Dear Dewey,
You can be really nice but I will choose the place for my sunset.
You are here the unique IH insider more or less, please have the kindness to explain the core of the ERV report- and why has IH paid for it repeatedlyif it is such a disaster?
Planet Rossi is a daughter of Planet IH?
I sugget you to tell plainly what you think, metaphors are not for you.
peter
My previous calculations are at : Flow meter used in 1-MW test
-- Constant 36,000 kg/day? The pump array will (If unchanged) vary by about 0.4% .. or 36000 +- 144 kg/day.
(Each pump has 2% repeatability, divide by sqrt(24)).
I still do not see how there can be 0 bar pressure (which by the way would have cause false reading by the flow meter that needed at least 0.5 bars to function) and still move all that "steam" an such great velocity down the small pipes and through the "customer's" device.
Looking over the report, I only see the water supplied to the system and no measurement of the flow out of the system. If we the entire loop was not available (customer's side) then there is no proof that some water was dumped at the shipping container (or before the steam sensors (in wall???) and then replenished at the customer's side.
The flow out of the device was required to be measured by the agreement not the flow into the device. Then there is the question as to where the tank temp senor as located since they only measured the temp somewhere unknown and not the temp of the water as it flowed into the device from some tank that was being heated. What was the power into the tank heaters? The temp sensor could have been located near the inlet to the tank and not near the outlet and give a false reading of the temperature of water actually delivered to the system. What is need is the inlet temperature and not the temperature of an external tank.
"You can't have steam pressure of . . . 1 atm."
This is the final and last hope of IH.
The flow rate FUD has been debunked, both when it was raised by Jed in the past, and again by Alan F. in the present.
So, with respect to Jed's steam pressure claim, with a slight vacuum on the receiving end of the steam pipe, is there any reason to believe that a steam pressure of 1 atm is possible?
Going from July 2015 figures, and assuming both the water flow rate and input/output temperatures are correct, the shipping container was producing an average output of between 60kW and 1MW (no boiling vs 100% dry steam).
According to the 'ERV' data, during the same month less than 9kW (on average) electrical power was supplied into the shipping container.
Comparing that to the electric bill for the same month. The electrical power fed into the buildings meter averaged at 16kW.
129-01 : the second half of December shows that FPL delivered less power than Penon reported.
Display More"You can't have steam pressure of . . . 1 atm."
This is the final and last hope of IH.
The flow rate FUD has been debunked, both when it was raised by Jed in the past, and again by Alan F. in the present.
So, with respect to Jed's steam pressure claim, with a slight vacuum on the receiving end of the steam pipe, is there any reason to believe that a steam pressure of 1 atm is possible?
vacuum - Are you saying that JMP was adding work to the system by pulling a vacuum on the line? You are still up against the requirement of the flow meter's min. pressure for a reading of about 0.5 bars.
Quote129-01 : the second half of December shows that FPL delivered less power than Penon reported.
Alan, are you sure?
The electricity bill suggests an average of 293 kWh/day were supplied, and on the slackest day in December, Penton reports 198kWh/day going into the shipping container.
129-01 : the second half of December shows that FPL delivered less power than Penon reported.
If that is really Penon's report - He has not verified it and has not made any court appearance or deposition that I know of to verify the data was his and not just what was supplied by Rossi. Remember the GPT rests, in part, on the an official certification by the ERV. (if Penon was even the ERV for the GPT and not for just the ERV from the previous tests and still called that)
You are confused. The measured flow was reportedly 36,000 kg. This was arbitrarily reduced by 10% to 32,400 kg. Rossi described this reduction in his interview with Lewan.
As you see, the measured flow was the same every day, and the steam pressure was 0.0 bar. This is impossible.
No I am not confusing it with the reduced rate.
Look again, your eyes are tricking you. There is one day in that 30 day period where the rate is not 36000.
On the day starting 07/12 22:30, the rate is 32000.
So Murray was imprecise in his claim. It's ok if instead he asks why there is a period of two weeks with 36000.
Edit to add: Murray should have instead used the month of October where we see a longer streak of 36000 flows.
fwiw, here's my steam calculator for 7/31/15 (page 13), using the reduced water flow:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc…p0=1&et1=69.7&ep2=1&er2=2
Note that this calculation is normalized to 1 hour, so the daily electric input of 151kWh gives 6.291kW input.
This gives a COP of 143.5 vs Penon's 134.6 -- ISTR Penon reduced the water flow AND didn't take into account the tank temperature.
Setting the inlet to boiling (99.6) gives a COP of 136, essentially the same as Penon.
I'm not saying it's true, just that his numbers are consistent with his calculation.
