Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Rossi often claimed the E-Cats output is "superheated steam" which I understand as steam without water droplets.

In Doral, this claimed superheated steam went from the Leonardo side to the JMP side and was used there for whatever production(process)

I would have made several picture and of course a video, showing the 1 MW steam rushing out there, and in that video there would be an infernal noise

Brings me (as Rossi) closer to 89.000.000 Dollars.

But he did not, he never documented his superheated steam output or better: no recordings of that were published, as far as I know.

On the other hand, there are two videos published, one with S. Krivit and one with M. Lewan, both made in the presence of Mr. Rossi, right inside his "lab".

Did someone see there "superheated steam"?

Just my two cents ...

Edit: typos

"Saturated steam" is the point at which there are no more water drops. You can heat the steam some more and make it "superheated".

Thank you Alan.

.. but Mr. Rossi: Where is the steam?!

Quote from Alan Fletcher

"Saturated steam" is the point at which there are no more water drops.

I would rather call the point at which there are no more water drops "Dry Steam".

Quote from joshg

You are twisting my argument. I said they were sleazy because they raised $50+ million off of Rossi. And I said they were stupid for keeping supporting him. As for all you other points that they were fooled by the Lugano test, etc., all I can say is that my reading of the depositions led me to a different conclusion. As for IH's statement of material facts, well of course they're not going to state the facts that put them in a bad light. So that's not the document to go by. No, you have to go by Darden and JT and others' depositions, which are themselves already partial and selective but still provide a fuller picture. You are welcome to disagree with me. If I really cared I could go through the depositions and show you why I think what I think, but I don't have time for that. You can keep on spinning it any way you like, but you won't change my mind.

I won't try. I think the matter of twisting is as subjective as the evaluation itself of sleaze. If you show how the depositions contradict the IH statements though I'll be interested. The information we have is very partial - just what each side has needed to submit so far. The full picture from the depositions will be much more informative.

We will get Rossi's answer to the IH MSJ statement at some point, and then can compare IH facts with Rossi counter-facts. The MSJ has to hold with clear fact so if you are right IH will not win.

My (perhaps wrong, since this is US Law) view:

• Rossi's case against IH is profoundly unjust and will fail - probably at MSJ stage
• IH's case against Rossi is decent and quite likely to win at least partially but not any way assured of this

and your view (with only partial information - all we have) that IH are sleazy is biased. Of course if they did not properly represent their true views to investors they are that. But I don't see anything in the histories of the principals, or their public statements, or their private e-mails now released, to make me draw that conclusion, and I do not go around assuming people are sleazy on no evidence. It is easy to make that argument, and unjust.

From Murray's evidence - repeated - the statement that with all their LENR projects (not just Rossi) Darden and Vaughn wanted to follow through and check even if there is only a 1% chance of an effect being real.

from Court Document 235-11 Joe Murray additional deposition:

• pp60 lines 15-24 - (the 1% thing, and elsewhere - he repeats it)
• also pp56-65 gives a good feeling for how IH and Murray approached the tests

The Grundfos layout is funny ... it looks more like a bypass to the main condensate return path, which is wrapped in insulation.

Smith says (caption to photo on p23) : Pumps of this type are never used at the outlet of heat exchangers.

But (internet talk) they are used in the return from a boiler : http://cr4.globalspec.com/comm…ion-for-a-Circulator-Pump

Quote

The position of the pump is not critical provided it is not cavitating and this is a function of the static pressure and the fluid temperature. For most low temperature heating systems (80C max) the pump can be in either the flow from the boiler or the return to it. Generally the cooler the pump the longer it lives! Therefore I prefer to put it in the return line. If the system is operating above 100C then the suction pressure at the inlet to the impeller is the determining factor and a sufficiently high margin to avoid cavitation is needed. Typically 1.0 to 2.0 Barg above the saturation pressure would be needed. As these systems tend to be pressurised water there teds to be a rising pressure characteristic as the system heats up and this can be taken into account in achieving the anti-flash margin.

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~dfrey1/ench445/steam.pdf

Quote

After selecting the heat exchanger, the next step should be planning the installation.
The heat exchanger should be mounted high enough to allow gravity
drainage of the condensate from the steam trap into a vented gravity return
line. If a gravity return line is not available, a condensate pump should be installed.

[ goes on to explain why it should have a steam trap ... but it doesn't seem to be essential. ]

 

Never? Well, hardly ever ...

Edit : Spirax also recommending a post-heat exchanger pump! http://www.spiraxsarco.com/res…ce-heating-equipment.aspx

Quote

When a pump-trap arrangement is used, condensate will always be removed from the heater under all pressure conditions, ensuring maximum system efficiency at all times, with no escape of flash steam in the plant room.

Quote from Forty-Two

I would rather call the point at which there are no more water drops "Dry Steam".

