Penon described the position of flow meter

Quote from JedRothwell

There has been some discussion here about the position of the flow meter in Rossi's configuration. I have information from Rossi showing it was located in the gravity return between the customer site and the reservoir. I do not think there was a U pipe but I cannot rule that out 100%. Nothing like that is shown and no one who was there told me there is one -- and I did ask. Anyway, Abd pointed out that Penon described the configuration in one of the lawsuit documents. It is a little hard to understand Penon's English, so Abd added the comments in square brackets:

* Note from Jed: "Cools up to its condensation" means it cools down until it condenses.

This contradicts assertions by Peter Gluck.

This was dicussed already twice but DeJavu is a reality (see my blog today about the neurological phenomenon).
Question: do you have information from Rossi or you have the piping diagram of the plant showing clearly and exactly (as position) where
in the gravity return pipe was placed the flowmeter?

Can you ta ke a look and tell where was placed the main pump (for 1500 kg/hour- floating in the air or firmly placed on the ground?

In any case NOT measuring the flow of water which enters directly to the generators and using a 25 times undersized pipe for steam are fatal flaws and if your favorite author Murray got it right than he is the diamond witness for IH. On the contrary if he errs than he is just a plant illiterate
trying to find imaginary things- doing harm fo those who have paid him.

According to you scenario: 4X flow, just water there was no steam in the plant. If it not there and it does not condense.

If you have such a ardent desire to contradict my assertions, show the diagram and... the story was ended.!
It happens I know steam is able to condense from practice and books. One of my first research projects was optimization of steam distillation, for the start I used Perry's Handbook of Chemical Engineering.

peter

ps Do you have amnesia regarding the persons who all stated the flowmeter was used to quadruple the flow? You tell sensational things and we have to believe you

Also you say impossible and technically irrational things

and you want to believed.

Difficult communication.

Peter:

Is your view that Penon's statements in the disclosed documents do not constitute good evidence? You are saying that Penon's description of the setup is fatally flawed. Perhaps you should be a witness for IH:

• Either Penon is wrong about the setup in these legal documents, in which case as ERV he cannot say anything meaningful about the test
• Or Penon is right about the setup, which is therefore fatally flawed.

Perhaps we are all getting closer to agreement?

Answer to Jed and THH, something does not go with QUOTE:

Penon simply says flowmeter between JMP plant and E-Cats and anybody who has seen a plant knows ab ovo it MUST be immediately after the pump water flow measured, injected in the E-Cats

on JONP Rossi said more times: piping forms U flowmeter down- standard engineering

you (Jed) say- "many pumps, but they could not produce this much flow."
Much flow, 6.6 gallons per minute, 25kg/minute too much...were you awake when you wrote this? (I know you are not drinking too much alcohol so the explanation must be something bad)

Next discussion with you when you have the diagram. Waeted time is not recoverable..

THH- please think over- use imagination, put the flowmeter in that return pipe and ... does it work?

Or buy borrow n apo=debit- flow-meter and install it in high- 3-4 meter pipe- pressure 0.3-0.4 barr with losses- will the meter show something?

Ineptness has limits, I am not ngry with you guys your re defending an ideal but please be rational. Jed you was so normal and a great LENR-ist before this unhappy story;

forget the half full pipes...My old heart is singing Germont's aria from Traviata to you Come back to reason

peter

Quote

THH- please think over- use imagination, put the flowmeter in that return pipe and ... does it work?

Or buy borrow n apo=debit- flow-meter and install it in high- 3-4 meter pipe- pressure 0.3-0.4 barr with losses- will the meter show something?

Ineptness has limits

No, it does not work, although from Rossi's POV maybe it does. Rossi thinks control experiments are a waste of time. And such or worse ineptness is typical of almost all Rossi demos. So for this to continue is not just plausible, it is expected.

Quote from THHuxleynew

No, it does not work, although from Rossi's POV maybe it does. Rossi thinks control experiments are a waste of time. And such or worse ineptness is typical of almost all Rossi demos. So for this to continue is not just plausible, it is expected.

Be realist (I know it is not easy) it was a plant working for a lot of time, it was fisrt a design supervised by engineers, Rossi was not alone in that plant, not there all time., IH people also there, visitors not all ignorants in plants - the professional rules had to be respected, safety rules also, Rosssi was not ubiquituous and omnipotent there.

And the plant as normsl hsd problems, as all plants have I remeber a few in which I have worked in 3 shifts, surprises come all the time according to the rule of Pareto - 80% bad.

I do not ask you for empathy just for realism.

peter

Peter,

I'll deconstruct your various points, indicating why I evaluate it differently from you.

