Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Thank you for being specific.


    There are a few scenarios here that I am a little hesitant to go into, because we don't have all the facts. We also don't know exactly to what extent Industrial Heat has performed their own testing on E-Cat reactors. Without further information -- such as IH releasing their internal testing reports -- it will be challenging to form a completely factual opinion. If IH wants us to believe them that the E-Cat never produced excess heat, then I'd suggest that they provide their test reports when they are legally able to do so. My hope is that to back up such statements they've done long, extensive runs of tests varying individual parameters. I'll also say there are other possibilities which could allow for IH to be mistaken without lying about anything. At this stage, until we get all the data and information, I don't discount any possibility. But, then again, what we think really doesn't matter. Any of our opinions are totally irrelevant to the bigger picture. If those of us who think the E-Cat technology is real have been fooled hook, line, and sinker, then it won't stop a multi-billion dollar IH machine from moving forward in any direction they choose.

    @Rigel


    Can identify with the wife todo list. I was an IH fan. They initially brought a significant amount of credibility to the LENR field. I watched the P&F announcement in 1989 and have followed the field quite closely since, and even more-so following the 2009 60 minutes episode covering the field. Not so much of a fan of IH anymore. I believe they are damaging the field and potentially screwing an inventor over. We shall see in time what their true intentions are. Rossi obviously has some character flaws himself, some of which are indefensible. But I also take a very skeptical eye toward those who fawn over IH and its surrogates at this point. My loyalties are to neither party. My concern is for humanity.

    IH Fan,


    As I've said before, I'm confident the E-Cat technology works (as a whole). But I think we should be careful about promoting one sided scenarios in which either IH or Andrea Rossi is screwing the other. There are a multitude of scenarios in which there could be a middle ground. We only have a tiny fraction of the evidence that is hopefully going to come out. For example, the plant could have indeed produced some level of excess heat, but Andrea Rossi could have possibly (we need to see all the evidence and not just selected emails) lied about a number of issues. Then again, you're view point could turn out to be the correct one.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Sorry, it's a bit of a mashup, the FLP-report electricity is just superimposed, and a bit messy. This one is only slightly better.


    Excellent work, P.


    So: since no-one else is taking the bait, here goes. The alleged customer JMP seems to be using power beyond the dubious numbers presented in the now published report. Maybe about 20% more. Well, Rossi could perhaps poiint to various way in which the official figures underestimated generated power. Though we both know the discrepancy is more definite than that it might be hard to prove.


    More interesting to me (but harder to work with) is the relationship between water flow, COP, electricity in. Well, as far as the ERV goes we have COP = K * water flow / energy in where k is a constant, I think since the alleged water heating addition to energy is discounted. I'd like to know precisely what are the various data you are plotting? Is FLP the Florida Light & power energy in for the whole site? Or just Rossi's side? Fabiani and Penon: are these the calculated output power data from two separate sets of instrumentation? Do we know anything about what the instrumentation is, or how Fabiani and Penon claim to have calculated their data?


    All these calculations assume that the water flowing through the circuit as measured here is all vaporised in the shipping container by e-cats and condenses on the "customer" side to form what recycled to the e-cat. That assumption we have never had evidence for - and some strong but circumstantial - because piping details not known - evidence (not enough pressure for given flow rate of vapour) against. my ballpark first view of this was that this assumption was wrong (rather than the water flow being massively different from that stated). I'm still of that view but I can't say I have hard evidence for it, so it must remain speculative.


    My (speculative) guess for mechanism would be:

    • The e-cats vaporise some small portion of the flow
    • This is measured (at 104C no pressure)
    • The rest of the flow stays liquid and is pumped round the system
    • The circulating system water temperature could be the tank temperature, since there is no reason for it to be up at 100C. Or, the mixing between circulating system and tank could be minimal, with the circulating system temperature up near 100C all the time.

    The key issues are: thermocouple siting, piping diagram, connections to/from tank. (And position of flowmeter if flownmeter spoofing is an issue).


    We do have some evidence on all this from documents so far which alas I've forgotten.


    While it is difficult to trust any of this data my speculation would be that the temperature, flowmeter, pressure data is all true - though maybe not very accurate because of the various ways in which equipment is out of spec, just the assumptions made around it are invalid. I'm inclined mildly to think we don't have major flowmeter spoofing here. though that is obviously very possible

    Quote

    What is it with Henry downvoting so many posts. LOL. I mean, downvote posts that are filled with insults or simply beyond the pale, but does a post with a sincere opinion really need to be downvoted?


