Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Shane D.

Look at 238-24. Scroll down, and the pictures are there.

Thanks. It is a little unclear to me what the first photo shows. I guess that is the mezzanine. This photo does not contradict any of the observations made by Smith. It does not show holes, marks left by pipes or pipe holders, or sufficient electrical connections. It is consistent with Smith's conclusion that a heat exchanger could not have been installed here.

Rossi claimed that he had the heat exchanger removed the day after the test ended, and he immediately re-used all of the pipes and other materials. He never bothered to take a photo of the equipment, even though it is key evidence and therefore worth $267 million to him. If you had equipment that might bring you that much, would you re-use it, or leave it in place? Would you -- at least -- take photos of it before demolishing it?

We can go one step further into cloud cuckoo land. I don't believe Rossi, HOWEVER, for the sake of argument, let us assume he is telling the truth. After demolishing and removing the pipes, why did he go to the trouble to remove all traces of the equipment? Why did he patch and paint over holes where the pipes came in, and the screw holes in the floor that held the equipment stands? Why did he remove the electric power wires and fixtures? Electric wires are cheap. No one removes them and reuses them; they would probably be damaged and unusable if you tried. What would be the point of making the room appear as if nothing was ever installed in it?

Here's a "DT" on the Prominent pumps (and other Smith stuff) : http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=225#comment-1275480

Quote

2- the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in
function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers
the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is
clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per
hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I
have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of
0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the
photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to
raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to
20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of
all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour
necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW.

Display More

THHuxley,
All though I am very disappointed you lied about your identity I appreciate very much your answer.

Given how much people are pinning their hopes on Engineer48's analysis, it would be great if he would make an appearance here and support his conclusions. (Not going to hold my breath.)

Quote from JedRothwell

It works both ways. When people want to believe something, and they suffer from wishful thinking, they conjure up ad hoc hypothesis to make it seem the thing is real. Such as invisible pipes

?

According to facts, what does seem more likely: that Rossi and his partners (whose internal communication shows the invention works) have an IP fight, or that Rossi runs a 10+ year long scam in which he successfully fooled militaries, big private companies (who all seem interested once a reliable design is reached), scientists from different countries and investors?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Here's a "DT" on the Prominent pumps (and other Smith stuff) : http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=225#comment-1275480

I'm not a pump expert, but if metering pumps are so strongly affected by pressure, how can they work as "metering" pumps, which are supposed to provide a consistent amount of fluid per stroke?

https://www.prominent.com/en/P…ring-Pumps/p-gamma-x.html

The spec implies that it senses the back-pressure and adjusts the stroke accordingly.

Alan - do you know who made that comment? It seems wrong to me.

I did my best to find the pumps, based on the type number on the photo. I linked it here. The datasheet showed a flowrate that was basically constant at the max value from 0 to the max pressure, after which it decreases. They are dosimetric. I thought also they were 32l/hour not 36, but maybe I'm misremembering, I think we need smith's report, and my previously posted link for the pumps, and maybe any other info about what are these pumps, to check. (I'm pretty confident in my link, in spite of its being German).

Jed

The evidence for the heat exchanger not existing can be challenged. The only 100% evidence against it is the glass pane present in the google photos while the test was running. I'm not sure if anyone can explain that away? But the evidence it can't dissipate more than 100kW is definite, and based on Rossi's testimony and Wong's report. I think Rossi has shot himself in the foot here.

Here it says 36.2 l/h. I think this is the exact model used by Rossi.

Source

Rossi on the ventilation etc http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=113

Quote

Andrea Rossi
May 17, 2016 at 10:04 AM

Frank Acland:

1- it took place inside a plant about 20 meters long, 3 meters high, 3 meters wide, obviously closed

2- it was in a separate area of the same building

3- Darden and his investors met the Customer in the meeting room of the offices, that is separated from the production area

4- we are in the process to find an agreement

5- the control system is separate

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote

Andrea Rossi
May 17, 2016 at 7:32 AM

Oystein Lande:

1. the container itself was not insulated, because this would have been useless, since all the hot bodies inside the container were thermally insulated

2. The doors were open during the operation and there was a ventilation system that sent the warm air through the exhaust windows of the roof of the factory

Besides: you correctly write that if the 1% of the heat produced was lost through the insulation, 10 thermal kW were emitted.

As you well know, just to give an example that explains which amount of energy we are talking of and as any household knows, 10 kW of power are barely enough to maintain during a mild winter a temperature of 25 °C in a two rooms apartment with close windows.

A 2 rooms apartment has a volume of about 200 cubic meters.

We were in a factory with windows in the roof always open; by the way, as you know, warm air goes naturally toward the top being lighter than air colder than it; the volume of the factory is 6 000 cubic meters which means about 30 times the volume of a two rooms apartment.

Now: if 10 kW of power are able to hold a 2 rooms apartment of 200 cubic meters at 22°C with closed windows, how much are able the same to heat a factory of 6 000 cubic meters with open windows on the roof and a ventilation system to exhaust it ? Obviously the temperature was warmer inside the reactors container, in fact I told you that there were about 40 °C, but, due to the fact that the doors of the container were open and that also inside the container there was a ventilation system, the internal temperature of the reactors container never is gone above the 40 °C.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More

Quote from Roger

Rossi runs a 10+ year long scam in which he successfully fooled militaries, big private companies (who all seem interested once a reliable design is reached), scientists from different countries and investors?

