Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from THHuxleynew

I think Peter what you are saying here is 100% wrong. You seem to have lost the plot. If the data is Fake then nothing needs to be explained. Nor can any speculations be made because without (non-fake) data we do not have a clue what were temps etc.

Perhaps you are asking, how could the claimed data be (sort of) real and Rossi's device not work?

Very easily! you look at the headline COP=200 and reckon that this cannot be explained away. Let me lead you through why it can. I'm sure, in fact, that if you pay attention to what people have said here you already know this? but here goes:

The key thing is the assumption of phase change for flow round the system. Specifically rossi's figures assume all water is vapourised, leave his reactor has 100% dry steam, returns as liquid. It is very easy indeed for such a system (without careful trapping etc) to have water flow so that 99% or more of all water circulates in liquid phase. There is absolutely no evidence there is significant phase change and significant evidence (103C for a high flow rate pumped system) that there is no phase change. Of course with 100% phase change, as Rossi and the ERV assume, the output temperature would never be near 100C even at atmospheric pressure. And the factory would get too hot. The evidence against Rossi's and the (clearly professionally incompetent and, it seems, in hiding) ERV assumption is cast iron. (Maybe Penon did not author or authorise the report - but in that case allowing it to be used without clear written refutation must surely at best be professional incompetence).

If we (for one moment) accept Rossi's 1500kg/h that removes a total power of 1500*2257 kJ/h = 940kW from the calculations. We are down from 1MW to 60kW output. If 1% of the water is actually delivered as steam that goes up to 70kW. You get the idea.

Next, let us examine the other component of the "heat delivered" equation. That comes from heating the water. It is (Tin-Tout)*1500*4kJ/hour/C = 1.7kW/C. So with no phase change, accepting 1500kg/h, we have an expected temperature rise from Rossi's 20kW input of about 13C.

The figures we have (103C and and 60C) would superficially seem to indicate more than that. The problem is that neither figure represents mixed flow liquid temperature on the inlet vs outlet sides, which is what we would need. It is very easily for water to circulate going between 103C and 90C (stablised at 103C by small amts of phase change). it is also very easy for water to circulate between 60 and 73C with the outlet unmixed and the temperature measurement looking at a small amount of high temp steam.

Or, the two temperature readings could both be correct, and the flowmeter could be spoofed as Jed suggests.

Or, some combination of the three error mechanisms.

Now, Peter, I have answered your question. Suppose you answer mine. What evidence do you have that Rossi's devices have ever generated any excess heat? I'm looking here for positive evidence from tests, not speculations and conspiracy theories.

Regards, THH

Display More

Why should you have a monopoly on speculation, because at this point that's all anyone has. There is simply not enough information available for your own supposition.

Top of the morning to you RiRi. Tough day for you fellas (with presumptuous apologies) yesterday but that seems like the new normal so get used to it.

Absorb this little nugget into your thoughts for the morning exercise - FactualUnfazedDetermined.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

sigmoidal,

You have Fabiani where Penon should be in a couple of places.

It appears that I confabulated Fabiani and Fabio! Fabulously clumsy of me.

Thanks for catching that error, Para. I've corrected that post using strikeout and inserted with underline.

THHuxleynew

I think we agree we are both about the need for real data and hopefully clarity what ever it shows and where ever it goes even if we have different initial positions and sometimes make our own errors. I'm not really one for division so I hope you will bear with me with this and see where it goes.

Have you looked at the flow rate and water velocity in a gravity return section of a DN80 condensate pipe?

Note if the meter was in a section containing full water (I.e correctly placed) the water velocity would be quite low even with 36000 liter per day.

(I Calculated about 8.3 cm/s (with a quarter of this flow rate it would be about 2cm/s obviously)).

The following on line calculator looks at gravity return pipes.

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g

I am curious what would happen to the Flow meter if placed wrongly in the gravity return section as has been speculated here.

I was playing around with it assuming DN80 pipe and about 10m length and about 5cm drop. (I guess the actual length and slope looks like it could be longer and steeper in the pictures though).

It seems I get a much higher flow velocity than 8cm/s and even shallower drops do not seem to reduce the flow velocity to 8cm/s. so how could the rotor in the flow meter be turning at the same rate as if at 8cm/s flow rate?

Also at these much higher flow velocities the pipe would not just be 1/4 full in the gravity return section but much emptier even with the fuel flow of 36000 liter/day let alone 1/4 of that.

I don't think steady flow could work with this argument, but I could be wrong. This does make me think in order to have the reading reported it must have been correctly placed with the correct flow.

On the other hand intermittent flow as from a tank with a valve also needs to be considered properly I think. But i this case I would think the pipe would be either empty or full. With some short period at the end of the flow when it diminishes from full to empty state. In this case I suppose it could still give a reading but I can't see then how the pipe would be 1/4 full most of the time.

