Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from LFH Sam

    It shows that Jed N Dew have been posting falsified information
    This goes beyond being unprofessional


    Quote from LFH Sam

    Jed - what's going on, how could YOU do such a huge mistake?

    You are out of your ever-loving mind! The difference between 100.1 deg C and 103 deg C with instruments of this type with a large boiler is non-existant. It is in the noise. Have you ever actually seen industrial thermometers? You tap a dial thermometer and it will change by several degrees. You watch a digital or dial thermometer 5 minutes and you will see it fluctuate by several degrees. The fluid is never well mixed; the temperature is never uniform. A difference of ~2 deg C is transient and MEANINGLESS. Try measuring the water temperature in a boiling pot of water and you will see what I mean. Try stirring.


    Besides, I went back and looked in my office computer and uploaded the correct numbers here, as someone here already noted.


    When you call this a "huge mistake" you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you have never measured a temperature, even in a junior high school style experiment.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    What is pitiful is that you presumably knew what the data was, and pushed the 100.1 C value to the community instead. Whether you made up the value or not is irrelevant.

    First, I corrected the error right here. Many times.


    Second, this is a TRIVIAL error! The difference between 100.1 and 103 deg C on an industrial thermometer is meaningless. You tap a bimetallic dial thermometer and it changes that much. Or you adjust the offset screw on the faceplate. When you put a dual thermocouple into a pot of boiling water, or ice slurry, you will see the two thermocouples are usually about a degree apart with 0.1 degree resolution, and 10 times that with 1 degree resolution (obviously). (Low res turns on automatically with high temperatures). That is why there is an offset screw on the front. You turn it to make them the same. There is also a way to force them to same number by software, as I recall. Press T1-T2 and then zero it out.


    Here's the faceplate. Why do you think they have those Offset screws? For decoration?


    omega-HH12B.jpg

    Quote from sigmoidal

    Do you understand that at one atmosphere (or 1 Bar) pressure, there is a huge significance in terms of the energy (enthalpy to be specific) of a quantity of 100C water vs. 100.1C steam?

    There is no chance this machine was at a 1 atm. There had to be some back pressure from the equipment it went through in the pretend customer site. That equipment was probably the radiator seen in the photo posted here. Pushing fluid through that kind of radiator takes takes several psi of pressure. 4 psi raises the boiling point by 13 deg F (6 deg C).


    https://durathermfluids.com/pd…ressure-boiling-point.pdf


    4 psi is a trivial amount of pressure. Heck, the average person's lungs produce 1.2 psi. That's 90 cmH2O in medical terms. Look it up. Do the conversion. Do you really think that radiator does not produce twice as much back pressure as a blow up party balloon? Have some common sense!


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1501025/

    Quote from sigmoidal

    I'll let DW speak for himself, but maybe the reason that temperature came up was because it was commonly mentioned or reported by Rossi.

    Yup. That's probably it.


    But, as I said, with even 4 psi of back pressure, it could be anything up to 106 deg C and the fluid would still be water. So what difference does it make? The people on Planet Rossi here apparently do not understand that!

    Quote from LENR Calender

    The difference between 100.1 and 103.9 mattered back then because it implies a different margin of safety above the boiling point.


    100.1C implied "LOL Rossi is just pretending the water is boiling when it's really on only 0.1C above 100C and a small change of pressure could mean a change of phase"

    I guess you really do not understand this!


    With even a TRIVIAL amount of pressure, the boiling point goes way above 100 deg C. An ordinary kitchen pressure cooker pot develops 15 psi, which raises the boiling point to 252 deg F (122 deg C). So if we assume this 1 MW boiler and machinery is no more robust or at higher pressure than a kitchen cooking pot (which is preposterous) then it does not make a damn bit of difference whether the temperature was 100.1, 103, or 110 deg C.


    https://fastcooking.ca/pressur…teel_pressure_cookers.php

    @Jed,


    I know you are hoping that you are right on the back pressure. But that's just it: speculation. Unless you can provide proof of what was behind the wall, there is no way to know. Several others, both here and on ECW, have now provided their own conjecture that certain equipment could create a slight vacuum, which is all that would be needed for consistency with the pressure measurements in the ERV data.

    132 is a doozy. Or shall I say, a Dewsey. Would be nice to get a diff between the immediate previous answer and the 4th amended answer. As I read through it, I can't recall if I'd already seen some of the laughter-inducing statements before, or if they are new ones. I don't want to rehash previous stupid statements once again.

    We now have one piece of ground truth thanks to the Florida utility. The approximately 300 to 400 kWh per day used by the facility, if every bit of it went into heating water at the flow rate quoted in the data (36,000 kg/d), could only raise the water about 10 deg C.


    So, if there was any steam at all or a significantly greater than 10 deg C rise in water temperature, (and the temperature and water flow measurements aren't completely fabricated), then a great amount of additional energy had to be coming from somewhere.


    The latent heat of evaporation is of course much much higher than the specific heat of water so turning any of that water into steam requires a lot of energy.

    So unless the water was flowing at a much lower rate and the incoming temperature was more like 90 deg C and no steam was actually produced, then Rossi is close to proving over-unity. There's a lot of wiggle room in COP 80. The numbers just released would have to be totally, absolutely, unequivocally wrong and easy to disprove.


    Bad choice of flow meter doesn't cut it; that flow meter would only under-report the actual flow. Thermocouples off by 30 deg C at low temperatures right from the start? Seems like a stretch. No steam at all but consistent measurements of 103 deg C exiting? Seems unlikely. I don't know what the deal is with the zero pressure reading; seems like we need an explanation there.


