Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • So HIS two declarations, before and after the demo, are in contrast each other.


    Now if this had been MURRAY, IHFB would have been all over this like flies on sh*t. He would written pages of posts about how Murray was intentionally deceiving and that IH should immediately publish a retraction as they were DECIEVING! Why it would be ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. It would be absolute proof of the evil IH was conducting and how blatant they were.


    However, IHFB, "only seeking truth" will certainly not question a Rossi supporter as anything pro-Rossi has already been deemed appropriate and accurate. IF there was any "deception" it was completely acceptable by the Rossi team because of the EVIL forces involved that are trying to steal ALL of Rossi's wonderful technology. But this was not deception, it must be a misunderstanding, a misprint, a language issue. No, there is nothing to pursue here! What is good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander in this case.


    I am still waiting on an answer why he is not selling in Europe. Or selling to his new partner and new customer. (Oh wait.... those were lies)

    When will supporters ever have actual support from Rossi himself, instead of having to defend him with conjecture? :/


    P.S. Rossi himself stated that he had achieved "Sigma 4" capability. (Of course he does not publish how or what he certified) If he truly had Sigma 4 capability proven for the QuarkX, he could ask whatever he

    wanted from any number of major companies. Hmmm.... none of this is happening.... wonder why? (turn blind eye here, ..... wink wink.... cough... cough) :P

  • Uh-Oh ..... something going on with ... something.

    ** ALL MY RESULTS ARE ON HOLD UNTIL I FIGURE OUT WHAT **

    That's the story of my life.


    History Quiz Question: What did Mitsuo Fuchida, Japan's leading pilot, say to Minoru Genda, the architect of naval strategy, immediately after the devastating attack at Midway that destroyed three of Japan's aircraft carriers?


    "We goofed." (In Japanese: "Shimatta.")


    Professionals do not lose their cool.

  • I SUSPECT that the Gamma/L is missing strokes.

    My measurement devices are:


    1. Time : I'm using my android cell phone to record data, and avidemux software to step through frames and report the time mm:ss.xxx accurately. I couldn't find a clock in-house with a display of seconds (analog OR digital), so I took a screen shot of a windows clock. Reasonably close (and I don't trust windows display to be exactly syncronized with time). I have a DeLorme GPS somewhere which displays time.


    2. Volume : 1 liter graduated cylinder.


    3. Mass : Dymo M25 scale. Checked against volume within tolerance -- for a STATIC measurement

    BUT: I'm not sure how well it keeps up with varying mass, so I discontinued that technique.


    My first run this morning (posted) looked fine. But in a subsequent run the dymo seemed to be stuttering (holding for a fraction of a second).

    I then switched back to a "static" run ... filling the cylinder from empty and recording when the pump stopped started. Rather than using the power strip neon light, I photographed the green pulse-light on the Gamma.

    Then I remembered : this thing has a pulse counter. 180 per minute is 3/sec or 1/3 sec per pulse.

    At the start of a run reset the scale, and note the pulse count.

    At the end of the run note the weight and the pulse count.

    Strokes = end_pulse - start_pulse. Time (at 180ppm) = Strokes / 3.


    But in run 10F (which I'm about to analyse from end to end) :


    Pulses : 256 .... a curiously binary number!

    Time : 256/3 = 85.33


    Video clock : 117.33 secs

    I think that .. (rather than analyse the last video) I'll do a factory reset on the pump and then do another run, recording the gamma's light and display.

    EDIT : video at https://youtu.be/iPfm4y0SvGc


    EDIT : I need Rossi's STETHOSCOPE, so I can listen to the valves seating and unseating !!!!!

  • Bob ,


    You are the one casting this as good versus evil. I've never done so. I view it more as IH was in serious damage control mode when they made some of their PR statements, and probably regret some of what they said, not knowing how much information we would eventually gain access to. I'm pretty sure Rossi regretted some of the things he said and did as well. That is the beauty of our (the Americans among us) third branch of government: it is very good at surfacing the truth.

  • I've switched to a dedicated camera ... looked at a bunch of frames, and it seems better.
    (IF my spreadsheet is right. Couldn't find fill-down/right in google sheets, so switched to excel)
    Still need a second-clock (Gee .. I know where there's a great antique ... )

  • @ IH Fanboy,

    I don't know where your evidence is that the pump was operated at less than 60% of its "max" speed. We don't know its maximum speed at zero bar back pressure.