    After the whimper your impartial friends "the moderators" immediately deleted the downvote possibility from selection.

    Are you happy now and the E-Cat works?

    THHuxleynew ,

    For the FLP-Penon-Fabiani part, I simply cut the plot from the background right from the IH Exhibit, and pasted it directly onto my graph. I stretched it just enough to line up the ends with the beginning and end date range, and a stretched it a little up-down to make it not crash into my graph lines as best possible. The blue reference lines were added for clarity, directly over the original lines.


    COP max includes all water, heated, boiled, and steam heated. (Not just boiled per the listed COP).


    I could get rid of the MWd (X 10000) line. It was just to see where the reactors were all running or some offline, compared to other data. Note that it used all the steam and water heating also, and it even dips to 0.69 MWd for a significant period near the end of the test.


    Presumably, if I plot power in, it should match the Penon-Fabiani line (I'll test that). Note there that Fabiani's line seems to be a day ahead of Penon's power for the first month or so. (Much easier to see in the original Exhibit).


    Note I quoted your entire post to avoid being labeled "deceptive." A bit cumbersome, and makes it harder to bring clarity to differences, but hey, I can accommodate to some degree.


    I think your speculative guesses are for the most part probably correct. As I've understood from past observances, the tank acts as a reservoir for the circulating water. The ERV data shows that the temperature of the tank water hovers around 69 C. So without any other adjustments for conservative energy calculations, that is the starting point. If the circulating water somehow skipped the water tank reservoir, and went straight back to the e-Cat reactors, the incoming water would still not be anywhere near 100C all the time (as you suggested was an alternate possibility), assuming there is a heat exchanger on the other side of the wall.


    The only way it would ever be at around 100C all the time is if the pipe simply went through one hole in the wall, and immediately looped back through another hole in the wall, and back into the reactors. I'm not sure anyone has claimed that is the case--not even Dewey.


    So I think the most plausible position to take is that the water tank acts as a reservoir for the circulating water, and the water tank temperature is that shown in the ERV data: about 69 degrees. Which means, that even if the e-cats vaporize (I sure wish you English-men could spell correctly) some small portion of the flow, then the COP was sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement, and IH owes Rossi his money.

    @zorud


    Thanks for reading my comment. Whatever was going on with the "customer" is ultimately irrelevant to whether it works or not. But I'll grant you that the few (possibly out-of-context) emails that we have so far deposited by IH in the court docket, do make the customer situation appear entirely fake. That is certainly what IH wants the public to believe right now. I'll promise you this: if and when additional evidence comes to light that shows that the customer situation is not what IH wanted the LENR community to believe, you will see at least me take IH to task, once again, for misdirecting the public.

    @IHFB

    Quote

    If the circulating water somehow skipped the water tank reservoir, and went straight back to the e-Cat reactors, the incoming water would still not be anywhere near 100C all the time (as you suggested was an alternate possibility), assuming there is a heat exchanger on the other side of the wall.


    The only way it would ever be at around 100C all the time is if the pipe simply went through one hole in the wall, and immediately looped back through another hole in the wall, and back into the reactors. I'm not sure anyone has claimed that is the case--not even Dewey.


    You assume that even if there is an unmixed flow, then the water in that flow going out must be at 100C. But I see no such constraint. It is easy to measure steam at 104C in a pipe and also have a flow of water at 60C. Without detailed 3D piping diagram, showing instruments in the correct place, with suitable traps etc to ensure there is no problem, and also the confidence that the actual position of the instruments was as stated on that diagram, we have no way to know this. Given Rossi's previous deficiencies in the area of measuring steam, and Penon's deficiencies in reporting on Rossi experiments, and the deficient nature of the report, and the mythical customer, it would be highly unwise to speculate that the water leaving is at 100C.


    I should raise another (very simple) possibility, which is that there is a diverter tube on the customer side (which from anecdotal reports contained something like a car radiator) The diverter would recirculate a lot of the water directly as you say is unlikely. Given the high flow rate that is entirely possible and I don't see how anyone could know about this without detailed inspection of the customer-side setup which as you know was not allowed to any qualified person.


    So I stick to my statement that water could be happily recirculating at anything between 100C and 60C.


    One final vignette here. The very low steam pressure does not allow water to be pumped at high pressure round the system, unless the steam measurement point is isolated from the circulating flow. Speculating that Rossi has a vacuum pump in his customer-side circuit is far-fetched, so we have another inconsistency with your reconstruction.


