Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Totally missing from Smith's new report is any mention of the flow meter placement or condition (half full etc).

Theory A : the flow meter was half full

Theory B: the flow meter measures the output of the Grundfos pump. No evidence presented that the condensate return connects to the steam riser.

He states that there was no capablity of superheating the steam, that all the Big Frankie reactors were under water. No proof for this.
Internally some reactors could have been boilers, some super-heaters.

It does seem impossible for there to be an additional heat exchanger.

Smith in 235-10, page 24 makes the assumption that there is no superheater to heat the steam from 100 to 103+. He makes this assumption by using an external view of the e-Cat, as if it is impossible for the steam to be superheated within the e-Cat. But as we know from looking at the internals of e-Cats in past experiments, Rossi uses fins that rise out of the water, and have the function of superheating the steam.

And with all of the photos and analysis provided in 235-10, we are still left without a single photo of the flow meter placement. This must truly be top secret information.

235-11, PDF page 33

"11. Operations: BW indicated that it is clear that when standing near the E-CAT heater tank that the water in the tank is boiling vigorously."

This contrasts sharply with the 58 to 80°C tank water T from the Penon report.

Note that the tank is in the middle of the container (see Smith Supplemental Report (235-10, PDF page 16) which is where I put the arrow ages ago (image below).

235-10

It is good to have extra information (before lacking) about Rossi's setup.

I've been reluctant to say much about this because of too much uncertainty. And indeed my best guess solution turns out to be more complex than what is probably the real solution.

What we get from 235-10 is:

(1) Water circulation not steam circulation (as we strongly suspected)

(2) There is a "steam riser" which bypasses the e-cats and an extra pump which drives water round the JMP/steam riser circuit bypassing the water tank and the e-cats.

(3) The maximum water-flow through the e-cats is about 1/2 of that claimed by Rossi's flowmeter. This is possible (with the flowmeter working correctly) because of the additional "steam riser" path. (We don't know the actual flow-rate through the e-cats because cannot tell how much the pumps are on).

The "steam riser" connection, and extra pump, has an additional very important effect. It isolates the circulating water from the tank water and means that the high water circulation rate may well be as stated, but will not correspond to high power because:

(a) There is no phase change

(b) The water outlet temperature can be arbitrarily high, since it is never measured and goes straight back into the input water stream.

Thus Rossi can get his bogus measurements. If the flow-meter is innacurate it does not alter this picture. In fact the flowmeter reading is now irrelevant since we can never know what fraction of the flow is actually going via the tanks and e-cats (and therefore being heated up and possible even vapourised) and what fraction is just recirculating.

As always with Rossi, his mis-measurements are simple... He succeeds in confusing, as any magician, by secrecy and misdirection.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And with all of the photos and analysis provided in 235-10, we are still left without a single photo of the flow meter placement. This must truly be top secret information.

Well, the only thing I'm learning now from your posts, are how some people can fixate on the 1% when 99% of the evidence is clear: Rossi intentionally created a 'plausibly deniable' fraud in Doral, after being told by IH that $89 Million Performance was no longer possible, under the guise of a rental agreement with a fraudulent 'independent secret customer' for fake 1MW heat production for a fraudulent 'secret production' process.

The evidence to support this is overwhelming. It matters not at all where any flow meter was placed.

The Wizard of Roz has finally had the curtain pulled back for all to see.

But there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And with all of the photos and analysis provided in 235-10, we are still left without a single photo of the flow meter placement. This must truly be top secret information.

If you read 235-10 you will see that there is an additional pump capable of recirculating water through the system at the claimed flowrate without that water ever being heated by e-cats or having its temperature much reduced by the JMP-side equipment.

Thus although the flowmeter may be innacurate - the system will happily produce Penon's measurements with no extra power and a correctly working flowmeter.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Smith in 235-10, page 24 makes the assumption that there is no superheater to heat the steam from 100 to 103+. He makes this assumption by using an external view of the e-Cat, as if it is impossible for the steam to be superheated within the e-Cat. But as we know from looking at the internals of e-Cats in past experiments, Rossi uses fins that rise out of the water, and have the function of superheating the steam.

