Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

OK, I'm re-reading Smith (comparing to 1MW spec).

Expert report 1 : 194-01 http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf

He reads that the ecat supplies (slightly) superheated steam, so he spends a several pages (7,9 ..) on a multi-megawatt electricity-generating plant.

p13 : He complains that penon gives supplied energy as "247,000 wh/day", and complains about the rounding. Gee ... looks to me like Penon measured in kWh/day 247 (that's what my electric meter gives me!) and just converted to watts.

p13: complains about the flow meter reading 36,000 not 35,837 kg/day. Again, that's what the dial reads ... steps of 1,000 kg. He could have asked why it didn't show 35,000 or 37,000. Quibbling over precision that's not there! (Funny that in version 2 he complains about too many digits!

p14: he complains that the steam temperatures are above 100C. Um, yes : it's super-heated slightly. OK, quibbles about bar vs barg.

p14: "If an appropriate energy measuring device had been installed in the outlet of the ecat the produced energy would be a tabulation of those readings."

Like what? We need the flow (done, in the condensate return line .. that IS on the output side) and delta-T (done : tank temperature, actually ignored, and steam temperature, measured on the output).

p14: says COP can only be used to calculate LOSSES. COP as total output energy/total input energy is well established in the realm of over-unity devices.

p16: Legitimately complains about lack of steam quality measurement.

p16: Says that the condensate return is an INPUT to the eCat. No. The condensate tank is the "center" of the system. Anything between the ecat and the tank is OUTPUT. Between the tank and the ecat, INPUT. (Does say it could be tampered with).

On the heat-dissipation end he's a bit more convincing. (Remember that I calculated the requirement for a roof fan, lo many months ago, though I came up with a number of 30K CFM, which would fit in the installed duct). I bet I could find a smaller 50K CFM fan ... but this is moot because it was apparently non-operational.

http://www.globalindustrial.co…NebtqzBk9MCFYVhfgodp1IIgg

That's a bit less intimidating!

So really his whole report 1 comes down to two things : steam quality was not measured, and 1MW couldn't be dissipated.

Quote from PIH

So are you OK with the fact that there was either no "steam" leak

or that the pressure is wrong.

Use your imagination. The pressure likely fluctuated at times, perhaps above atmosphere (and in fact I think the raw data shows that). Your mutually exclusive analysis is not realistic, in my opinion. The inspector said it was a leak, not a gush of steam.

Quote from WMartin

All these talks of 0.0 bar readings reminds me of an exotic wax plant were I worked as a maintenance pipefitter. The plant required pressure of less than 10 microns to operate. It is an unholy pain to get pressure that low. We had three pumps working in a series in the system. At startup we would typically get 400 microns. We would then spend the next 12-48 hours going around spraying helium at each possible leak point while a technician would read a spectrometer downstream to look for a leak. One time a half turn on a drain valve plug dropped us from 200 microns to 6 microns.

And I bet you NEVER had a leak OUT of that system

Quote from IH Fanboy

Then Barry West must have been part of the ploy, because he was the one checking and cleaning the gauge glass.

When Barry says that he was helping cleaning the gauge glass, you should not draw the conclusion that he was the one who was allowed to open/close the valves and take out the gauge glasses.

Quote from IHSupporter

If Penon actually did as he said in the test plan (use T type thermocouple) but Fabiani used K thermocouple software ID -

then a T thermocouple at 99C (giving 4.232mV) would show up looking like a K thermocouple at 103C (4.220 MV).

Whoa. I hadn't thought of that one.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Use your imagination. The pressure likely fluctuated at times, perhaps above atmosphere (and in fact I think the raw data shows that). Your mutually exclusive analysis is not realistic, in my opinion. The inspector said it was a leak, not a gush of steam.

I don't need imagination.

I use reality on a planet we inhabitants like to call Earth.

"steam" doesn't leak from a net vacuum system

and "steam" cannot condense without either P, V or T changing in the "right" direction.

Pick one.

Pete

Thinks : if I'd been testing the system I would have stuck a good old mercury (well, alcohol) or mechanical thermometer alongside the thermocouple.

Quote from Forty-Two

When Barry says that he was helping cleaning the gauge glass, you should not draw the conclusion that he was the one who was allowed to open/close the valves and take out the gauge glasses.

Well, he did say that "we" removed them. So unless "we" means "he," then Barry probably did the removing, inspecting, cleaning, and replacing. And I don't think he would have mentioned his concern about seeing where the water level was if he wasn't monitoring it closely. It was his job, after all, to keep the pipes, electronics (to some extent), and everything working properly. He didn't take or interpret the measurements, but he was doing just about everything else in terms of operational aspects.