There is absolutely no doubt that Rossi fooled various people in the military, in some private companies, and some investors. That is not such a noteworthy accomplishment. Military organizations are large and you can always find a few people in them you can fool. There were many others in the U.S. military he did not fool. I have been in touch with them. They never believed a word he said.

His e-mails show that he fooled people about various things, such as the existence of his independent company, and the existence of the heat exchanger in the mezzanine. Evidently he fooled Dr. Wong about the heat exchanger. He has fooled dozens of people here and elsewhere on the internet about various things.

It is not difficult to fool some scientists, for a while anyway.

It isn't as if he fooled millions of people. He is a con man. Fooling people is what he does for a living. He is pretty good at it. This is not a particularly unusual or noteworthy accomplishment. He is not a world-class con man such as Bernie Madoff. Surely you are aware that con men are common, and many investors, military organizations and others are often swindled. You can read about such things in the newspaper any day of the week.

Defkalion also swindled investors. There have been many others in the so-called "over unity energy" field. Many of the lasted longer than 10 years. There have not been many in cold fusion until now, because cold fusion never attracted any funding, so it has not been a lucrative target for swindlers.

https://www.prominent.de/resou…ktkatalog-2017-Band-1.pdf

See page 1-1 for how flowrate varies with pressure.

From 235-10 we have the pump type number: ECCO 232PPB007UA01B000

You can actually match the type number parts to the explanation in the above linked manual. 32 is the flowrate. This would need to go up to 64 to match the flowmeter readings and prevent the flow issue.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The evidence for the heat exchanger not existing can be challenged. The only 100% evidence against it is the glass pane present in the google photos

No, that is not the only evidence. Smith's observations rule out any possibility there was equipment in the room. You cannot make holes, screw holes and electric wires vanish.

The only way you can disprove Smith's observations is to show that Smith was lying. Or that he is insane.

This is not like the debate over pressure or thermodynamics. This is about screw holes in plywood. It is dead simple to confirm traces, marks, holes and whatnot left by heavy equipment in a room with a wooden floor. Smith is an experienced engineer and he would instantly recognize these things. I am not an engineer, but I would have no trouble recognizing them. I know enough about carpentry and plumbing. You cannot make these traces vanish, and -- as I said before -- there is no reason why Rossi would make these traces vanish. Why go to the trouble to replace plywood, fill in holes, and remove electric wires?

@Alan,

It is interesting that Rossi's statements on JONP do not match well his statements under oath regarding the heat exchanger. THH has previously expressed his observation that Rossi's statements are usually rooted in some kind of truth, as a way to provide plausibility. I've also found that Rossi has nearly always turned out to be right in his statements even in the face of much initial mocking and doubt.

But on the heat exchanger issue, my antennas are up. Something ain't right.

Alan,

Posting quotes from Rossi (except to show contradiction) is a bit noisy. he will say anything.

In your quote about ventilation he changes, in one paragraph, from talking about the container/factory ventilation issue to the factory/exterior ventilation issue. He conflates the two. It does not make sense. But Rossi's purpose in these posts is to sound good. Maybe it makes sense inside his own head but not when written down.

Rossi's comment about heating a room is laughable. I can heat my room in the winter with a 1kW room heater even when freezing outside. How hot would it get in a room in Florida in the summer when it is 98F outside and humid with 10 kW heaters going constantly?

Quote from THHuxleynew

https://www.prominent.de/resou…ktkatalog-2017-Band-1.pdf

See page 1-1 for how flowrate varies with pressure.

So basically up to a certain pressure these pumps can offer a constant flow rate, which then decreases as the pressure further increases; now I see, thanks.
I think DT may have got his 36 l/h information from the brochure I linked.

Quote from can

So basically up to a certain pressure these pumps can offer a constant flow rate, which then decreases as the pressure further increases; now I see, thanks.
I think DT may have got his 36 l/h information from the brochure I linked.

I'm not sure who is right at the moment. I'm trying to get the precise pump info - so hold the page...

So the problem is the pump family. ECCO is not on any of the current product catalogues and I'm having some trouble finding legacy data.

All I can say is that Prominent makes metering pumps, so it would be surprising for the flowrate to vary a lot with back pressure.

Quote from THHuxleynew

https://www.prominent.de/resou…ktkatalog-2017-Band-1.pdf

See page 1-1 for how flowrate varies with pressure.

From 235-10 we have the pump type number: ECCO 232PPB007UA01B000

You can actually match the type number parts to the explanation in the above linked manual. 32 is the flowrate. This would need to go up to 64 to match the flowmeter readings and prevent the flow issue.

Display More

The 232 is a Gamma L (replaced by the X) http://prominent.us/promx/files/987604_04_12_gammal_us.pdf

but with the same 32l/h 2 bar limit.

(??? AND I suspect that "bar" is "bar GAUGE" ... because the selection table only goes down to 1 bar. ??? -- but in other models they talk about "minimum counter pressure")

ECCO 232PPB007UA01B000

232 : gamma L

PPB : polypropyline

007 ???

U : 100-230V

A: European plug

0 : no relay

1 : accessories ...