Or, if the flowmeter is wrong by a factor of 2 (so no need for a "steam riser" circuit bypassing the ec-cats) then it can equally well be wrong by a factor of 4.
Exhibit 235-09 - Exhibit 9, indicates the flow meter is off by factors of 3 to 6, depending on conditions. (See the Table on p. 3, and the graph "Actual Flow Rate to Ratio of Reported to Actual.)
The pumps could provide pressure to the return loop into the eCats, but this would not pressurize the steam.
The Grundfos pump has the function of pumping condensate back to the e-Cat. This would create a vacuum in the JMP pipes and sufficient pressure differential to move the steam. Long ago, THH suggested such a setup was unlikely. But here we have it now for all to see.
Exhibit 235-09 - Exhibit 9, indicates the flow meter is off by factors of 3 to 6, depending on conditions. (See the Table on p. 3, and the graph "Actual Flow Rate to Ratio of Reported to Actual.)
Jed - it certainly indicates that this is possible. But not that it is certain - since we cannot be sure how full was the flowmeter. All we can be certain about is that either the flownmeter overreads a lot, or there is a bypass, or I guess both!
Either way the Penon results have no validity, and do not even indicate probable excess heat.
The Grundfos pump has the function of pumping condensate back to the e-Cat. This would create a vacuum in the JMP pipes and sufficient pressure differential to move the steam. Long ago, THH suggested such a setup was unlikely. But here we have it now for all to see.
It is unlikely - because then you would have two pumps in series. however, we now see that two pumps makes sense because there are two flow paths. I can't prove this (though Smith may be able to do so). But I can prove that if there are not two paths - therefore invalidating the results - then the flowmeter massively over-reads - therefore also invalidating the results.
That you do not acknowledge this makes your argument here disingenuous. It is also wrong for the reasons stated above.
@IH Supporter wrote: "I would not be surprised that there was a water bypass that allowed the pump in the customer's area to pump to somewhere "down stream" from the temperature sensor."
Your honor objection! speculation. And besides your honor no one on either side is surprised on what my client does anymore.
Exhibit 235-09 - Exhibit 9, indicates the flow meter is off by factors of 3 to 6, depending on conditions. (See the Table on p. 3, and the graph "Actual Flow Rate to Ratio of Reported to Actual.)
Yes "depending on conditions" meaning depending on Murray's simulations. Why doesn't IH just provide us with a photograph of the flow meter placement? Why the huge expenditure of effort to try and show various "simulations" when we could just look at how it actually was configured?
The Grundfos pump has the function of pumping condensate back to the e-Cat. This would create a vacuum in the JMP pipes and sufficient pressure differential to move the steam. Long ago, THH suggested such a setup was unlikely. But here we have it now for all to see.
You probably didn't read the installation instruction for the (in particular Table 2B) for this Grundfos pump, which I have posted before:
http://s3.supplyhouse.com/prod…es/UPS15-58FC-install.pdf
This pumps needs a positive pressure (e.g. 1.9 psi[g] for 165°F water) at the suction side in order to work.
It certainly won't work when there is a vacuum at the suction side.
From what we know about the equipment/piping configuration at the Doral site (and about the 0barg steam pressure at the e-cat outlet pipe), it would be very tricky to get the required positive pressure at the pump suction side. 
(So you got some homework now)
@THH
No, you would not have two pumps in series. You have a single pump on the JMP side pumping the condensate back to the e-Cat. What is so hard to understand here? I know you refused to even give me the light of day when I suggested this as a possibility many moons ago. Do you feel any inclination to retract that sentiment?
This pumps needs a positive pressure (e.g. 1.9 psi[g] for 165°F water) at the suction side in order to work.
It certainly won't work when there is a vacuum at the suction side.
I think you misunderstand. There would be a column of condensate water providing the positive pressure at the suction side of the pump, and a vacuum would be formed in the serpentine pipes to move the steam as the water was pumped back over to the e-Cat.
Hmmm ... lots of comments.
First, I never meant that the grundfos is pumping steam (Though Smith suggests that there's nothing to prevent steam from recycling). But I do believe there would be at last a small (non-cavitating) negative (suction) pressure which is most likely greater than the 0.5 PSI Smith says is necessary to move steam from the ecat to the big black box.
Second, I am looking at Smith as an expert witness in a court case, and believe some of his major points (2 flow-cycles, superheating, use of circulating pump after heat exchanger) can be refuted -- and thus his credibility can be challenged. Then a jury may discount his other pronouncements. (I haven't studied Wong's report yet).
Third, we still haven't seen everything. Like the flowmeter. Or the internal structure of the Big Frankies. Rossi or IH could release the data.
But I accept that the 1MW GPT is a fake, though there is still a small box of parameters which prevent proving mathematically that it doesn't work . The flows don't add up, 1MW can't be dissipated etc.
HOWEVER: I think earlier Rossi ecats did work. eg in Lewan's Sept 2011 test http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_i.php the best interpretation is that the fatcat WAS producing a mix of 118C superheated steam and 50% fluid water. Also, IH have not refuted the acceptance test (except that it only ran for 23.5 hours, with only 18 reactors).