    You can hear the pump pace at the beginning of this video:




    The frequency is lower than 1 stroke per second, ie < 60 stroke/min, while the max speed for that pump is 100 stroke/min. That's a big difference, that an ear can immediately catch. Having spent weeks in calibrating that pump, Levi could have easily recognized that the pump was running at a speed much lower than its maximum. So he knew that the real flow rate was much much lower than the value he wrote in his report. With the help of the above video, everyone who knew the pump model were aware that the pump was delivering a water flux much lower than the values, which circulated on the web since the first days, but nobody warned the readers about this crucial aspect.


    Quote


    You presume that the real flow could have been "much lower, even close to zero," while I postulate that the real flow was probably much higher, since the stated maximum of 7.2 l/h requires a 3.5 bar back pressure.


    Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem. My problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources.

  • I thinks it's working with the dedicated camera .... times now reconcile.

    Strokes at end of run :
    pgl_run11a_31.jpg


    Results :

    pgl_run11a_32.jpg


    I'm calculating the flow for the camera. I can't get the time for the FIRST pulse (the way the green light works), so I add in one nominal stroke (0.333) secs


    Camera time : 99.03 secs Pump-stroke-time: 99.33 -- close enough.
    Flow 40.28 l/hr

  • After multiple runs (dropped my cellphone,finally figured out my camera only did 5 minutes it hi-res,battery ran down,cellphone memory filled up,screwed up ....)

    RUN-11H : about 6 minutes 4 liters

    pgl_run11h_39.jpg


    Total head is C25 0.07 bars
    Flow is 39.57 l/h
    Timing is from my KM A2 camera ....

    The Gamma stroke timing is a little off.

    The timing derived from this run is +1.33 secs in 363 minutes or 0.37%
    This works out at 180.66 strokes per minute.
    I'll go on using the camera .. I still need to get a reference clock.


    Presuming timing error is zero, flow error is +- 0.28 %

    Edit : I redid the spreadsheet with android as the clock.
    KM : 363.333 AND: 354.293 (a bit closer to the Gamma ... 180.19 strokes/min)

    Edit 2 : Plans for tomorrow (Tues) ... I'll use the current setup, but keep the suction tank topped up. I don't expect to see any difference.

  • Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem.

    You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure. But I guess we can leave that hanging, since it is still somewhat of an unknown as to how large the effect would be with that particular pump. It certainly takes the air out of your argument though, in my opinion. And I may not be able to convince you of that, but that is your problem.


    Quote

    My problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources.

    Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.

  • In case of Rossi the condenser was quite higher than the condensation point and this could add an over pressure factor.

    If the water was taken from a reservoir tank than the water level of that tank should be taken into account.


    I don't understand what it means to say that the condenser was higher than the condensation point. Can you explain a bit more please?

  • Summarizing Alan Fletcher's results so far (all runs with inlet suction lift of 18.5") ....



    Run Date Back pressure (bar) Flow (l/h)
    06C Aug 02 0.00 42.3                                                                                            
    10A Aug 07 0.00 39.6
    11A Aug 07 0.00 40.3
    11H Aug 07 0.03 39.6
    01 Jul 31 0.15 36.1
    05E Aug 02 0.15 33.7
  • Thanks (but maybe sort by date/run number) ?

    I've revised my spreadsheet to include a 1-frame uncertainty in time.


    I have also injected a 1-pulse (0.333 sec) systematic error correction (I can't see the start time, only the first-pulse time).

    The 11H result is 39.57 +- 0.3 % (all subject to a time calibration).

    To speed up testing I think it's OK to back off the volume/time to an error of +- 1%. ie 1 liter in 1 minute.

    Haven't had time to do a run today, can't find my GPS unit.

    Edit: I'm thinking about a new variable-discharge-height design.

  • @ IH Fanboy,

    You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure.

    I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered. The sense of my answer was that I don't care of every possible misfunctioning of the pump. They can be put forward for the Doral test, but not for the Bologna demo, because in this case the pump was calibrated by Levi himself, who said in front of the public that the flow rate was 12 L/h (ie the max output of the pump), but then he wrote in his report that the same flow rate was 17.6 L/h, and in the meanwhile he claimed in an interview that the flow rate remained constant since the end of his calibration up to the end of the test. This is an internal inconsistency.

    If you want to know more about this incongruity, I suggest you to ask JR, because he was in contact with the "people in the project", asked them the model and the data of the instruments, and he strenuously defended the competence of the testers and of their results. JR was following the CF since many years, he already knew about flow calorimetry, so I imagine he asked Levi how it was possible that a dosimetric pump delivered nearly 50% more than its capacity, while running at only 60% of its maximum speed.