Quote

Be realist (I know it is not easy) it was a plant working for a lot of time,

How can we know that? I'd expect that it was working only in the sense Rossi uses the word. His measurements, or those approved by him, of his setup show it working. That is putting the cart before the horse. If you think these measurements adequately tell whether the plant is working then you know this anyway.

Quote

it was fisrt a design supervised by engineers,

The question is how competent were these engineers, and did they have the power to demand that a better setup be used. For your point to be valid you'd need both that they were competent steam plant engineers and that it was their remit and power to correct a bad setup. I can see neither at the moment.

Quote

Rossi was not alone in that plant, not there all time., IH people also there, visitors not all ignorants in plants

- the professional rules had to be respected, safety rules also, Rosssi was not ubiquituous and omnipotent there.

I have no information about whether professional and safety rules were respected. Rossi is not renowned for either nor does his history of demos make that seem very plausible. But, if they were, nothing yet noted by you rules out a bad test setup. And we know Rossi tends to have these. I'd expect no-one else in that setup to be willing (or, I'd guess, able) to go against Rossi's wishes: so that is a type of relative omnipotence.

Quote

And the plant as normsl hsd problems, as all plants have I remeber a few in which I have worked in 3 shifts, surprises come all the time according to the rule of Pareto - 80% bad.

I accept that. I don't see it is relevant to the matter at hand.

Quote

I do not ask you for empathy just for realism.

Well I have a deal of empathy, no doubt not as much as some, but I don't see that as relevant to this matter. However I feel about Rossi, or you, or IH, I try to make my search for what is the likely truth here the same. Maybe if I did not feel some empathy for IH and a sense of the injustice done to them and others by you and others, I would be less motivated to set the record, as I see it, straight. But you may be sure that when I'm commenting on your arguments I'm not thinking about that, purely about the arguments.

Answering to THH,

I can follow your modus cogitandi.

Would you please offer your variant- an equivalent of Jed's [quadrupling flowmeter + only water COP=1) technically speaking?

Have no idea what is your profession, I am engineer and we engineers do not need to be overly smart to see something is rotten in a plant, we are no more corruptible than other people. But working for one year in afke plant as you suggest is too much. Penon plus X made the deign was it a design for a perpetuum stabile? (You know the opposite of the perpetuum mobile)

Just a question- WTF do you want to DECONSTRUCT what I said (pleasure, duty?) , better accept it and then evaluate it objectively. And imagine you are part of the plant, one of the negineers operators.

A constructive appraoch is better for you, I do not want to convince you.

Good night, here is late

peter

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd pointed out that Penon described the configuration in one of the lawsuit documents. It is a little hard to understand Penon's English, so Abd added the comments in square brackets:

I think Abd misunderstood the purpose of the "internal" and "external" tank.

I understand Penon's description
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…nt-test-plan-fabio-penon/
that way, that the "external" tank was just a destilled water reservoir for the automatic refill of the "internal" tank, in case that the water level inside the "internal" tank dropped.

So, the alleged heating loop was: Water from the "internal" tank by the metering pumps through the e-cats (inside them the water supposed to be converted to dry steam), then the steam flows to the "customer plant", the steam condenses there, and then the condensate flows back into the "internal" tank.
The flow-meter is installed in this condensate return line.

According to the Penon test plan, the "internal tank" has only a volume of 200 liters - which is ridiculous small.
Just imagine, when the cooling demand/capacity of the "process" at the customer side just varies by 10% (100kW), then this results in about 200 liter per hour less (or more) condensate.
So, when the "customer" doesn't take care always to condensate (with the same rate) all the steam supplied by the e-cats, then it would be hard to maintain a constant level inside the "internal tank".
(However, if only hot water gets circled around, then it is easy to keep a fixed level)

Peter

Quote

WTF do you want to DECONSTRUCT what I said (pleasure, duty?)

Both. I find arguments all joined together are difficult to process. It helps to separate out each component and examine it. I enjoy this, I like things to be orderly, and I feel when in a debate it is important - so a bit of duty.

Quote

Would you please offer your variant- an equivalent of Jed's [quadrupling flowmeter + only water COP=1) technically speaking?

i just don't have enough information. It is clear that there is almost no phase change. Many ways the given measurements could be real but misleading. Jed's suggestion about FM misreading is very possible.

Quote

Have no idea what is your profession, I am engineer and we engineers do not need to be overly smart to see something is rotten in a plant, we are no more corruptible than other people. But working for one year in afke plant as you suggest is too much.

Only a steam engineer would worry about FM position. If only everyone were as independent-minded as I'm sure you are. A lot of people do what they are told even if this is clearly immoral (you remember the Milgram Experiment?). It is clear that Rossi will select such. Ignoring a dubiously placed FM is much easier! I find your certainty here very unrealistic.

