Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Again, we did not answer in silence here either. Rossi's position has always been that the COP can be determined despite what was behind the wall. And he is right!

    No, he isn't right. You can't even measure it knowing what is in the fake customer site. You have to measure steam quality, and there was no means of doing that. There were no instruments capable of it.


    However, using a common sense estimate of what the pressure had to be, it was easy to see there was only water, not steam, and the flow rate was far lower than claimed, so there was no excess heat. That is only a crude estimate. As Smith pointed out, if Rossi had wanted to measure the enthalpy, he could have easily done so.


    Quote from IH Fanboy

    We did not answer in silence. It was pointed out that Smith apparently didn't even read the manual, which states that the actual maximum pump rate is several times the rated output.

    That's nuts. No manufacturer ever underrates a pump, or any other product. If the pump can produce 6 gpm under any circumstances, they always rate it at 6 gpm. Even if that can only happen in ideal circumstances. I have purchased and used many pumps. They never work as well as the rated capacity. I have also written many manuals. The manual and the face plate never understate capacity. They often disagree, because the tech writer is the last to know, and the manual is squared away before the product is ready. Where the manual and face plate differ, the face plate is right. There would be serious legal consequences if it understated or overstated ideal capacity, power consumption, or anything else.


    Nobody but nobody would claim the pump(s) can only produce 3 gpm when they can actually produce 6 gpm.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    @Jed


    There was steam whether you cry at the thought or not. The state inspector saw it, and testified to it. And it doesn't matter what the steam quality was. Because you have 5+ COP even if there was no phase change.

    I thought the "steam" they saw was on the customer's side.... over there with the heating tapes and not output from the system

    Engineer48 on ECW:

    Quote

    Try this. Air up the vertical vent pipe at 95 - 99C. That reduces the volume the big fans need for driving air in the tunnel as we want the air up the vertical vert to be a hot as possible, without it being steam.

    Assuming the air rising in the pipe was 99C, it has a 4 mtr vertical pipe to rise in and would cause a reduction in the pressure needed to drive the air volume into the pipe.

    Can't send the superheated steam up the vent, in normal operation, as we need it to condense and return to the ECat.

    What we need is the necessary air volume to hold 1MW of heat at 99C as it rises in a 4 mtr vertical pipe being 6 inches in diameter. I expect the air volume is a very lot less than 50,000 CMH.


    Latest unfounded ECW speculation.


    The problem with air higher temperature than ambient going up this tube is you then need a heat exchanger in the ground floor to transfer 1MW from the steam to the new hot air. And - wait for it - it is the same issue as the second floor heat exchanger. So Rossi has an undisclosed ground floor heat exchanger as well as the disclosed but vanishing second floor heat exchanger - and a bigger one because it must be capable of 1MW at a higher temperature. That adds at least X1.5 to the size, if we suppose a temperature of +70C, to be more reasonable.


    The other problem? It still does not work:


    We replace 15C by 90C (I'm giving this idea a bit of slack). We now have a flow of 11m3/s, or in the pipe (including frictional stuff) 600m/s and only one atmosphere.


    Well that is more reasonable. We need a fan providing 1 atmosphere pressure and a flow rate of 11m3/s.


    The mechanical power produced by this fan is Power = Q * rho * Pressure = 11 * 1 * 100,000 = 1MW.

    rho = density of air = 1 kg/m^3

    pressure = 1 atm = 100,000Pa

    Q = volumetric flowrate = 11m^3/s

    The electrical power needed would be at least double this.


    Wow!


    -------------------------------------------------------------


    I'm not just doing these back of envelope calculations to score points from ECW/E48. My point here is that 1MW heat is a lot of heat to dispose of, and doing that has a known difficulty. Any review by IH of the warehouse side would show there to be no possible equipment that could do this. Rossi himself did envelope calculations for his heat exchanger sized to about 1MW but alas for him he got them wrong by a factor of 10. If he had ever built it (it does not look like that) it could not have dissipated 1MW or anything near. And the fact that Rossi has disclosed the second floor heat exchanger as the solution to his heat problems on oath makes it difficult for him now to add a much bigger ground floor heat exchanger to the mix.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What hasn't been determined if that flow rate increase is at partial capacity, or all the time.

    The full rate may the maximum, while lower metering rates could be affected by low pressure.


    Right, P. I did not comment because too little info, and I'd not rely on it, but that was what I thought. Think about the failure mechanisms. If seals break it does not pump. If seals still sort of work, you would expect all the errors to stay proportional to pressure change and we know the change from 2 bar to 3 bar (about 10%). Maybe there is some strange mechanism we don't know, which is why I'm not confident here. But most likely the error at 1 bar is about 20%. The manufacturer comment is a vague getout and does not provide any specific information.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Right, P. I did not comment because too little info, and I'd not rely on it, but that was what I thought. Think about the failure mechanisms. If seals break it does not pump. If seals still sort of work, you would expect all the errors to stay proportional to pressure change and we know the change from 2 bar to 3 bar (about 10%). Maybe there is some strange mechanism we don't know, which is why I'm not confident here. But most likely the error at 1 bar is about 20%. The manufacturer comment is a vague getout and does not provide any specific informat


    I suspect that the increase in pump rate is caused by lower piston displacement resistance, and therefore more strokes per minute. The pump is already hot at >50°C, and extra strokes means more seal heat from friction. I would have to find the reference in the manual, but I believe the strokes/minute are to be reduced when hot fluids are pumped to allow sufficient time for seal cooling. (The pump is de-rated for hot fluids).