Actually this point does not matter. Given that there is a recirculation pathway it is possible that the e-cats correctly vaporise all water going through them (though for the reasons you ignore previously noted this is highly unlikely). Even then, the flow through the e-cats can be made as low as Rossi likes, because of the additional recirculation pump and the "steam riser" path.

And that path must exist (or the flowmeter is innacurate by 100%) because the maximum flow through the e-cats is half of the claimed flow through the system.

Murray has multiple independent reasons for saying the test is rubbish - you can delete any one of them and the conclusion still stands...

Quote

Smith 235-10 pacer page 24

In fact, there were two water flow circuits. In the “Feedwater Flow” section above, the combined output
of the E-cat feedwater pumps is 768 liters per hour, which is equal to 3.38 gallons per minute. This flow
was through the BF feed pumps, through the BF units, to the “steam” line, down through the vertical riser,
into the return tank, and back to the feed pumps.

The second circuit was from the E-cat “steam” riser, to the serpentine coil in the black box, through the

Grundfos pump at the coil outlet, through the water meter (which was the basis for Mr. Penon’s “steam”
output numbers), back to the steam riser, and back to the E-cat return tank.

Commingling of these two flow streams is obvious as the “steam” riser is common to both flow circuits.

Display More

Doesn't work. He has ALL the pumped water from the BF feed pumps flowing down the steam riser.

So what does the Grundfos pump pump? It's flow would have to go UP the steam riser!

As I said above, I see no evidence that the steam riser connects to the condensate tank.

Edit 2 : AND I think the finned wafer (like the fatcat Mats took a photo of) will boil and then superheat in one unit.

So I think Smith is wrong on two counts. (And it only takes one error to discredit a witness on cross-examination).

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Doesn't work. He has ALL the pumped water from the BF feed pumps flowing down the steam riser.

So what does the Grundfos pump pump? It's flow would have to go UP the steam riser!

As I said above, I see no evidence that the steam riser connects to the condensate tank.

I think you've misunderstood. The flow would indeed go up the steam riser and combine with the incoming flow from the e-cats.

There is absolute evidence that either the flowmeter massively over-reads, or this happens, because the flowrate as measured by the flowmeter is double the maximum possible flow through the 4 operational e-cats.

So either way Rossi's test is null. If no steamriser flow then the flowmeter is badly wrong (and we cannot tell how much wrong, because do not know how much of the time the e-cat pumps are on for).

All that is needed is for the working flowmeter version is for the condensate return to go to the tank and the steam riser to come off of that before the tank (or at least before a cold bit of the tank).

EDIT: in response to Alan's edit - note as I said above that given the recirculating waterflow is larger than the flow through the e-cats - and we can't tell how much larger - e-cats generating super-heated steam is very possible. Worth repeating - Rossi manages his mis-measured systems in ridiculously simple ways but is so good at misdirection that people don't notice.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

So what does the Grundfos pump pump? It's flow would have to go UP the steam riser!

As I said above, I see no evidence that the steam riser connects to the condensate tank.

Well that is a good question about what does it pump, but there it is, right there in that 'loop'. That schematic makes no sense for a steam system. The pump flow is going down according to Smith. It's a hot water circulator.

I don't understand your statement regarding the steam riser connecting to the condensate tank. Did you see para's picture in the E-Cat (with Rossi) showing the condensate tank behind him to the right? You can't see the piping, but what leads you to believe that the tank was not plumbed this way (it's right there in the container). Smith was there, so he obviously had direct access to closely examine the plumbing before creating the schematic.

By the way, I happen to have three of those exact model Grundfos pumps in my house for my radiant (hot water) heat. They work great, and cost about $130 each (much more reliable and versatile than the Taco 007 model they replaced) They were designed as a low cost all purpose replacement pump (that's why they have three speeds - so they can replace a variety of different model pumps ) for home heating systems (made in Switzerland).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

235-11, PDF page 33

"11. Operations: BW indicated that it is clear that when standing near the E-CAT heater tank that the water in the tank is boiling vigorously."

This contrasts sharply with the 58 to 80°C tank water T from the Penon report.

Note that the tank is in the middle of the container (see Smith Supplemental Report (235-10, PDF page 16) which is where I put the arrow ages ago (image below).

So - if this is true it perhaps means that the temperature measured as tank temperature is bogus (or a different tank). And that the "steam riser" path need not be isolated from this hot tank.