Quote

Penon plus X made the deign was it a design for a perpetuum stabile? (You know the opposite of the perpetuum mobile)

It will be fascinating to hear Penon's side of this, but alas that seems not likely to happen.

Quote from THHuxleynew

A lot of people do what they are told

Very true, in particular when the job is well paid and easy going.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Peter,

I'll deconstruct your various points, indicating why I evaluate it differently from you.

How can we know that? I'd expect that it was working only in the sense Rossi uses the word. His measurements, or those approved by him, of his setup show it working. That is putting the cart before the horse. If you think these measurements adequately tell whether the plant is working then you know this anyway.

The question is how competent were these engineers, and did they have the power to demand that a better setup be used. For your point to be valid you'd need both that they were competent steam plant engineers and that it was their remit and power to correct a bad setup. I can see neither at the moment.

I have no information about whether professional and safety rules were respected. Rossi is not renowned for either nor does his history of demos make that seem very plausible. But, if they were, nothing yet noted by you rules out a bad test setup. And we know Rossi tends to have these. I'd expect no-one else in that setup to be willing (or, I'd guess, able) to go against Rossi's wishes: so that is a type of relative omnipotence.

I accept that. I don't see it is relevant to the matter at hand.

Well I have a deal of empathy, no doubt not as much as some, but I don't see that as relevant to this matter. However I feel about Rossi, or you, or IH, I try to make my search for what is the likely truth here the same. Maybe if I did not feel some empathy for IH and a sense of the injustice done to them and others by you and others, I would be less motivated to set the record, as I see it, straight. But you may be sure that when I'm commenting on your arguments I'm not thinking about that, purely about the arguments.

Display More

Jed, you admit in several places of your post that you are not sure or just don't know certain details, and that is a fair admission. However, in these instances you also seem to come down on the side of negativity toward AR. Your glass seems always half empty, where as Peter's seems to be half full in that respect. The truth is that none of us can be certain, or even deduce fairly, what was there or how it was set up. It may come out during discovery in the court case or it may not, but please try to reserve judgement until then, one way or the other. Like Peter I try to always err toward optimism. It appears almost like you have been indoctrinated with the opposite tendency by Dewey, who is almost certainly, and always has been, heavily influenced by IH at this point. It almost seems as if you two are dancing in lockstep. Just keep and open mind and try to avoid jumping to conclusions. Remember the scientific method you tout so obsessively.

Quote from Shane D.

I think the Milgram Experiment is a poor analogy for what we are discussing here.

I agree. It is not an analogy but a vivid example of how people tend to defer to those in authority, even when this seems weird. That is exactly the case here, though the nature and timescale of the deference are different.

Quote

Jed, you admit in several places of your post that you are not sure or just don't know certain details, and that is a fair admission. However, in these instances you also seem to come down on the side of negativity toward AR. Your glass seems always half empty, where as Peter's seems to be half full in that respect. The truth is that none of us can be certain, or even deduce fairly, what was there or how it was set up. It may come out during discovery in the court case or it may not, but please try to reserve judgement until then, one way or the other. Like Peter I try to always err toward optimism. It appears almost like you have been indoctrinated with the opposite tendency by Dewey, who is almost certainly, and always has been, heavily influenced by IH at this point. It almost seems as if you two are dancing in lockstep. Just keep and open mind and try to avoid jumping to conclusions. Remember the scientific method you tout so obsessively.

Well - I'm THH not Jed. Though on this matter Jed might argue similarly.

I don't find such broad brush characterisations useful. I can understand that you and Peter both very much would like Rossi's devices to be real. I understand that feeling. But it does not make it any more likely they actually are real. Nor does it influence the separate issue here of whether Rossi's 1 year test is properly conducted.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Well - I'm THH not Jed. Though on this matter Jed might argue similarly.

I don't find such broad brush characterisations useful. I can understand that you and Peter both very much would like Rossi's devices to be real. I understand that feeling. But it does not make it any more likely they actually are real. Nor does it influence the separate issue here of whether Rossi's 1 year test is properly conducted.

Dear THH,

I am asking for your permission to add you to the list

of Economic friends of Industrial Heat.

Ecionomic Friend is defined as "With such friends you do not need enemies" The DeJAvu Enclave leaders are already there doing real harm to IH. As Dewey stating his aim is to blackpaint Rossi to the Court in perpetuity.

You seems to be more inofenssive. BTW have yu ld me about your basic profession?

Friendly - but not economical, greetings,

peter

ps Milgram Experment not relevant- we are not doing sadic bad things you can easily find a site with the 10 most famous such experiments and choose a better one