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    We did not answer in silence. It was pointed out that Smith apparently didn't even read the manual, which states that the actual maximum pump rate is several times the rated output.

    So did you read the manual for the ECCO02320 pump ?

    Please point me to a clear statement that the ECCO maximum pump rate is several times the rated output.


    And since you are so nit-picky I want to point out, I'd like to see this in a manual for the ECCO pump - not for another pump model, which you just suspect (but don't know) that it has the same specs and features as the ECCO one.

    Edit : this is from the manual for the Gamma L ... I guess it doesn't answer the question about ECCO


    Quote from Forty-Two

    And since you are so nit-picky I want to point out, I'd like to see this in a manual for the ECCO pump - not for another pump model, which you just suspect (but don't know) that it has the same specs and features as the ECCO one.


    The manual is http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/2…ipment-catalogue-2011.pdf


    pdf page 31

    1.0.2 Selection Guide

    { Selection diagram. } Back pressure [bar] as a function of feed rate [l/h]

    { So bar here is neither absolute nor gauge, but the differential pressure across the pump : my comments are in curly braces }


    pdf page 33 doc 1-5


    1.0 Overview Of Solenoid-Driven Metering Pumps

    1.0.3 Installation Option

    ProMinent® Dosing Station
    Comprehensive Accessory Range Ensures Processing Safety

    Note: Excessive pressure can built up if solenoid metering pumps are used where a discharge line
    is blocked, or a line is closed off via a stop valve. In these conditions, therefore, we strongly
    advise the use of a multifunction valve (13).
    When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated
    feed rate. For this reason we recommend installing a multi-function valve (13).


    pdf page 45 doc 1-17 is the start of the gamma-L detail section

    1.3.1 gamma/ L Solenoid Diaphragm Metering Pumps

    Capacity range 0.74-32 l/h, 16-2 bar


    pdf page 46 doc 1-18 is table of pump models, including highest-rated GALa 0232


    GALa 0232 | max backpressure bar,flow 2 32.00 2.96 | medium backpressure bar,flow 1.0 36.20 3.35 | 180 12 x 9 2.0** 5.1 6.6

    { NO entry for LOW backpressure, less than 1 bar : DT said 0.2 gives 90 l/hr }


    The values given in the capacity data tables are guaranteed minimum values,


    { Gamma L section ends ... p 1-21 }


    My comments :

    So the number on the faceplate (32 l/hr) is in this table the guaranteed minimum flow at the maximum rated backpressure 2 bar.

    Edit : 02 bar IS on the faceplate.


    Edit : since the diagram of the pumps are identical, the detailed product codes after the first four characters are identical, I guess the question is whether the ORDERING code GALa and the FACEPLATE Type ECCO are the same pump.

    It is said the pipe is 4.5" in diameter. Now where would this value come from? Surely not the Smith report, which is not to be trusted at all! :huh:

    We have read where selecting Smith was the second biggest mistake in the entire drama! Why would ANYONE believe what he said?


    Oh wait... is it because it supports the desired miniscule point?


    Let's see what REALLY was said in that disposition, not cherry picking out just a number that one "wants" to be true.


    "This author measured the internal diameter (ID) of small remaining section of the E-Cat outlet pipe at 4.5”

    ID. We will now determine what the steam flow velocities theoretically would have been at the highest

    and lowest reported outputs. This is a theoretical calculation only as a later explanation will show that

    there could be no steam flow under the steam conditions present during the validation period.



    Mr. Bass, in his deposition, recalled that the steam line was 3” or 4”. If the steam line diameter was



    reduced down from the E-cat outlet to a smaller size, the theoretical steam velocity would go up,



    dramatically." (emphasis mine)


    "Flow area of the 4.5” ID pipe is 15.9 square inches, or 0.110 square feet.

    One watt = 3.413 Btu’s Per Hour (BTUH).

    Ṁ = {[(21,500,000 wh/d) ÷ (24 hrs. / day)] x [3.413 BTU / w]} ÷ 970.4 BTU / lb.

    Ṁ = 3151 lb. per hour of steam at atmospheric pressure

    V = 3151 ÷ (0.0373 x 0.110) ÷ 60



    V = 12,800 feet per minute (FPM) or 145 miles per hour" (emphasis mine)


    "There was no steam flow from the E-cat to the black box, based on both a pressure difference analysis

    and a heat transfer (temperature difference) analysis. In fact steam flow (other than de minimus

    amounts to warm the piping) was impossible with the configuration at the time of the validation

    period. Thus, any steam flow numbers appearing in Mr. Penon’s report are not valid, therefore the



    whole report is invalid."   (emphasis mine)


    and much more. See document 252-5 at https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk


    So what do we obtain if we look at the ENTIRE source for the 4.5" pipe diameter?