See my http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_frames_v410H.php and steam calculator http://lenr.qumbu.com/steam_calc.php

Alan - I can believe people might use additional pumps to move condensate, so Rossi could (from my POV) justify the Grundfoss pump.

Do you however agree that the figures we have means there must be some bypass path - which is not expected - through which half or more of the flow goes? I've made this point a number of times but I'm not certain that you agree with me. And it means (a) Rossi's setup is all wrong and (b) Rossi's measurements are all wrong.

Exhibit 1, the Smith report has this hilarious comment:

"In the vast majority of the cases, this cell content was 36000, not 35837, or 36714, but 36000 exactly. 27000 and 29000 were well represented also. This is undoubtedly the most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering."

That says it all.

If the calculated flow of 3GPM through the pump array is correct AND penon's report of 6 GPM is correct THEN something is missing.

But I don't find Smith's flow analysis convincing.

I haven't looked at his electrical analysis (times when power was turned off).

Quote from Alan Fletcher

If the calculated flow of 3GPM through the pump array is correct AND penon's report of 6 GPM is correct THEN something is missing.

But I don't find Smith's flow analysis convincing.

I haven't looked at his electrical analysis (times when power was turned off).

As I understand it Smith's flow analysis comes from:

Number of pumps per BF (6)

Number of BFs (4)

rated flowrate of each pump

Which of these figures do you feel is unconvincing? Or do you disagree with the fact that total flow rate comes from multiplying them?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

The Grundfos spec says : Maximum operating pressure 145 psi

I presume that's on the discharge port.

But what's the pressure on the suction port ... could this suck the "steam" through?

(starts mumbling about net positive suction head ... http://www.pumpschool.com/applications/NPSH.pdf : have to maintain enough pressure to avoid cavitation).

I can tell you that it is not designed for steam (that is in the manufacturers spec) and that chronic cavitation WILL damage the pump. I know first hand, as I had a plumbing error (of my own creation) causing cavitation (in this specific model) in one of my heating zones, and the pump lasted about 3 weeks.

This is a bit of a segue, but thanks to Alan Fletcher (and good helpful links) and other posters, I may just be able to replace my old as Titanic boiler. (which does not have a pigtail BTW)

This is educational even as a byproduct.

This is the pump data, from which you can see that the max rate applies independent of pressure (ie it will not pump more at low pressure differences).

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

Quote from Alan Fletcher

If the calculated flow of 3GPM through the pump array is correct AND penon's report of 6 GPM is correct THEN something is missing.

But I don't find Smith's flow analysis convincing.

I haven't looked at his electrical analysis (times when power was turned off).

The 6GPM is the maximum flow rate for the estimated head. You can change the flow with the 3 speeds. From the spec (which is in the Exhibit) setting the speed of the pump from highest (3) to lowest (1) cuts the flow in approximately half. So you this would result in about 3 GPM.

Nice feature, eh?

Number of BFs

BF "Big Frankie" is what Rossi's people called the e-cat "Tigers" which you will remember were supposed to be 250kW, so that 1MW = 4 tigers makes up the 1MW plant. Murray has evidence that 4 were switched on when the plant was supplying its full output, though the p;lant had more than 4. This makes sense since rossi would want continued operation when some were not working.

Number of pumps per BF - umm - it is in the picture.

Quote from sigmoidal

The 6GPM is the maximum flow rate for the estimated head. You can change the flow with the 3 speeds. From the spec (which is in the Exhibit) setting the speed of the pump from highest (3) to lowest (1) cuts the flow in approximately half. So you this would result in about 3 GPM.

Nice feature, eh?

OK - Alan you have this the wrong way round.

I'm not relying on the Grundfoss pump flowrate. The existence of an alternate path comes from comparing the flowmeter reading (6 GPM) with the calculated maximum flowrate through the BFs (e-cat tigers) of 3GPM. This calculated flowrate comes from the weird German pumps which are dosimetric with a single max flowrate. Of course they could be run at lower than the stated speed (by pulsing them off) but not higher than the stated speed. They also (see my link above) are designed to deliver their flowrate accurately at any pressure differential up to 2 bar.

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. The system has no validity.

In times past, some argued that IH showed no signs of complaint against Rossi until the end of the test. But notice in exhibit 10 IH had photos of the building by an "investigator" in Nov. Clearly they were worried. Not to mention the depositions where T Barker was upset at the beginning that Rossi scuttled the plumbing and instruments to use his own even to the point of having elevated water tanks. It is clear that they did not trust him.

It is also clear that the metering pumps into the ecats were insufficient to pump the volume of water Rossi claimed flowed out of the units. 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. That is the temperature recorded was not representative of the total flow but only heat from the ecat but the flow meter was recording flow from ecats + the customer's pump. That is perhaps why Rossi quickly removed the plumbing after the test (perhaps within hours) - to remove evidence.