Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • I assume, Alan confirmed more or less, that the manufacturers specs are correct within the available and measured pressure values, what else should we expect? That Rossi's magic plumbing was able to run those prominent pumps at more that 200% of their specified values?

  • I was away for a couple of weeks ... and have a bunch of commitments through the first week of October.


    The last run didn't work, because surface tension stopped the water from pouring out at a known point. (I could see the meniscus moving up to odd places in the outlet tube).


    I need to redesign the "head" so that water pours out cleanly at all angles. I think a simple pipe will work. If it works then a "run" takes only a couple of hours.

  • Alan Fletcher ,


    I believe the outlet pressures and the inlet pressures are independent of each other for this pump, rather than additive (subtracted in the spreadsheet).


    Consider the operation of the diaphragm and the valve seats:

    1) Diaphragm moves forward. Pressure in the outlet side increases, the inlet seal is forced shut by this pressure, the outlets seal is opened by this pressure, and so fluid moves out the outlet; the only way to release the pressure.

    2) Diaphragm moves backward. Pressure drops on the outlet side, the outlet seal is forced shut by this pressure drop by existing outlet pressure, the inlet seal is opened by this pressure drop and fluid is drawn in to relieve the lower pressure by entering the diaphragm chamber.


    Imagine the inlet and outlet seals are like reed valves. Both valves move in the same direction simultaneously, one opening, one closing (one valve is inside the diaphragm chamber [inlet], and one is outside [outlet]). The pressure inside the diaphragm chamber is relative to the pressure in the outlet or the inlet fluid lines, but there should be no communication between the inlet and outlet lines. Pressure in the outlet line keeps both valves closed. Pressure in the inlet line above that of the the outlet line pressure would force both valves open. There may some weak spring or fluid bypass assist to the valves, but very limited.


    This suggests a minor change to the spreadsheet formula. The relative pressure should still be monitored.

    Once the pump is operating at least 1 bar outlet pressure, the performance of the pump vs the specification can be evaluated. It seems that it may be under spec.

  • I wanted to follow up back then with the Product Management in Heidelberg regarding specs and "intended use" for these high-precise metering pumps, just to get confirmation what they can do and can't do, but for some reasons didn't.

    MY but was in contact with them and could potentially help with some data. It is redicoulous how Rossi believers twist every little detail just to keep their Saint's story alive. Rossi with his magic hands is probably able to run every technical piece of equipment in his plants on his outlandish specifications, that never match any Instrcution for use or tech data of the used equipment. How can then somebody beleive or be sure that the result can be a COP > 1? No wonder....


  • When acting at maximal stroke rate what is the duty cycle of this pump? I assume, but don't know, that when acting below its maximal pumping rate the diaphragm spends most of its time in the completely discharged position and that the pressure inside the pump is equilibrated with the outlet pressure. But a remark from Engineer48 has completely convinced me that the outlet pressure is very low for the pumps feeding the Big Frankie units (they seem acting on a fluid head only 6 inches high or so). In this state it wouldn't take much of a head on the inlet to displace the inlet ball valve and establish a flow straight through the pump whenever the diaphragm is not actually moving forward.


    Meanwhile Rossi and his camp followers have been trying to establish a presumption that there is a large head of pressure on the inlet side. Rossi claims this comes from the "recirculator pump" that suddenly surfaced in his interview with Matts Lewan. I don't understand how such a pump, that is supposedly mounted near the second storey heat-exchanger, could transfer pressure to the Prominent pump inlets. According to Penon's diagrams, and the descriptions of eyewitnesses this should not be possible. However I can see that this is where Rossi is heading. As a consequence, one configuration that Alan should be testing is simultaneous low outlet pressure and higher inlet pressure.

  • Bruce__H ,

    I believe the recirculatron was located in the black Pt drier/soaker serpentine pipe assembly.

    To me, it looked like something installed to try and get some of the rust out of the water, by forcing flow through a filter that otherwise would flow around it. A less friendly interpretation is that it was (additionally) used to deliver high pressure, low volume water in order to spin the water meter impeller to get the reported daily water rates fixed to a desired level.


    We could look at the exploded parts diagram to see how the inlet and outlet valves are designed on the Gamma pump. I assume that forced inlet flow would supply whatever the associated tubing and valve assemblies would flow against whatever pressure is in the outlet line (if any). As I have said before, the pump becomes a flow restrictor, (if it has any more restriction than the inlet and outlet hoses).

  • I believe the recirculatron was located in the black Pt drier/soaker serpentine pipe assembly.