    Regards, THH


    Okay, let's unpack your conjecture a little. If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator, then whatever steam/hot water entering the car radiator will be at a considerably lower temperature when it exits. That is what a heat exchanger such as a radiator does--extracts heat energy from the fluid. So even if the "diverter" tube was somehow secretly jerry-rigged to skip the water tank reservoir, and go straight back into the e-cat reactors, there would still be a significant divergence in temperature between the fluid entering the e-cat reactors and the fluid exiting the e-cat reactors. And if you assume that the flow rate was probably measured correctly, as you did in fact assume, then the COP would still likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. So the hypothetical diversion tube, water tank reservoir-skipping conjecture does not get you to where you want.


    As for the potential vacuum, I never stated that Rossi has a "vacuum pump" in the customer-side circuit. I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings. Whatever form that slight vacuum takes, is not necessarily pertinent. It could be the heat exchange equipment itself that creates a slight vacuum, as others have pointed out is possible using standard heat exchange equipment. Jed states that heat exchange equipment can only cause back-pressure, but he hasn't provided any support for that statement.

    Hi THH,


    I'm curious how you think the water gets into the "steam pipe" ? If I recall right doesn't it come from the top or at least very near the top of the E-Cat?


    is it your view that the water it is pumped up there?


    What do you think about the back pressure argument by the way? The way I see it it would only reduce the pressure drop along the pipe resulting in change the flow rate but would never exceed the supply pressure.


    Stephen

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You assume that even if there is an unmixed flow, then the water in that flow going out must be at 100C. But I see no such constraint. It is easy to measure steam at 104C in a pipe and also have a flow of water at 60C. Without detailed 3D piping diagram, showing instruments in the correct place, with suitable traps etc to ensure there is no problem, and also the confidence that the actual position of the instruments was as stated on that diagram, we have no way to know this. Given Rossi's previous deficiencies in the area of measuring steam, and Penon's deficiencies in reporting on Rossi experiments, and the deficient nature of the report, and the mythical customer, it would be highly unwise to speculate that the water leaving is at 100C.

    Right. There can also be warm air in a pipe and cooler water. Much easier to have warm air than steam.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Okay, let's unpack your conjecture a little. If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator, then whatever steam/hot water entering the car radiator will be at a considerably lower temperature when it exits. That is what a heat exchanger such as a radiator does--extracts heat energy from the fluid. So even if the "diverter" tube was somehow secretly jerry-rigged to skip the water tank reservoir, and go straight back into the e-cat reactors, there would still be a significant divergence in temperature between the fluid entering the e-cat reactors and the fluid exiting the e-cat reactors. And if you assume that the flow rate was probably measured correctly, as you did in fact assume, then the COP would still likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. So the hypothetical diversion tube, water tank reservoir-skipping conjecture does not get you to where you want.


    As for the potential vacuum, I never stated that Rossi has a "vacuum pump" in the customer-side circuit. I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings. Whatever form that slight vacuum takes, is not necessarily pertinent. It could be the heat exchange equipment itself that creates a slight vacuum, as others have pointed out is possible using standard heat exchange equipment. Jed states that heat exchange equipment can only cause back-pressure, but he hasn't provided any support for that statement.

    Quote

    If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator


    My point was that the diverter tube would be in parallel with the radiator. Easy to do. Hard to detect. So the rest of your para does not apply.


    Quote

    I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings.


    Others have done the calcs. You need a lot of vacuum to get the flow unless the steam tube is larger than DN40. But given any vacuum how does that work without a pump to restore pressure on the Rossi side? The system is open and I'm pretty sure that is before the pump. You are trying awful hard to make facts fit a container the wrong size for them Why?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Okay, let's unpack your conjecture a little. If the customer had a "diverter" tube that contained a car radiator, then whatever steam/hot water entering the car radiator will be at a considerably lower temperature when it exits. That is what a heat exchanger such as a radiator does--extracts heat energy from the fluid. So even if the "diverter" tube was somehow secretly jerry-rigged to skip the water tank reservoir, and go straight back into the e-cat reactors, there would still be a significant divergence in temperature between the fluid entering the e-cat reactors and the fluid exiting the e-cat reactors. And if you assume that the flow rate was probably measured correctly, as you did in fact assume, then the COP would still likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. So the hypothetical diversion tube, water tank reservoir-skipping conjecture does not get you to where you want


    You claim that water entering a radiator will exit at a considerably lower temperature. That depends on the radiator, the temperatures and flow of the water. A flow of 36 000 kg/day and input energy 250 kWh/day would give a temperature rise of about 6 degrees with COP 1. To me it sounds reasonable with a radiator that lower the temperature 6 degrees. Do you have any fact that contradict this?