So, with respect to Jed's steam pressure claim, with a slight vacuum on the receiving end of the steam pipe, is there any reason to believe that a steam pressure of 1 atm is possible
Imagine a sealed boiler with a long smallish-diameter pipe extending horizontally from the headspace. The other end of the pipe is open to the atmosphere...
The boiler starts to boil and pressure increases, enough to force the steam down the pipe.
At the open end the steam pressure has to be at atmospheric pressure, and inside the boiler, the pressure rises to a maximum.
But there's not really a pressure drop along the pipe... (unlike a fluids, steam isn't really viscous enough for this to happen - despite what Murray apparently thinks)... Most of the pressure drop takes place across the boiler-pipe orifice.
So the 'pressure' inside the pipe in this example should be somewhere around atmospheric right?... Well maybe. Are we talking static or dynamic pressure? Or to put it another way: Depending on how fast the steam is moving, Bernoulli's law will also affect the readings.
Now imagine the same pipe is feeding steam into a sealed condenser. By definition the pressure inside the condenser will be below atmospheric pressure, and for a given orifice size, boiler pressure will reduce.
Basically it's perfectly possible for the spot pressure to be zero (ie atmospheric) anywhere in the system. ...Although it is still VERY odd the reading is always 0.0.
Display More"You can't have steam pressure of . . . 1 atm."
This is the final and last hope of IH.
The flow rate FUD has been debunked, both when it was raised by Jed in the past, and again by Alan F. in the present.
So, with respect to Jed's steam pressure claim, with a slight vacuum on the receiving end of the steam pipe, is there any reason to believe that a steam pressure of 1 atm is possible?
Assuming that exhibit 5 is wrong on the pipe diameter and it is much larger, can someone remind me why the steam couldn't be at 1 atm?
I am very concerned that the records do show the temperature of some external tank and not the temperature of the water as it enters the system. For example, if the water supplied to the system was from the bottom of the tank and the inlet water heater was at the bottom the temperature of the supplied water could be drastically different from the temperature near the water flowing into the tank from the "customer". People doing flow systems know that water mixing before temperature sensors is critical to measure the inlet flow temperature. There is a host of difficulties with include the laminar flow effects when there is no mixing prior to measurement.
It sounds like the system did not do even the minimal required items to measure its heat: that is temperature of a mixed flow into the system (not some supply tank temperature), and the flow out of the device (not flow into the device). So far there has no evidence given that it was an actual closed loop and not one where water is removed., replaced, or added to since the customer's side was not made available for inspection during the runs.
The steam measurements make no sense to me. Movement of steam at such a high speeds (required by claimed flow rates and pipe sizes) at 0 pressure differentials. Also no real measurement of steam quality although they claim it was 100% steam without giving any proof. This is important since you can have a measure of steam above a flow of water. Example, temperature sensor on the top of the pipe where there is steam but water in the lower half.
Dear Peter and your fellow Planet Rossi brethren - as you will be learning soon enough (but should have already known by now), all data in the ERV annex is completely manufactured by Rossi.
None of it is real. The hold that this man still has on you is shameful and stunning.
"You can't have steam pressure of . . . 1 atm."
This is the final and last hope of IH.
Except for everything else that is wrong with the data, described in Exhibit 5.
Assuming that exhibit 5 is wrong on the pipe diameter and it is much larger, can someone remind me why the steam couldn't be at 1 atm?
First, the pipe diameter is right. Rossi has not disputed it. Photos show that it is right.
Second, it is not possible to have steam at 1 atm. It wouldn't go anywhere. It wouldn't be steam! It would just condense. There has to be some resistance from the pipes and radiators or heat exchangers, so the pressure has to be higher than 1 atm. Furthermore, we are talking about 1 MW of steam from a large flow of water, which is a tremendous volume of steam.
I agree with most of it but I disagree a bit about the part quoted above. I can't find in the agreement that the license depended on Rossi completing a GPT. In my opinion only the payment of $89,000,000 depends on the GPT.
DNI, thanks, you are right. My mistake. It agree with your analysis of the contract that the only contingency for IH paying Rossi the $89 million is a successful GPT. So given the total $11.5 million IH paid, they currently own both Rossi's E-Cat IP and a license to sell in North America and other countries named in the contract (subject to resolution of any GPT). I will edit my previous comment to correct it for the record, with attribution.
A brief glimps on the tables and graphs shows, that the power consumption of the 1MW plant was 10kW, and the total power consumption of the Doral site was 15kW.
So, roughly only 5kW el. power left for the operation of the JMP plant (and lighting, exhaust fans...).
This must cause some head-aches to the ones who made up all kind of crazy ideas about what kind of production goes on at the JMP side (e.g SMR)