    To me, it looked like something installed to try and get some of the rust out of the water, by forcing flow through a filter that otherwise would flow around it. A less friendly interpretation is that it was (additionally) used to deliver high pressure, low volume water in order to spin the water meter impeller to get the reported daily water rates fixed to a desired level.

    I am pretty sure the Penon report schematic shows the flow meter was installed downstream from the black Pd drier/soaker. By "soaker" you mean the large box in the pretend customer site. Right?


    So it wouldn't help.


    I am pretty sure the flow meter numbers were invented. They couldn't have been the same every day for days on end. There was no need to make the machine actually show these numbers.


    Along the same lines, if there was a working pressure gauge I am sure it did not show "0 bar" every day. Penon just made that up. I have heard there was a pressure gauge but they removed it and erased the numbers in the spreadsheets, because the numbers showed that the water in the pipes was liquid, not steam. The bogus pressure numbers plus the bogus flow meter numbers are enough to explain the excess heat. Put in a reasonable approximation of the real numbers and the heat goes away.

  • Bruce__H ,

    I believe the recirculatron was located in the black Pt drier/soaker serpentine pipe assembly.

    To me, it looked like something installed to try and get some of the rust out of the water, by forcing flow through a filter that otherwise would flow around it. A less friendly interpretation is that it was (additionally) used to deliver high pressure, low volume water in order to spin the water meter impeller to get the reported daily water rates fixed to a desired level.


    We could look at the exploded parts diagram to see how the inlet and outlet valves are designed on the Gamma pump. I assume that forced inlet flow would supply whatever the associated tubing and valve assemblies would flow against whatever pressure is in the outlet line (if any). As I have said before, the pump becomes a flow restrictor, (if it has any more restriction than the inlet and outlet hoses).

    According to Matts Lewan's account of Rossi's statements, the recirculatron" (love the name!) is said by Rossi to be "positioned in connection to the heat exchanger" and was supposed to "stabilize the flow of steam and water throughout the whole system". So it could be almost anywhere on the JMP side of the Doral facility, We get to know no more because the design of the circulatron is so smart that it is SEKRET! Rossi also says that the circulator is not the Grundfos pump. That pump was supposed to go in the filter contraption and clean the water. So he means something different.

  • Along the same lines, if there was a working pressure gauge I am sure it did not show "0 bar" every day. Penon just made that up. I have heard there was a pressure gauge but they removed it and erased the numbers in the spreadsheets, because the numbers showed that the water in the pipes was liquid, not steam. The bogus pressure numbers plus the bogus flow meter numbers are enough to explain the excess heat. Put in a reasonable approximation of the real numbers and the heat goes away.

    So you see Penon as a active agent in the deception and not just a pawn that Rossi was deceiving and pressuring ?

  • That pump [the Grundfos] was supposed to go in the filter contraption and clean the water.


    The Grundfos was connected to clear plastic housing with a big filter in it. In the picture below, the filter is not stained, and the clear housing around the filter is not stained. I'll wager that the plastic housing itself would have had to have been replaced (in addition to the filter) before the photo was taken if the Grundfos was ever used to clean the water.



  • The Grundfos was connected to clear plastic housing with a big filter in it. In the picture below, the filter is not stained, and the clear housing around the filter is not stained. I'll wager that the plastic housing itself would have had to have been replaced (in addition to the filter) before the photo was taken if the Grundfos was ever used to clean the water.


    I agree with everything you say. This particular picture has an interesting history. IH obtained it in discovery from Rossi's lawyers (Dewey Weaver hinted that it was from Rossi's cell phone). But in one of his depositions, Rossi suddenly went off on a tangent and complained that the picture was taken by one of two people who were accompanying a Florida State safety inspector who showed up one day to check out a complaint about radiation contaminating the Doral workplace. Rossi claimed these were spies sent by IH and that the photo is the fruit of their spying. God knows how he thinks it got into the hands of his own lawyers. So there appears to be something about the photo (or a companion photo that was taken at the same time) that Rossi wants to distance himself from. I'm not sure what it is.


    Whatever is going on, I don't see how the pump here could result in a pressure head at the inlet of the Prominent pumps. No pump on the JMP side could do that. This is because the pipe in the picture that is marked "Return from the black box to the E-cat" crosses over to the Leonardo side of the Doral plant and eventually dumps its load of "condensate" into a water tank with a waterline about 4 feet above floor level. The Prominent pumps have to suck up the water from that level to pump it into the Big Frankie reactors. That is their mission in life ... to suck up water form a holding tank and pump it into the reactor chambers. At least that is what is in Penon's diagram. And that is what previous iterations of Rossi's 1 MW plant in Italy did.