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    As for the potential vacuum, I never stated that Rossi has a "vacuum pump" in the customer-side circuit. I stated that a slight vacuum on the exit side of the pipe going into the customer area could account for the measured pressure readings. Whatever form that slight vacuum takes, is not necessarily pertinent. It could be the heat exchange equipment itself that creates a slight vacuum, as others have pointed out is possible using standard heat exchange equipment. Jed states that heat exchange equipment can only cause back-pressure, but he hasn't provided any support for that statement.


    Assuming 3 m long DN40 pipe and a preasure of 0 barG you get a preasure drop of 0,99 bar. Thats not a slight vacuum. And according to Exhibit 5 the pipe was at least 6 m long. And in that case absolute vacuum wouldn't be enough. With 6 m DN40 pipe and absolute vaccum at the customer side you need 1,43 bar abs on the other end and then you have a boiling point at 110 degrees C.




    http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html


    There are as I see it three obvious ways it could work (maybe others I've not considered - I don't claim to be good at this steam stuff - and you or others will no doubt correct me). And therefore two of them must be wrong.


    But this "e-cat" is an enormous number of separate modules in parallel. Surely possibilities for mixed flow out? The water is certainly pumped. And do we know the pipe with steam is not isolated internally from the water flow? I'm very unclear because without investigating the eqpt in detail I'm not sure we could say.


    Three obvious ways are:

    1. water @ near 100C

    2. water @ near 70C

    3. condensor and customer bypass on Rossi side


    1,3 have water circulating near 100C bypassing tank

    2 has measured steam separated from circulating water.


    Re back pressure. I don't see that as significant because the pump input side is I believe at roughly room pressure.

    Some thoughts about pipes:


    I asked this elsewhere but I think some of the links could interest some here and I thought i might get some interesting feed bac here too.


    Feel free to comment and correct any apparent mistakes on my side from your points of view. I'm curious to see the what come up.


    Its mentioned I think somewhere that DN40 pipe is used for the steam pipe. Do we know the source of this?

    I'm wondering if "schedule 40" pipe was actually meant. The schedule number is associated with the wall thickness of the pipe.


    https://www.metalsupermarkets.…t-do-pipe-schedules-mean/


    Schedule 40 pipe is often used for piping steam.


    The following links are interesting too if anyone is interested in calculating steam flows and pressure drops:


    http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/c…-loss-through-piping.html


    Lots of interesting calculators there. I'm not sure if they are all fully relevant to superheated steam.

    Note they are also interesting for the condensate pipe requirements too


    This link from Armstrong international in imperial units is also quite interesting:

    https://www.armstronginternati…cts/traps/pdf/N1_4550.pdf


    And this one:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…pressure-drop-d_1129.html


    There are many such interesting calculators and tables on the internet if you search for steam pipe pressure drop.


    I haven't yet done the calculations using a supply pressure about or just above 0barG (a reasonable assumption if it is 103 deg C super heated steam) with a pressure drop to for example say 0.5bar absolute at the condensor.


    But even if it is a 40mm diameter pipe would it not require a flow rate about 562m per second to pipe 36000kg of steam per day? My calculations are probably wrong as it was quite naively done but if they are correct isn't this well with in the specs included in the above links wher flow rates of 1000's m/s are mentioned?


    Although I should also mention steam velocities between 30 m/s and 100m/s seam more recommended for superheated steam to reduce wear and tear according to the following link.


    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ty-steam-pipes-d_386.html


    I suppose if it was DN100 schedule 40 pipe it's flow rate would be right in this range though.


    Incidentally if someone who didn't know much about pipes asked what type of pipe was used and got the verbal answer "DN100 schedule 40 pipe". I can see how they might make an honest mistake and think it was DN40.

    That said it would still work fine I think with DN40 pipe at the higher flow rates.


    Well I don't know what these calculators and tables throw up or even if they are relevant with super heated steam or if the steam is drawn through suction at the condenser rather than pumped from the source. But I think they are interesting. I'm curious what more knowledgeable experts from the engineering community make if it though.

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.