Well perhaps my thoughts on this are flawed in some way so I'm interested in your position on this.

It Maybe worth having a play with the calculator I sent to see if you come up with a different result.

Edit: an interesting side note if the length is 10m and drop is between 0.5m and 0.6m the flow rate would be a perfect match for the flow meter. Given this I suspect there could well be intermittent full flow and the reported flow is likely to be quite accurate especially if it is well located in a low point in the pipe. But I would also say a continual flow of 36000 liter a day would still be above the minimum flow rate for this meter 1400 liter/hour but it would need to be in low section of the pipe fully immersed. Higher up in the gravity return pipe at this flow velocity the pipe would be almost empty much less than 1quarter full and at higher velocity too.

StephenC - what convinced you to go with DN80 in today's ponderance?

Dewey Weaver. Im talking here about the condensate return pipe here. I understood this was a DN80 pipe from the supposed flow meter discription I saw here some place. But I could be wrong was it a different diameter?

By the way I was shocked by your opinion on socks, surely you know socks have rights too. At least half of them anyway. The others have left, I can understand wanting to track those ones maybe.

When I loose mine I usually find them stuck in the washing machine or hidden under my bed. 😉.

Sorry just some light humor I couldn't resist.

Honestly I don't think there are any sock puppets just a lot of different opinions and viewpoints with different level of information data. I dont think it's a rugby match with 2 sides. Some of us have our own different starting view points which is good for debate and analysis most of us are genuinely curious about real data and try to share what we find to see what it means.

Also don't be too hard in us with bad punctuation I know my own punctuation is awful most the time too.

StephenC - since you have an opinion on the condensate side, can you share some more of your thoughts where and how the phase change may have occurred in this system?

Do you agree with E48's interpretation that there was a master pump post flowmeter?

Regarding SPs - this is my shocked face................

At the link below can be found, at the bottom of the page, a plot of 21 days of daily electrical consumption for running lights at a large warehouse. Note the nice weekday peaks and weekend lows. Although clearly a much larger warehouse, the cyclical consumption seems to be a reasonable comparison to the lumpy FPL plot.

http://dextragroup.co.uk/dexec…ton-logistics-thurrock-2/

Dewey Weaver, well regarding socks I tend to wear them on my feet...

I try to look at things from the point of view that there is no fraud on either side, perhaps some errors or misunderstandings on one side or the other and at least that both sides are honest in what they present in court. I appreciate other people have other views on that and I respect that. But that's the approach I like to take.

Yup I've been thinking about phase change too. It's a good point and I appreciate my exchanges with THH on that matter it clarified a lot I think. To be honest I understand Jed's position a bit better now if he is talking about water flow with no phase change. I was quite confused when I thought he was talking about steam and mixed flow. Especially regarding back pressure as that would be meaning less in a steam pipe as regard increasing the steam pressure at source at least if any thing it would have slowed the steam flow rate in the pipe. And a condensor should reduce the temperature and pressure of steam at the condensor due to Ideal gas law and more obviously the condensation. Also clearly 20kW or potentialy much less of heating would produce very little steam or condensate too little it seems to explain the flow meter reading. How ever since its now apparent he is talking about water flow with no phase change it's more interesting. I guess I got confused when he mentioned back pressure at the "condensor" and thought since he was mentioning a condensor that he meant steam.

So I think it's worth exploring the water circuit idea to see where it goes. It would require that some things are wrong in the reports such as dry steam production and the temperatures etc which would need to be understood somehow. and would also require the water to flow into the steam pipe some how under some little pressure. I think that could only happen if the tanks were full to their brim with water or the pipe comes from below the water line. But THH's comments are intelligent so I'm curious to explore that approach. This is also the point of my post to him above.

Regarding the master pump proposed by E48 it's interesting and i suppose could makr sense from an engineering control loop point of view I think if you only needed to regulate a smaller amount with the other pumps seen.

But I guess we have to see about that. I'm also curious about it. But it's interesting even with out it if there is indeed dry steam in the steam pipe there would need to be LENR present to explain the flows seen.

On the othergand could water flow circuit be consistent either? I'm not sure hence my post to THH.

I'm clearly not a boiler engineer which is obvious from my question but also why I ask things here. But I did wonder if we assume the steam condensor circuit is working as thought if suction could have a part to play in the water flow. And also if condensate was used to drive the suction some how. But I soppose only someone expert intbe field could answer that.

Well that's much longer than I normally write. I hope you respect it.

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. As I have said several times, I have a diagram of the plant, from Rossi. It shows the flow meter was installed in the gravity return pipe. You do not believe that so you should ask Rossi for a copy of the diagram.

