Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'm afraid you seem to know nothing about which you write.

"The temperature and flow rate of the cooling water through the condenser controls the temperature of the condensate. This in turn controls the saturation pressure (vacuum) of the condenser. To prevent the condensate level from rising to the lower tubes of the condenser, a hotwell level control system may be employed. Varying the flow of the condensate pumps is one method used to accomplish hotwell level control. A level sensing network controls the condensate pump speed or pump discharge flow control valve position. Another method employs an overflow system that spills water from the hotwell when a high level is reached.

Condenser vacuum should be maintained as close to 29 inches Hg as practical. This allows maximum expansion of the steam, and therefore, the maximum work. If the condenser were perfectly air-tight (no air or noncondensable gasses present in the exhaust steam), it would be necessary only to condense the steam and remove the condensate to create and maintain a vacuum. The sudden reduction in steam volume, as it condenses, would maintain the vacuum. Pumping the water from the condenser as fast as it is formed would maintain the vacuum. It is, however, impossible to prevent the entrance of air and other noncondensable gasses into the condenser. In addition, some method must exist to initially cause a vacuum to exist in the condenser. This necessitates the use of an air ejector or vacuum pump to establish and help maintain condenser vacuum."

http://www.engineersedge.com/h…large_steam_condenser.htm

Display More

Right: so is the system described in that article open or closed? Three guesses...

Our GCH radiator system is closed. So are many steam systems. But not Rossi's.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Well I think it would be little more like a seesaw balancing trick to get a flow with 1 atmospere at the point of measurement. It would not only require a drop in pressure at the 'customers' end, but also a slight positive pressure in the reactors. But hey, that's possible with a feedback system to maintain that perfect balance and no doubt an important clue as to the 'Rossi Effect'.... or not

I just get bored with mentioning all this stuff: there are so many things that don't work in this Rossi system. One is this. To keep a temperature of boiling point (as is observed) you need both liquid and gas phases in equilibrium. That then shows Rossi's magnificent assumption of phase change is busted. You can have anything from 0.1% to 99.9% phase change and still buffer teh temperature. But 100% phase change, as Rossi and IHFB claim this 103C temperature implies, would mean no stabilisation and the temperature would be very highly variable. The phase change power (2250kJ/kg) is much higher than the gas spec heat capacity 2kJ/kgK

Thus a 0.1% change in power output, or flow rate, would result in a 1C change in temperature if not buffered.

We have here a magnificent (impossible) control system doing something that in any case is quite unnecessary. Also, Rossi has just happened to make the controlled temperature very close to boiling point, instead of at 150C that would clearly at the given pressure be gas phase. Why would that be? Does he not want the 89M?

the whole thing is absurd and I guess I keep on posting here because the engineering lack of common sense of IHFB and a few others annoys me...

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Well I think it would be little more like a seesaw balancing trick to get a flow with 1 atmospere at the point of measurement. It would not only require a drop in pressure at the 'customers' end, but also a slight positive pressure in the reactors. But hey, that's possible with a feedback system to maintain that perfect balance and no doubt an important clue as to the 'Rossi Effect'.... or not

Remember that Penon did not claim that the pressure was 1 atmosphere but 0 bars of pressure - that is a "perfect vacuum" that never changed.

@TTH

"But not Rossi's."

Can you please share the site layout diagrams and photographs that you must have given that you seem to make hard claims about it? Oh, that's what I thought. You are going off of Jed-says.

Quote from oldguy

Remember that Penon did not claim that the pressure was 1 atmosphere but 0 bars of pressure - that is a "perfect vacuum" that never changed.

Look at exhibit 5 again.

Quote from Alan Smith

I believe that there are such things as non-return valves. Just sayin'.

Sure, but for the high flow-rate claimed the pressure on the customer side must be greater than that on the open side, not less...

@THH

I believe that there are such things as pumps. Just sayin'.

IHFB

So were you given candies when young for being annoyingly obtuse?

I'm sure you realise that it is not conceivable Rossi has a vaccum pump in his system (not described by the ERV = see below) purely with the purpose of making it look like his system does not work.

Is it?

Quote

The cooling water is contained in a tank, placed inside the Plant, that receives the water from an external plant [sic, “tank”].

It is conveyed by pumps in [sic, “into”] the unit’s E-cat[s], where it is heated to vaporize. The steam is collected in one tube of the steam line, which conveys it to the outside of the shelter.

The steam is then passed through the customer’s facility, where it cools up to its condensation. *

The water is so recycled to the internal [sic, external] tank in a closed loop. The water is distilled water.

The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank to the internal tank by gravity. […]

– flowmeter for measuring the flow rate of cooling water inlet into the shelter. It is located along the line of return of the water. between the Plant of the Customer and the 1 MW E-Cat.

Display More

@THH

That quote is about as obtuse as it gets, and you provided no attribution or source, nor who inserted the sics. What is clear, however, is that it says nothing about what is on the "customer" side, whether there are pumps, or not. But if you have a large industrial condenser, you most certainly will have a pump.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Look at exhibit 5 again.

look at Penon's final report again.

Quote from oldguy

look at Penon's final report again.

We don't have Penon's final report, at least not in its entirety. But what we do have of the ERV data says nothing of absolute vacuum. Contrast that with what Penon allegedly told the author of Exhibit 5 that the steam provided to JMP was at atmospheric pressure.

"You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH

I believe that there are such things as pumps. Just sayin'.

Are you saying that there are pumps, pressure regulation and other control features on the customer's side and that Rossi would not allow access to parts of the machine and never gave IH full disclosure and examination rights that were required by the contract?

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm old enough to have worked in a steam-powered factory. We had a boiler, an engine (very nice twin-cylinder compound marine engine) and a condenser. Condensate was pumped out of the latter, and back to the boiler. Very simple.

but then the energy for the pumping was added to the fluid but not accounted for in the energy balance.

@oldguy

I don't know what was on the customer side. What I'm saying is that the ERV pressure data can be explained, without much effort.

Sorry if anyone took my comments as anything serious, just light hearted musings on this crazy idea of 1MW wafting down a small pipe giving a reading of a perfect vacuum or maybe 1 atmosphere

Now we have an extra pump, supersonic heat extraction through Rossi's toilet flue and carefully temperature adjusted water waste to dispose of the heat

Quote from IH Fanboy

We don't have Penon's final report, at least not in its entirety. But what we do have of the ERV data says nothing of absolute vacuum. Contrast that with what Penon allegedly told the author of Exhibit 5 that the steam provided to JMP was at atmospheric pressure.

"You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia)."

What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn't believe Murray's views.

Quote from oldguy

What, That is what Murray said not what Penon wrote after in the report. I thought you didn't believe Murray's views.

There is nothing about absolute vacuum--anywhere. You likely picked up on that canard from Jed. I think the author of Exhibit 5 was told certain things (e.g., the atmospheric temperature bit), and expressly claimed other things (e.g., the piping is DN40). It is not a matter of whether I believe the author of Exhibit 5--whatever was written in that exhibit was written. The DN40 piping is probably outright false.