    FSwgpQ4.png

    Doc 129-01: Florida Power, Penon and Fabiani electric usage over the entire test.

    Zephir_AWT ,

    I dispute that the water meter can only under-report the flow.

    If not filled it can report multiples of the true volume of water.

    At any arbitrary velocity of flow capable of turning the impeller, a partially filled meter reports the same volume flowed as if it were full. (With this type of meter.)

    In the extreme, the meter impeller could even be jetted (like squirting a stream from a hose) to obtain very high false measurements.

    Well my own experience in the lab with badly mounted flow meters is they over report flow and often by quite a bit. The basis of these meters is a very free running impeller thats quite happy to rotate with just a tiny stream of fluid passing through. Think of a water wheel at a mill, its rotation rate is directly dependant on the water velocity of the stream, not the depth or quantity of water hence the need for a full pipe. Mounting and positioning correctly is essential for correct operation and if mounted intentionally to misread there would be massive errors I'm sure.

    Looking at the reported consumption image above, it looks like there are steps for 4, 3, and down to 2 Tigers August to October, then back to all 4, 4 for a bit, down to 3 in December and back to 4 again. Three consistent steps. And probably a baseline pump load, computers, etc.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I guess you really do not understand this!


    With even a TRIVIAL amount of pressure, the boiling point goes way above 100 deg C. An ordinary kitchen pressure cooker pot develops 15 psi, which raises the boiling point to 252 deg F (122 deg C). So if we assume this 1 MW boiler and machinery is no more robust or at higher pressure than a kitchen cooking pot (which is preposterous) then it does not make a damn bit of difference whether the temperature was 100.1, 103, or 110 deg C.


    https://fastcooking.ca/pressur…teel_pressure_cookers.php




    At 100.1C, the margin of safety is 0.13 psi, while at 103.9C it is 2.2 psi (source: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpv…ure_equation.php#ajscroll)


    In the first case, we imply that the whole experiment is a lunacy just from that 100.1C value and that Rossi is an idiot.


    In the second case , we have to look at precision of instruments and methodology.


    The difference between 100.1 and 104 is the same as between 104 and 135 in terms of margin of safety. What would you think if Rossi had said 135C all along and it turned out to be 103.5?


    Thanks Bob, a good post. As somone strongly on one side of this debate I have to say that Jed and Dewey sometimes shoot themselves in the foot as far as PR here goes by arguing a (reasonable on evidence conclusion) as though it is fact. Which I don't mind, except I get really worked up by comments like that from IHFB below that make twisted insinuations with no evidence or probability. I try not to let this affect my posts but I guess it still does.



    I find this type of argument particularly despicable because it is wholly polemic, but sufficiently indirect that no-one can be bothered to call it out, and yet those not following details can find it convincing. IH have said they cannot measure excess heat after extensive testing of Rossi's devices. IHFB made a big deal of cherry-picked (by Rossi in an Answer) court evidence saying that one test (or set of tests on given system) showed COP = 1.3. That appears an exact contradiction. IHFB emphasises this by misquoting IH stance as "never any excess heat, ever".


    To decode this you need a load of context which I hope the Court will get. Measurements of COP are never precise and always have errors. If these are not correctly analysed and given COP = 1.3 does not mean excess heat. Worst than this, in all complex experiments the errors are difficult to analyse. It is easy to miss out some systematic error (even a large one caused by a theoretical error, as in Lugano). If you test equipment and it comes up with COP in range 1.01 - 1.35, many times, you might take this as indicating some excess heat. Or, it might be some systematic error in the way the calorimetry is done (typically some defect in the chosen control, or variation in calorimetry characteristics that changes between active and control). You need a whole set of experiments and checks to find that, or tests with completely different calorimetry.


    With the best will in the world decent research labs can be wrong about such things. IH, testing equipment supposed to produce commercial levels of heat, may be equally unsure as to whether there is some LENR effect (and therefore possible value in the IP) or not. But they can categorically say that devices given to them by Rossi claimed to generate commercial levels of excess heat do not do this. Being precise about measurable excess heat is a can of worms, because you can never be precise. IHFB, as all who simplify for polemic effect, ignores this. In the context of this legal action "we could never show any convincing excess heat" is what matters. Rossi's claims are for more than convincing excess heat - they are for reliable commercial excess heat. And crushing the tests on that matter is possible and no doubt has been done by IH.

    Quote
    The difference between 100.1 and 104 is the same as between 104 and 135 in terms of margin of safety. What would you think if Rossi had said 135C all along and it turned out to be 103.5?

    I already explained it above. The temperature difference is required for overcoming the pressure drop across 40DIN pipe objected with Penon in Exhibit 5 with water vapor and still remain dry.

    BTW - A sample pressure test of Rossi's 1MW reactor housings in Raleigh failed around the 2 PSI mark.

    I doubt the $1.5M 1MW foot-warmer fluid (whatever it was) ever reached boiling. I'm thinking about making some 100.1C hats for the trail.

    Quote

    I already explained it above. The temperature difference is required for overcoming the pressure drop across 40DIN pipe objected with Penon in Exhibit 5 with water vapor and still remain dry.

    There is no such thing as a 40DIN pipe. You probably mean DN40. And of course the temperature difference is irrelevant since it is impossible to squeeze 36,000 kg of steam per day through a 40 mm pipe of any length and with any temperature if all you have is a pressure difference of less than 100 kPa.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.