(I should have spent longer on this reply ... so take it with a grain of salt).
@THH, Alan,
Regarding the flows not adding up. I would be inclined to agree with Smith that the pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats raises a serious question--were it not for the fact that IH has not provided information or photographs about the placement of the flow meter. This tends to indicate that IH is satisfied that the flow meter positioning was correct (granted, I'm taking some liberties here, but in the absence of a single photograph of the flow meter configuration, and no discussion about it in Smith's reports, then they must not be concerned about it).
And because they have not attacked the placement of the flow meter, the reported flow was probably correct. And since a closed circuit system like this must have a balanced flow, the total flow through the system was likely 6 GPM.
Accordingly, there appears to be missing information about the total pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats. There are probably additional pumps not accounted for and/or additional reactors that were in use.
I think you misunderstand. There would be a column of condensate water providing the positive pressure at the suction side of the pump, and a vacuum would be formed in the serpentine pipes to move the steam as the water was pumped back over to the e-Cat.
No I didn't misunderstand, and I very well know that there could be a column of condensate at the suction side of the pump (just read my previous posts)
However the tricky thing is, that either
1) the vacuum in the condenser (e.g, the sepentine pipes or a heat exchanger) is "weak", so that the water condensate column - "compensating" the vacuum - doesn't need to be very high, but in that case it would be hard to push 1500kg/h steam from the e-cat to the condenser (back to pipe size discussions etc)
or
2) the vacuum in the condenser is "strong", then the water column would have to be very high - which requires that for instance the "serpentine pipes" are in a high elevation (what they are not - according to the photos available)
@42
It is 1). The piping apparently has an inner diameter of 4.5 inches. There is now little if any concern about losses. I previously showed it would be possible with DN80 (~3 in pipe), albeit with a pretty high steam velocity. Going from 3in to 4.5in makes another huge (non-linear) difference in terms of losses, just like going from DN40 to DN80 makes a huge (non-linear) difference.
Display More@THH, Alan,
Regarding the flows not adding up. I would be inclined to agree with Smith that the pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats raises a serious question--were it not for the fact that IH has not provided information or photographs about the placement of the flow meter. This tends to indicate that IH is satisfied that the flow meter positioning was correct (granted, I'm taking some liberties here, but in the absence of a single photograph of the flow meter configuration, and no discussion about it in Smith's reports, then they must not be concerned about it).
And because they have not attacked the placement of the flow meter, the reported flow was probably correct. And since a closed circuit system like this must have a balanced flow, the total flow through the system was likely 6 GPM.
Accordingly, there appears to be missing information about the total pump capacity on the ingress side of the e-Cats. There are probably additional pumps not accounted for and/or additional reactors that were in use.
If you recall Rossi remove the flow meter and would not let Murray at first even inspect it. They had to be forced to open the box for him if I remember. Perhaps Rossi kept it hidden for some non-fully disclosed reason. Rossi perhaps had it tucked away so it would not be viewable by others.
But remember that it is Rossi that must prove his case not the other way around.
@42
It is 1). The piping apparently has an inner diameter of 4.5 inches. There is now little if any concern about losses. I previously showed it would be possible with DN80 (~3 in pipe), albeit with a pretty high steam velocity. Going from 3in to 4.5in makes another huge (non-linear) difference in terms of losses, just like going from DN40 to DN80 makes a huge (non-linear) difference.
Well, even when you neglect all pressure losses through piping, elbows, fittings etc, you still need about 5ft condensate column at the suction side of this pump.
Don't have the photo with the pump now in front of me, but as far as I can recall, it's hard to visualize where this 5ft condensate column supposed to come from.
The "serpentines" supposed to be filled with steam, not with water.
The "serpentines" supposed to be filled with steam, not with water.
Well, assuming the contraption works as it should, they would be filled with both. Water toward the bottom of the pipes collecting at the pump, and steam higher up filling the more elevated pipes.
Clarification : Wong only analyses the "mezzanine" heat exchanger, as reported to him by Rossi, not the "Serpentine" pipes in the "Big Black Box".
What is that beige box coming out the of the black JMP container and going through the wall (or maybe attached to the wall)? What are those four pipes running up the wall and across the ceiling?
Any thoughts anyone?
Edit: as I look more closely, there are four holes in the beige box that appear to be openings for the four pipes, although there might be missing pipe sections? This strikes me as possible parts of the bypass system described by Rossi, which involved four pipes that allegedly piped the steam to a heat exchanger.
Display More@IHS
Can you point to deposition testimony to any of this? I believe it is bologna--something bandied about on this forum.
Rossi et al. must prove their case against IH.
IH must prove their case against Rossi et al.
Yes, but IH's case does not rest on flowmeter's and such. In part, it relies on things like fraud (in FL that is"with intent to obtain property from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act". So things like fake customers, misrepresentation of independence of ownership of JMP,... and so on come into play. I notice there has not be much discussion here about the countersuit.
It would take some time to go through all the information we now have, but I seem to recall Murray saying they remove the flow meter and flushed the lines at the end of the test. .... or perhaps it was Dewey that said that. I am not sure but don't care to take the time, since you never took the time to answer about the window picture in 10.