  • So you see Penon as a active agent in the deception and not just a pawn that Rossi was deceiving and pressuring ?

    I don't know. Seriously, I have no idea what role Penon himself played. Based on that report and the previous one he wrote, I have the impression that he is stupid. Beyond that, I do not know whether he is also malevolent or only Rossi's pawn.


    Was he paid a lot of money? Was there is something in the lawsuit docket about that? I have no idea, but if he was paid a lot, I suppose he was in on the scam.


    I did not read most of the docket documents. Only the technical ones. So I don't who's on first or what's on second.

  • I agree with everything you say. This particular picture has an interesting history. IH obtained it in discovery from Rossi's lawyers. Dewey Weaver hinted that it was from Rossi's cell phone. But in one of his depositions, Rossi suddenly went off on a tangent and complained that the picture was taken by one of two people who were accompanying a Florida State safety inspector who showed up one day to check out a complaint about radiation contaminating the Doral workplace. Rossi claimed these were spies sent by IH and that the photo is the fruit of their spying. God knows how he thinks it got into the hands of his own lawyers. So there appears to be something about the photo (or a companion photo that was taken at the same time) that Rossi wants to distance himself from. I'm not sure what it is.


    Whatever is going on, I don't see how the pump here could result in a pressure head at the inlet of the Prominent pumps. No pump on the JMP side could do that. This is because the pipe in the picture that is marked "Return from the black box to the E-cat" crosses over to the Leonardo side of the Doral plant and eventually dumps its load of "condensate" into a water tank with a waterline about 4 feet above floor level. The Prominent pumps have to suck up the water from that level to pump it into the Big Frankie reactors. That is their mission in life ... to suck up water form a holding tank and pump it into the reactor chambers. At least that is what is in Penon's diagram. And that is what previous iterations of Rossi's 1 MW plant in Italy did.

    The image shows that the remaining several rows of pipe (in the other photo, to the left of this image, and below the pipes connected to these in this image) were not connected to the red container. So 1MW must be dissipated in just four rows of pipe, which are insulated.


    The unused pipes are possibly the "mezzanine exchanger", which is not at all in the mezzanine, and serves no purpose in the black container, because it is not connected to anything. If only the left side photo was shown, it might appear to show a heat exchanger of significant size. This photo ruins that idea.


    Alternately, Rossi might make a fuss about this image to distract attention away from the photo taken to the left of this one.

  • The image shows that the remaining several rows of pipe (in the other photo, to the left of this image, and below the pipes connected to these in this image) were not connected to the red container. So 1MW must be dissipated in just four rows of pipe, which are insulated.


    Rossi's story is that the 4 rows of insulated pipes were for treating samples of platinum sponge or industrial diamonds. The samples were sealed into metal tubes and inserted into the pipes then left there for long periods of time. The heat and pressure inside the tubes were supposed to do something or other after a long time. I don't think it ever worked.


    The unused pipes are possibly the "mezzanine exchanger", which is not at all in the mezzanine, and serves no purpose in the black container, because it is not connected to anything. If only the left side photo was shown, it might appear to show a heat exchanger of significant size. This photo ruins that idea.


    Rossi's story about the the "serpentine piping" in the JMP black box is that it was sometimes hooked up and sometimes not depending on how he wanted to "balance" the system. It wasn't supposed to be the mezzanine heat exchanger. I think some of the pipes that were supposed to form the mezzanine heat exchanger can now be seen hanging from the wall and ceiling of the Doral facility. In photos taken after the 1-year test was over the is visible a double row of 6 inch diameter uninsulated piping attached to the wall near the JMP black box. The pipes go up to the top of the wall and then half-way across the ceiling. They appeared sometime after the 1 year test ended since they are not visible in the photos that Murray took inside the Doral facility when the ecats were still functioning. Rossi hasn't said yet but I think he is ready to claim that these pipes are the old mezzanine heat exchanger disassembled and repurposed. There aren't enough of them visible there to account for the entire heat exchange so there might be more of them now inside the black box. At the base of the pipes hanging from the wall (but not now connected) is a large wooden structure that I think Rossi might be prepared to claim is the wooden superstructure of the mezzanine heat exchanger now similarly repurposed for something or other.

  • RESULTS !!!! Details in next post.

    I did a complete "scan" from vertical to horizontal (outlet level with the pump center) at about 1 foot increments.

    I think the data is good ... looks "monotonic" with height -- BUT after about 45 degrees -- 10 feet head -- the "top" of the pipe is above the outlet point. So don't believe the exact head / bars values.