    Quote


    Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.


    This is the usual rhetoric scheme used to explain the failing of CF/LENR, but it doesn't apply to me. And it's not even true (1).

    Instead, in this case, I partly agree with you: CF(LENR) is safer than HF, because even if their final results will be the same (no excess heat from CF and no exploitable energy from HF) the research on HF is much more energy and material consuming, and generates a lot of contaminated stuff.

    But the millions/billions of public money wasted in these two mirages are not the real problem, there are many other economic sectors in which much larger amounts of taxpayer money are wasted in no-way activities. The real problem is that these chimeras are used to influence the public about the possibility of finding viable alternatives to the already known energy sources. This involves the highest levels of the decision chain, the Parliaments, and the Ministries (Departments), even here in Italy. The misrepresentation of the validity of these technologies risks to mislead the decision makers in taking the wiser decisions in such a delicate issue as the managing of the residual energy sources, with serious consequences for everyone.

    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=190#comment-1253897

  • I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered.

    Ascoli I see that here you are making a copy and paste of very old blah blah blah against a test dated 2011.

    I think that already Randombit0 had answered you. Reading the technical report from Levi is clear that he has done a measurement of the flux.

    A measure done in the same setup of the experiment is much more valuable that any paranoid consideration done by people who was not there.

    Note also that the pump was on the same table where the ecat was so 0 or very little back pressure. So ?

    You were not there, as all of us.

    Nobody of us can know if eventually the pump was tempered and in fact we don't know even the precise model.

    Even presuming the model you indicated and also presuming no tempering of the pump the max value you presented has nothing to do with the actual working conditions.

    So ? There is only two conclusions.

    That you, as many others here, have an agenda or are simply a mythomaniac .

  • The real problem is that these chimeras are used to influence the public about the possibility of finding viable alternatives to the already known energy sources.

    I see.

    What you prefer Carbon or Petrol ? Have you a personal stake in this sectors ?

    So you think that Darden's efforts to find a new energy source will come to nothing as usual in the Darden's way to do ?

    Is he collecting money for nothing ?

  • Comedy of failed set-ups today. I bought a quartz analog watch at a local thrift store (car in shop with an engine check/O2 sensor problem, so had to be in walking distance of the bus-stop). But it's too shiny .. can't get a clear video. Need to find my GPS or an lcd display with seconds. (Will try dollar-store tomorrow).
    My GPS re-materialized! Will probably record just on android, calibrate with GPS and NIST before and after.


    I've been trying to rig a constant-level system for the suction tank. Tried a syphon method (but my hydraulics was wrong ... won't work: flooded my porch!) ... rigging a garden hose to hold it at the overflow point. (Of course, someone's taken the spray head, so I have to run 100 feet to turn it off.)

    Ran a couple of short 1-liter tests ... but need to do this at high accuracy, so back to 6 liters.

  • OK ... (run12 abandoned .... )


    run13 :

    Timing with GPS (NOTE: for this preliminary report I'm using android -- I need to redo my spreadheets)

    Suction tank at constant level (garden hose set so it just overflows)


    PRELIMINARY pending re-timing with GPS

    13C : Suction -21.25 inches Discharge +12 inches Backpressure 0.08 bar Flow 39.15 +- 0.3 %

    13B : Suction +4 inches Discharge +12 inches Backpressure 0.02 bar Flow 47.67 +- 0.3%

    Next couple of posts are RUN-13C and RUN-13B -- I can't see an error in my data entry

  • Next up : I think I should try to get a 0.5 bar run, (roughly suction -21 inches, discharge 15-20 feet?).
    THAT will let me scale MY pump to Prominent's curves.

    BUT I can't collect water from 20 feet. SO I'm going to redo my last trial by weighing the INLET tank (suction -21 inches -- on the floor). NOT keeping the level constant.

    IF that's acceptable then I'll get 20 feet of hose and just eject water from the top of the hose. Still summer ... so refreshing!

    Edit : also next-up : revise my spreadsheet to a) use GPS + frames for timing and b) set it up for fill-right so I can collect multiple results in ONE spreadsheet. c) see if I can reconcile Stroke Count and GPS timing, so I don't have to frame-step through videos.

    All that will wrap it up for "Phase 0".


  • I'm having a hard time following your spreadsheet calculations, but I've done the flow calculations for your last 2 runs by hand and confirm your results.


    Your next suggested moves sound right to me..