. . .You can see it, but it was

22 obvious in the sight glasses on the big Frankies,

23 because in the very beginning, they stayed rusty. We

24 actually had to remove those and clean them and stuff,

25 because it got so bad, you couldn't see the water

1 level, where the water level was actually in the unit

2 in the reactor.

207-61, pages 141-142

Quote from IH Fanboy

. . .You can see it, but it was

22 obvious in the sight glasses on the big Frankies,

23 because in the very beginning, they stayed rusty. We

24 actually had to remove those and clean them and stuff,

25 because it got so bad, you couldn't see the water

1 level, where the water level was actually in the unit

2 in the reactor.

Display More

As I said, you can not draw the conclusion that he did this work, in particullar operating the valves himself.

He didn't say "I had to..."

Could have been anyone from the team ("we"), e.g. Rossi, Fabiani...

Barry was actually the "sparky" (electrical guy).

@Alan

@IHFB

The last few posts...

While Alan's summary is broadly OK as often he leaves out the key unexplainable fact. The flowmeter flow is double that which can be got from those 24 tiger pumps.

IHFB responds to this by saying It was the prime mover, and the smaller pumps were providing additional granularity for the flow.

Unfortunately that means that the water flowing in (via the flowmeter) is more than the water flowing out (via the temperature and presure measuring eqpt). Which is not possible.

Eitehr the flowmeter does not work

OR

There is an additional path not going through the ecats between the water flowing out and the water flowing in,

Since this is the key problem exposed by Smith it amazes me that you are both capable of ignoring/dismissing it.

The additional path could recirculate hot water without any temperature drop or phase change. It means that the e-cats can truly make phase change, and heat water from 60C to 100C, but we still have COP=1 because the flow through the ecats is now unknown (except it is limited by the ecat pump total maximum flowrate), and can be as small as we like. The measured flow through the flowmeter corresponds to no phase change and a small temperature loss.

Since I've already highlighted this twice on this thread, and it is a big deal, it is strange that it is not now being addressed in any summary of Smith's report.

Quote from THHuxleynew

@Alan

@IHFB

Unfortunately that means that the water flowing in (via the flowmeter) is more than the water flowing out (via the temperature and presure measuring eqpt). Which is not possible.

Eitehr the flowmeter does not work

OR

There is an additional path not going through the ecats between the water flowing out and the water flowing in,

Display More

You forgot the last possibility: the e-Cat works as claimed.

Quote from IH Fanboy

IH Fanboy wrote:

Murray had no qualms with the temperature readings.

Murray, 215-3, page 170

. . . The temperature sensors, I think

·6· ·they were fine.· I believe they were K type

·7· ·thermocouples, and they logged those to some type of a

·8· ·device.

Display More

He had no qualms in the sense that he thought the readings were probably accurate. However, he clearly said that the temperatures did not mean the water was steam. A temperature of 103 deg C does not begin to prove there is steam. That was the point I was trying to make. Accurate or not, those temperatures prove nothing.

Quote from JedRothwell

Accurate or not, those temperatures prove nothing.

By itself, no. But with the community (well at least the more observant part of it) now beginning to come to terms with the flow configuration, all you have left is pressure. And we know there were multiple pressure sensors.

The data and configuration point to a working e-Cat. THH's FUD (which is based from Smith's FUD) is all fading quickly.

I'm curious about the relationship between Ampenergo and IH.

Look at exhibit 245-22 http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/245-22-Exhibit-22.pdf

It appears that Rossi asked AEG whether they agreed to the Doral test; then Cassarino asked Darden what he should answer.

This makes me wonder if IH asked AEG not to sign the second amendment.

Cassarino states in his deposition that the terms of the amendment weren't in AEG'best interest because they thought the COP would be lower than 6 and they would not get their money.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.12_Exhibit_12.pdf

However, I don't see how they would get GPT money if the GPT didn't happen.

We have evidence that Darden was telling Cassarino how to respond to Rossi. IMO, this is not forthcoming/honest from IH's part (passive-aggressive) especially if they indeed signed the 2nd agreement to please Rossi, but made sure AEG didn't sign it.

From Rossi's perspective, this could be viewed as a stab in the back, and it could explain his subsequent behavior.

Quote from Shane D.

You have to admit, Rossi is good. This is a high stakes game, and he plays it like a pro.

Quote from LENR Calender

I'm curious about the relationship between Ampenergo and IH.

I pointed out some time ago (soon after the license agreement was published) that an obscure paragraph seemed to say that in the event the agreement is found to be invalid, or is abandoned by either party, the license rights revert to AEG at no cost. No one here seemed to think it significant at the time, but to me it looked like an invitation for scheming.

@magicsound

I also remember that clause when reading the license agreement for the first time. It seems like it could cause some perverse incentives on AEG's part. On the other hand, maybe it would be better for the license to be back in the hands of AEG.