    At full height (0.58 bars) the flow is 32.17 l/hr ... just above the "2 bar spec" of 32 l/hr.

    Scaling this flow to Penon's value ... calculated as 1MW ... the effective output is 0.5MW

    But at the LOWEST point (outlet level with the center of the pump) .. the flow is 58.47 l/hr ... 1.83 times the 32l/hr specification and the scaled output power value would be 0.94 MW

    In short, Penon's flow with a small head is entirely plausible.

  • For the sake of just finding out, can you rig a set of shut-off valves and Ts to let the full pressure side tube (once full) release the water down into the input side, while the output side goes to level-ish (~0 barg). Just to see if the valves pop open and just let the water flow through the pump. (No pumping).

  • Nice! Thank you for taking on this project Alan!


    Two observations here ...


    1) The discharge height for the pumps feeding into the 4 Big Frankies at the Doral plant is small. 12 inches is the maximum and possibly it is more like 3-6 inches. So on that score, run 30M sounds right. The suction heights for the pumps at Doral seem to vary between about 2 and 7 feet.


    2) For the final 5 months of the 1-year test, the bottom row of pumps were inactive because the Big Frankie unit that they are supposed to feed had been taken offline (I think because of water leaks). This leaves 18 pumps to handle the load. Often during these 5 months the pumped volume was the usual 36,000 L/day (e.g., all of November). So when you calculate total output per day you should multiply by 18 and not 24.


    Taking these 2 considerations into account for the case of the realistic 30M run; if 18 pumps are used instead of 24 the total capacity is 22,832 L/day. That is 0.634 of the scaled 1MW capacity. And this may be only a maximum if suction height affects pumping at these very low backpressures. I don't know if you have data on that point or not. If you still have an appetite to continue with these trials, then I would suggest you focus on 6 inch discharge height with up to 6 foot suction height. If pumping declines at all with increase in suction height, then the 0.634 MW figure I just computed is a maximum and reality could be quite a bit smaller.

  • Point 2 : Penon didn't report a constant "24-pump" volume. He downgraded it to "18-pumps" on occasion. So my use of "1MW" base is fair. (There may be other data to indicate Penon's data is wrong).


    Point 3 : the previous curves showed that my pump was performing far under the Prominent curve below the nominal 32 l/hr at 2 bar -- which is what I get a 0.5 bar

    Point 4 : My assembly still has a bend near the top, so my heights are in 3 zones.

    H1 : measuring the height at the outlet

    H2: the height of the knee


    A : the outlet is the highest point (H1 > H2) : I used H1 -- roughly runs A to E

    B: the outlet is horizontal (H1 = H2) : I used H1 about run F

    C: the outlet is below the knee (H1 < H2) : I used H1 so I need a correction factor.

    (I took photos so I COULD calculate the height H2)

    D: the outlet is below the knee, but it was low enough to measure H2 directly, so I used H2

    eg At run M H1 = 46.25 and H2 = 62.25

    (Runs M-Q)

    E: end of run : the outlet touched the ground.


    So the reported heights are good for A to F, progressively worse for G to L and good for M to Q

    If there's still interest I'll re-re-rig the outlet so that it has no bend and H1 will be correct.


    Point 5 : for the last two runs (P,Q) , when the outlet was well below the pump center, the pump sounded funny and irregular (tick-tick-tick-CLOCK) and the last run "Q" is off the monotonic curve,

    so I think the valves were mis-seating. But I don't believe we need to explore this zone.


    Point 6 : The temperature was 59F at the start of the run and 55F by run J!

    Point 8 : Timing was by a stopwatch (actually, a count-down timer) so I had to hit the timer and start button at the same time .. maybe a 1-second timing error for start and stop, 2 seconds total. The first few runs the counter and timer don't exactly line up. Probably experimental error while I was still getting used to the two-finger operation. I think I can use the pump counter as the master timer (1/180 secs per stroke).

    Future :


    I'll re-rig the head so there is no bend at the top. I'll try to get a helper (local teenager?) to call out the heights so my data points are more evenly spaced and press the start button. I'll double-check the spreadsheet to make sure I'm calculating the heights correctly.

    Then I'll move back inside (porch) and try to replicate the suction and discharge heights for the four big frankies.

  • Point 2 : Penon didn't report a constant "24-pump" volume. He downgraded it to "18-pumps" on occasion. So my use of "1MW" base is fair. (There may be other data to indicate Penon's data is wrong).