    1) The 4.5" diameter was NOT large enough and calculated by established math and engineering standards and presented for critique. Would someone like to point out where the math was incorrect?

    2) That the pipe "size" was given at a maximum point and referenced that a smaller diameter may have existed, such as 3". Now why would Rossi cut this off and remove it? Yet certain posters are stating as fact, that the pipe was 4.5". Certainly possible. Possible it could have been smaller "down stream".

    3) That the entire "system" does not support Penon's report.


    Now why would someone steadfastly use one piece of the report and call the rest of it baloney? Is this cherry picking?

    Why would someone adamantly use the report as "pipe size proof" but deny the outcome of the report or leave out the statement it might have been smaller?

    hmmm....:/


    Here math is presented. Here accepted industry standards are applied. There is no subjective "reflections in the glass" theory that the eCat works! This is black and white numbers, math and standards. Objective. Why pages on "reflections" yet he does not want to dissect the solid math. Perhaps he knows the math does not support his view?


    Then the report shows that Penon's report is invalid.


    Certain posters then made very derogatory comments about the report author, yet use miniscule "clippings" from the report that he cherry picks to build support for a stance that has no evidence. Since Rossi cannot defend the Doral event, his supporters must waive their wands and conjure up fantastic scenarios for him!


    (I only push this line of thought as I have a low tolerance for hypocritical showmanship, when one states they only are "seeking truth" and are "unbiased" when it is SO evident the opposite is really the case ) :rolleyes:

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    There was steam whether you cry at the thought or not. The state inspector saw it, and testified to it. And it doesn't matter what the steam quality was.

    Obviously if the container sprang a leak and water at 103°C came out, it turned to steam. This is grade-school level physics. Ask that child you spoke to about the window if you don't believe me.


    If you open the top to a pressure cooker, the water starts to boil. However, water in liquid state at 103°C does not have as much enthalpy as steam. When you open a pressure cooker, some of the water flashes into steam, the temperature drops, and the rest stays liquid. It does not all flash into steam.


    It does matter what the steam quality is. Wet steam has much less enthalpy than dry steam. You have to remove condensate to measure enthalpy. See:


    http://www.tlv.com/global/US/s…/wet-steam-dry-steam.html

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Well, maybe you can take that up with the manufacturer of the pump, who published a user manual that says otherwise.

    That just means it has different flow rates in different conditions. Obviously the flow rate of any pump varies. For example if you pump the water 20 m up, the flow rate will be much lower than if you pump over level ground. If you pump muddy or contaminated water, the flow rate will fall. However, the face plate will show the best performance in ideal circumstances. Under the conditions observed by Smith, the flow rate could not be more than 3 gpm, whereas the flow meter indicated 6 gpm.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Edit : since the diagram of the pumps are identical, the detailed product codes after the first four characters are identical, I guess the question is whether the ORDERING code GALa and the FACEPLATE Type ECCO are the same pump.


    I edited my post to move the pump discussion down to the level of minutia.


    There aren't that many makers of solenoid pumps, so the chances of two different manufacturers having pumps identical except for 4 characters on the faceplate is in the realm of library of babel / boltzman brain probabilities.


    I'm looking for a picture of the pump with the name "Prominent" displayed.

    Quote from Alan Fletcher

    Edit : this is from the manual for the Gamma L ... I guess it doesn't answer the question about ECCO


    The manual is http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/2…ipment-catalogue-2011.pdf

    You got it - the manual you have provided is for a different pump model.

    The ECCO one may have same features than the GALa, or it may not.

    The spec-sheet from the ECCO is apparently not to find on the manufacturer homepage. But IHFanboy, E48 etc. blame Smith that he didn't read this (non available) manual, and took the pump specs from the nameplate instead. - Hilarious!

    Quote from JedRothwell

    He and Penon did not respond to Murray's letter. I do not know what his response was in person. I never went to the Florida facility or met with Rossi. I don't know, but I have heard that he sometimes brought the discussion to a quick end by claiming the reactor was about to explode. People who have worked with him tell me that he often simply refuses to answer questions. He meets objections with silence. I do not think he answered any of Murray's questions in his blog. He came up with the imaginary heat exchanger recently, in response to the lawsuit.


    Jed, thanks for taking the time to answer. To your observation that all he had to do to get the 89m was to show them the heat exchanger, I will add the absurdity that Rossi is extremely tight-lipped about whatever 'process' was allegedly going on over at JMP. He says he is protecting a trade secret or something to that effect. But it appears to be HIS trade secret, and his case would be much stronger if he was willing to provide more details about what was supposedly going on over there. So he is gambling 89m and going down in the history books (in a good way) on his desire to keep his trade secrets. Obviously the only trade secret he has is that there was nothing going on over there.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.