Jed,

Yesterday you made a blunder oversized even for you-

claiming that your friends have established that the flowmeter multiplies real flow 4 times and obviously you cannot prove this incredible story. Unprovable, how do you define a lie?

You claimed Rossi gave you the ERV report, then once told it was from IH (Mendacem esse oported memoriam)

Now you come with the diagram also donated by your admirer Rossi to you.

Some people still believe you here, you are not responsible for what you say. You prove nothing because you have no proofs

I will not ask Rossi about the diagram,he is busy with the real litigation; this ghost game here is just an imitation of the real thing.

I simply cannot understand why you do these kitschy tricks.

Any game has some rules. Are you rewarded as an entropy generator, chaos source?

Peter

@Bob ,

In my opinion, based on the limited info presently available, the cyclical peaks and valleys represent weekday and Saturday lights and mundane warehouse loads. The lights in the warehouse are old things, maybe HP sodium, metal halide, or similar, that use a substantial amount of electricity. Maybe Rossi manned the Plant on Sundays and did not use the warehouse lights.

It can be supposed, although only a best guess, that the weekday lighting etc. loads can be subtracted from the FPL lumpy line to arrive at the base warehouse load, which includes the Plant consumption.

The Plant carries on through Sundays at 3/4 or full nameplate capacity (or close), in theory, even though the warehouse seems to have no need for lights, etc. during that day. I am sure many excuses/explanations will be made for the Sunday production of steam for the Customer while the employees are absent or don't require lights etc. on Sundays.

But why the plant was able to consume more electricity than was supplied for the two week period in November has fewer excuses/explanations. The idea that FPL had a separate meter for the Plant I am sure was looked into by IH when they got a subpoena to look at the warehouse consumption data. Remember also that Matts had an electrical bill for JMP, which was once used as "proof" that the Plant was making substantial excess heat.

(10 x 400W Metal Halide bulbs would explain most of the electrical consumption lumps, of they were on all day, or almost all day, on weekdays + Saturdays)

Conveniently, Rossi supplied monthly data for the (more or less) unoccupied Doral warehouse suite in the Exhibit in Document 128-02, showing about 15 kWh per day average when empty.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ll-for-1mw-test-customer/

@Bob

Based on the data, it looks to me that the off days were Sunday and Monday. Maintenance or repairs for the 1MW plant commenced on Tuesday. I believe that the FPL data was for the entire unit and included the 1MW plant, the front office space, the customer area, and the second shipping container housing Rossi etc. I also believe that the FPL is probably derived from hourly usage data. Things don't quite line up for me although I believe that the data in Malcom Lear's spreadsheet is correct in terms of sync with the ERV data and FPL data and is what I used. (I call it ERV data but I really mean Penon data).

The Bass, JMP, and Johnson Answer is now in the Docket.

It seems strange to me that the customer didn't seem to need the 1MW before or after the "test". If they needed 1MW to "make their product" (which invisablly came and went), what were they using before and after the "testing".

Quote from Peter Gluck

Unprovable, how do you define a lie?

You claimed Rossi gave you the ERV report, then once told it was from IH (Mendacem esse oported memoriam)

Now you come with the diagram also donated by your admirer Rossi to you.

Some people still believe you here, you are not responsible for what you say. You prove nothing because you have no proofs

...I will not ask Rossi about the diagram,he is busy with the real litigation; this ghost game here is just an imitation of the real thing.'

Display More

Peter, with all due respect, calling Jed a liar and calling this discussion a 'ghost game' is pretty insulting, regardless of whatever point of view you hold regarding Rossi.

I would think that anyone else would have green text by now.

I am a published researcher and scientist with decades of experience. I'd ask you to reflect about the messages you are communicating here, and whether you find them to be appropriately collegial.

Offered as a suggestion in hopes of helping, from one who sometimes fails in being collegial.

Quote from AlainCo

Sorry JedRothwell, We don't need calorimetry.

Andrea Rossi
May 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM

Alexvs:

Yes, the Customer is measuring independently the energy that arrives to his plant, both with gauges and ( more important) with the operation of his manufacturing system, which needs our energy to work.

The measurements give similar results, within the margin of error of the instrumentation, but, as I said, what counts more than all is the FACT that the energy we supply him makes his plant work as expected. Calorimetic measurements now are coupled with manufacturing efficiency measurements, which put in evidence the very result that really counts: is our Customer making money with our plant or not ? This is the most important issue. If the Customer does not make money with our plant, he will not get solace if we will present him good calorimetric results, however obtained…

Data regarding the COP will be given after the completion of the tests and the final results can be either positive or negative.

Warm Regards,

A.R.