    I'm not understanding your point here. I don't see anything wrong with using the 36,000 L/day "1MW" base. What I am saying is that there were times (such as all of November 2015) when only 18 pumps were available and yet Penon reports the entire 36,000 L/day is being pumped every day. Doesn't this mean that for those times your scaled up daily pumped volume estimate (line 77 in your spreadsheet) should be calculated as line73 * 24 * 18? For run 30M this corresponds to 0.634 MW rather than the 0.846 MW that you list for 24 pumps. Your use of the "1MW" base is fair either way.

  • Alan Fletcher


    Hi Alan. I don't think you have exactly grasped the point I am making and the evidence for it. I'll fill you in,


    There is a crucial document that was published on the court docket for the recent lawsuit. This is document 207-55 which is a composite of daily logs kept separately by Fabiani and Rossi during the operations of the 1-year test and of several of Penon's reports including his final report. You can view and download this document from a wonderful resource page maintained by Abd Ul-Ramen Lomax (http://coldfusioncommunity.net…en-docket-and-case-files/).


    Fabiani's log, shown in the first part of the document, records the trouble the group was having with the Big Frankie (BF) units in August and September of 2015. BF4 (the unit nearest the floor) was a particular problem. On August 18 there is the following notation (translated from Italian via the internet) "Isolated Reactor 4 output power delivered to 750kwh/h (short circuit heating boilers)". I believe this signifies that BF4 has been taken off line and the overall power output of the plant taken down to 3/4 MW. In this same time frame we see that according to Penon's reports (207-55, page 22) the water being pumped has been taken down from 36,000 L/day to 27,000 L/day. This is, I think what you have in mind.


    The troubles continued throughout the rest of August and September. Penon's reports show 27,000 L/day being pumped each and every day during this time. Finally, on October 1 2015 the pumping rate goes back up to 36,000 L/day and the reported energy production goes back to 1 MW (actually it went to 2.03E10+7 Wh/day which is 0.845MW, but this was always the maximum for the plant over the entire 1-year trial). One would think that everything is back to normal but that isn't true. Penon visited the plant on Oct 12-14 and found that the bottom-most Big Frankie (BF4) had been taken permanently offline. During this visit he made measurements on the energy absorption of BF units 1, 2, and 3 but not BF 4 (visible in document 207-58 on page 10). In his deposition (also available at Lomax's site http://coldfusioncommunity.net…t-and-case-files/#Neutral) he was asked why he didn't measure BF4 and in essence he replies that he ignored it because it wasn't working (see page 193 of the deposition in document 207-10 ). And yet on these days Penon reports that the plant was still pumping 36,000 L/day and producing energy at near 1MW .


    You might think that the pump outputs for the inactive BF unit was redirected to the remaining Big Frankies. But there is no evidence of this. Instead, in a photograph that Engineer48 prepared, one can see no difference in the routing of the tubes coming out of the pumps compared with earlier photos. And, if you follow the metal piping of the collective output you see that, unlike for the active units, it has been stripped of its insulation (because it is no longer carrying hot water), and that the sight glass of the BF unit it goes into shows that the unit is dry. So no water is flowing through these pumps




    By the way, this photo shows why I think that the output head is only inches high for the active pumps. Engineer48 has indicated with yellow arrows the flow pattern of condensate around the units. The horizontal yellow lines are at the levels of the meniscus in some of the sight glasses and so show the water levels in the BF units. You can see they are only slightly above the pumps.


    OK. I hope I have been able to make a case that from October on, the plant was operating on only 18 pumps and yet officially pumping 36,000 L/day and producing energy at its maximum rate. Let me know if you have any observations on all of this.

  • Is the general idea that the steam made in the boilers is drawn into the main outlet pipe by relative vacuum (caused by condensation in the Customer side) in order to get 0 barg at the outlet point of the Plant?


    Otherwise there would be pressure in the BF boiler units.


    There are smaller pipes from the BFs before the main outlet pipe collector, possibly representing a restriction. (The outlet from the BF is relatively small).


    I don't quite follow the whole steam pressure from source to condenser plan.


    What I am getting at is, what is the pressure inside the BF? Regardless of the pump lift, which is minimal, how does the BF interior maintain 0 barg?

  • What I am getting at is, what is the pressure inside the BF? Regardless of the pump lift, which is minimal, how does the BF interior maintain 0 barg?


    I've been wondering too. It has to be higher than 0 barg or the steam would not head out of the reactor container. To achieve 0 barg at the measuring point requires a balance between upstream pressure and downstream suction but I no idea how to calculate how precise this balance has to be. Is it relatively unlikely that the measuring point is exactly 0 barg or is it broadly possible under many circumstances.