There are still many ways this thing could work, even with the additional information. No doubt there are people (on e-cat world?) who will see the impossibility of working out precisely which of these scenarios is correct as proof that none apply! Luckily we have proof as above that at least one of them (misreading flowmeter or large flow in steam riser) must apply.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There is absolute evidence that either the flowmeter massively over-reads, or this happens, because the flowrate as measured by the flowmeter is double the maximum possible flow through the 4 operational e-cats.

These are absolute assumptions not absolute evidence. I'm not even sure that "absolute evidence" is such a thing. If you are so certain that the flow meter is over reading, why don't we have a photograph of its positioning at this relatively late stage of the litigation?

I think you would be better to direct your ire at the alleged heat exchanger in the mezzanine. I think the evidence is building that such equipment did not exist.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

As I said above, I see no evidence that the steam riser connects to the condensate tank.

You mean you aren't convinced by Smith's little drawing?

Quote from THHuxleynew

So - if this is true it perhaps means that the temperature measured as tank temperature is bogus (or a different tank). And that the "steam riser" path need not be isolated from this hot tank.

There are still many ways this thing could work, even with the additional information. No doubt there are people (on e-cat world?) who will see the impossibility of working out precisely which of these scenarios is correct as proof that none apply! Luckily we have proof as above that at least one of them (misreading flowmeter or large flow in steam riser) must apply.

I tend to think that the action in the tank was not really boiling but air was inserted into the water flow to make the flow meter overestimate the flow. It would only take one tank of N2 or similar to do that.

That is why it is important that the agreement specified that the flow OUT of the system was to be measured, not the flow INTO the system or even out of the customer's area. . I would argue that that alone is enough to void the contract. We just do not know what all went on or might have gone on in the customer's area. If I was on the jury, I could not assign guilt if I was not certain about the entire "closed loop". Rossi's actions to quickly destroy the loop would tend to make me think he was up to something. I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to IH in a trial against them.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

235-11, PDF page 33

"11. Operations: BW indicated that it is clear that when standing near the E-CAT heater tank that the water in the tank is boiling vigorously."

This contrasts sharply with the 58 to 80°C tank water T from the Penon report.

Another unknown author writing about something that was allegedly said in a meeting by Barry West, none of it under oath. And we have no record of Barry West making the same claim under oath (at least in the portions of the depositions that we have).

Quote from IH Fanboy

These are absolute assumptions not absolute evidence. I'm not even sure that "absolute evidence" is such a thing. If you are so certain that the flow meter is over reading, why don't we have a photograph of its positioning at this relatively late stage of the litigation?

I think you would be better to direct your ire at the alleged heat exchanger in the mezzanine. I think the evidence is building that such equipment did not exist.

Evidence: the number and flowrate of the e-cat pumps on each BF module

Evidence: the number of BF modules normally on

Logical deduction: the total flowrate through the e-cats (EFM)

Evidence: the claimed flowrate as reported by flowmeter (FM)

Fact: FM ~ 2 * EFM

Logical deduction: FM includes flow that does not go through the ecats (steam riser) OR the flowmeter (and therefore FM) is inaccurate.

OK - where are the assumptions in this?

The "central" point of the entire loop is the condensate tank. "Input" would be between it and the pumps going into the ecat. (That's where the flow meter was for the acceptance test).

Output would be between the "steam" output and the condensate tank. That's where the flow meter is. I personally don't see a problem with measuring the condensed return flow (in a well designed system, of course).

I'm not sure that you can accurately measure steam output from the ecat, which is what Smith recommends.

See http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Res…s-of-steam-flowmeter.aspx

Thinks: if the steam riser really connects to the condensate tank, then it would function as a steam trap. Water would flow down to the tank and steam would go to the "customer" side.

If the architecture of the big-frankies is the same as the "fat cat", then it is a kettle boiler. A kettle boiler will either generate 95% steam quality (which could then be super-heated by protruding fins), OR excess water will flow out of it.

@THH,

You are assuming that Smith's schematic is accurate, without any supporting evidence. You are also making assumptions about the total flow rate through the e-Cats. Too many assumptions for my taste. Provide supporting links to each of your points, and show that only the BF modules were being used, their duty cycle, and data that shows the total flow rate through all of the e-Cats, and maybe you will be more convincing.