (Now he claims all are removed?) I claim he is confused by those lites being in shadow, and I do see some reflection, never mind that it contradicts Wong's disclosure (based on what Rossi's told him) that the bottom lites were removed for the fans.

I think E48 is throwing stuff out to see what sticks. I don't understand most of what he says so I cannot comment on it.

Quote from Eric Walker

That is clearly a reflection of clouds that we're seeing, pace imaginative suggestions that it might be steam instead.

Yes. As I pointed out, if you go to that screen in Google maps and rotate the view 180 degrees, you see the sky is full of clouds like those: small, low cumulus, white (not gray) with sharply defined borders. That portion of the sky (180 degrees behind this view) is what is reflected in the window. Perhaps if you looked carefully enough and did the geometry, you could locate those very same clouds. The Google street view car camera rotates and take photos in all directions rapidly, so those clouds were still in position when this view was taken.

Let me add that nowhere did Rossi claim he was venting steam. He claimed this was pure steam, not mixed with hot water. He claimed he condensed the steam, not that he vented it. If he vented it -- or most of it, the reservoir would quickly empty, and the flow meter on the return would be far too low. It is already registering twice as much water as the pumps can produce.

Quote from Eric Walker

What is seen in E48's photos could also be windows with glass panes and black paper loosely attached behind them and are not necessarily screens. Could they have been screens? Perhaps. But recall that the window that is the important one is the one that was in the middle, where the ingress and egress occurred, according to one of the depositions. Here we see a good view of the middle window in April 2015 (courtesy Paradigmnoia):

That is clearly a reflection of clouds that we're seeing, pace imaginative suggestions that it might be steam instead. Could there have been an error in the deposition, and really it was the window over the door where the steam vent was created? I suppose. But we're still so far away from a realistic scenario in which 1 MW of heat is being vented out that the conversation feels unmoored at this point.

I'm not sure if this picture is from 2015. It looks a lot like the 2016 picture. When you select a date from the time line you have to click on the timeline picture to get it to display. Maybe Paradigmnoia can confirm his picture?

Edit: OK, it now looks to me to be from 2015. I now think Paradigmnoia has the correct date. The screen picture matches the timeline picture and there are construction pylons on the grass indicating it's from 2015.

Edit 2: OK I found it: https://www.google.com/maps/@2…0000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Quote from PeterMetz

Other windows along that street look similar. There is one window that is jet black from one angle and dull grey in another. I don't see any discernible differences among all these windows.

Interesting. It is probably the glass reflecting the weather or the light at that time of day. Let's bring up the picture and look up at the sky.

Google wants to preserve privacy by not publishing the day or time of day, but I have heard than an experienced investigator can sometimes figure these things out from the photos. You can confirm continuity where the Google car continued down the same street taking photos. You may find specific clues further along about what day it was. There is a vigorous debate right now in Atlanta centering around Google photos of the materials stored under the I-85 bridge that was destroyed by fire. Investigators want to know how long the materials were there and whether the fence was secure. (It wan't.)

Google blurs out people's faces but you might recognize someone by some other clue, such as height, sex, clothing. In one Google photo, the computer blurred out the face of a horse, but I think you could still recognize that horse.

Quote from PeterMetz

I'm not sure if this picture is from 2015. It looks a lot like the 2016 picture.

It has the date in the picture. Look in the little window on the top left. It says, "Currently shown: Apr 2015." You can move the slider to see other dates.

Quote from PeterMetz

I'm not sure if this picture is from 2015. It looks a lot like the 2016 picture. When you select a date from the time line you have to click on the timeline picture to get it to display. Maybe Paradigmnoia can confirm his picture?

I think the odds of it being 2015 are high, because of the orange and white construction signs, which are consistent with other images from April 2015, whereas the 2016 streetview images show no sign of construction. But this is circumstantial.

ETA: You can verify that the image with the thumbnail labeled "April 2015" corresponds to the streetview image by comparing the salient details in the larger image from my earlier post. So maybe not so circumstantial. There's still the question about the accuracy of the date, but that seems quite likely to be nothing to worry about.