Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

I was referring to this.

I think "portata minima con contropressione media" could be translated as "minimum flow rate with average counterpressure" but I'm not sure of what it means exactly in this context.

Source: Page 59 here

Page 45 of the Gamma L manual :

Using the "Pressure ratings" function, you can reduce the rated pressure of the gamma/ L.

... (safety warnings on increasing it) ....

Quote from IH Fanboy

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.

Yes, well it depends what you mean by right. Rossi twists the truth quite unreasonably. Robotic factories - means he had a fantasy one day that he might make robotic dactories, maybe even rang somone up and talked about it...

It does mean you need to be careful. Rossi can have something that formally satisfies most of what he has said (like the JMP customer) while being completely different from what you guess.

can

@Alan

re the pump.

Can's pump is ECCO0232. Not quite right for our pump, but a near match. The cat gives 230v (wrong, but I guess a 120V version would exist, or else an up-transformer). The precision is 2% but the two rates we have are:

32.0 l/h at 2 bar

36.2 l/h at 1 bar

from which we could perhaps extrapolate

40.4 l/h at 0bar

The error, between the flowmeter and the sum of pump ratings, is a factor of 2 so this does not solve it.

The prominent pumps all have the same numbering system, as far as I can see, so matching this without the initial letters does not tell us what is the right pump.

On page 58 in the same italian brochure there's a similar chart for the Prominent Beta b4, where it specifies it's for 180 strokes/min.

The same pump is on the Prominent website, maybe here it's clearer: http://www.prominent.us/produc…tems/Solenoid_Pumps/betab (Technical Data tab)

Apparently the "Capacity at Max Backpressure" for the 0232 variant is 32 l/h at 2 bar, and the "Capacity at 1/2 Max Backpressure" is 36.2 l/h at 1 bar.

EDIT: there's also the Gamma/L model which is very similar to Rossi's, and shows similar data: http://www.prominent.us/produc…ems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

Performance at pressures < 1 barG is not clear for any of these models.

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Has anyone posted that to ECW? I'd like to know what they make of it...

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.

DT on Jonp as quoted by Frank on ECW

So - this would seem most likely to be Rossi talking to himself on JONP. Or possibly a close friend. The chances of a metering pump increasing its nominal flowrate by 200% at low back pressure is very small indeed: so I don't believe this statement without some more credible evidence.

The fact that Smith quotes the nominal max flowrate - not its adjusted value at 1 bar (the writer seems to have misread the manual) is no crime here since there is only 10% difference. from which you might extrapolate 20% change at 0 back pressure. Not 150% change.

But it shows that Rossi (or whoever posted if not Rossi) recognises the relevance of this criticism.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Here's a "DT" on the Prominent pumps (and other Smith stuff)

Hah, the same DT again, who is one of those 5 sock-puppets guys on JONP who don't know how to spell pacer-monitor ("pacemaker"):

Quote

DT

December 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Dear Andrea:

Are the last documents deposited by IH in the Pacemaker positive or negative for you?

From Russia, with love, Merry Christmas!

DT

Display More

I have to say that I was almost completely unaware of how these pumps operate. I guess that if the stroke length and rate can be automatically adjusted it probably almost doesn't matter what is the maximum flow rate obtainable for metering purposes. While I'd like to see too some evidence of 90 l/h at 0.2 bar(g), I find unusual that R. Smith didn't know either.

I don't see how a solenoid diaphragm pump could excide its max by decrease of pressure. Don't they have a max volume of the diaphragm volume and a max stroke rate. I would expect that would set the max flow rate regardless of the lack of back pressure (vac). That is I would not expect them to be able to move more than the captured volume on each stroke.

Quote from IHSupporter

I don't see how a solenoid diaphragm pump could excide its max by decrease of pressure. Don't they have a max volume of the diaphragm volume and a max stroke rate. I would expect that would set the max flow rate regardless of the lack of back pressure (vac). That is I would not expect them to be able to move more than the captured volume on each stroke.

All these metering pumps use the stroke volume (in some form) to do the metering. Leakage and deformation can alter this with pressure, but you would expect any such effect to be linear with pressure, or possibly to get worse faster than linear at near the max rated back-pressure. You certainly would not expect a much larger error at low back pressures, when the pump is operating with minimum stress.

Of course, the idea that this pump has a low back-pressure depends logically on:

(1) pressure sensor on ecat outputs is correct

=>

(2) condensate line must create partial vacuum to drive flow through system

=>

(3) there is an extra pump (the GrundFoss?) to push the lower pressure condensate back to the tank

=>

(4) When the Grundfoss pump is switched out of the circuit - as some claim - the system stops working.

I don't have an opinion myself on whether the Grundfoss pump is usually in the system.

Quote from IHSupporter

I don't see how a solenoid diaphragm pump could excide its max by decrease of pressure. Don't they have a max volume of the diaphragm volume and a max stroke rate. I would expect that would set the max flow rate regardless of the lack of back pressure (vac). That is I would not expect them to be able to move more than the captured volume on each stroke.

Here a diagramm (not for the ECCO0232 but for the GALa0232 model - however, same type of pump).

The graph B on right hand side shows the coefficient, how the max flow varies with the backpressure (actually not very much, as expected for a positive discplacement metering pump).

Quote from THHuxleynew

(4) When the Grundfoss pump is switched out of the circuit - as some claim - the system stops working.

With this I agree, which is why I doubt Bass' claim (misunderstanding?) of it being only used at startup. I think what Bass probably meant is that is was bypassed at startup, which would make sense to allow the pipes on the JMP side to fill to some extent.

My impression is that the volume of the stroke is constant but the stroke rate is adjusted to give the required flow rate. And with that pump

http://www.prominent.us/produc…ems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

the max stroke rate is 180 spm.

I can understand how back pressure would reduce the flow but I don't see how a 1bar (or 0 barg) would increase the rate past its stated max.

Quote from IHSupporter

My impression is that the volume of the stroke is constant but the stroke rate is adjusted to give the required flow rate. And with that pump

http://www.prominent.us/produc…ems/Solenoid_Pumps/GammaL

the max stroke rate is 180 spm.

I can understand how back pressure would reduce the flow but I don't see how a 1bar (or 0 barg) would increase the rate past its stated max.

The max rate is specified at the (max) operating pressure. At lower pressures you do get a larger rate, but as forty-two says, it is a small effect. Based on the way any metering pump works the idea you could get a very large increase at low back-pressures is implausible.

The correction coefficient isn't linear. I don't think it's likely to make a sharp turn at lower back-pressures, but you never know.

I had been under the impression that the max flow rate they advertise is when the pump is working against not back pressure (meaning 1 bar - 0 bar g ) . That is the max those little fellows could pump would be 32l/h when working at Penon's claimed pressure.

OK - so the 100kW max heat exchanger calcs posted kindly on ECW by Bruce_h have been received by resounding silence - except the view that the heat exchanger must be a water evaporation type.

That is not what Rossi told Wong he had. Why would Rossi lie about this?

EDIT: In fact water evaporation to deal with the 1MW is completely ruled out. You need 500g/s. That is 300 kettles running continuously. The steam plume from this would be very obviously visible.

Quote

Were our OCD TTH not so focused on pump specs....something that is really interesting, but will lull a jury to sleep, he would probably have picked up on you slipping that one in.

I sort of agree about the OCD. I did actually pick up on it, and commented. But I guess I was too polite so no-one noticed. and IHFB liked my post.