Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • OK - I take it back. I too would obviously be easily fooled by Rossi. I don't expect tricks!

    Were you fooled by the Penon report? Did you not see it was flawed?


    If you were not fooled by that report, I do not think you would be fooled if you had the opportunity to examine the machine itself while it was operating. I expect you would say, "if there is a megawatt of heat coming out of this machine, why isn't this whole warehouse hot?" Everyone I know who saw it said that. They saw many of the other problems described by Murray in his questions to Rossi.


    In short, I don't think he fooled anyone, other than the inhabitants of Planet Rossi. It seems to me they want to be fooled. They are fooling themselves. If anything, they lead and Rossi follows. They suggest nonsensical explanations such as endothermic material that absorbs a megawatt of heat for months, and then Rossi chimes in and says "yeah, that's what it was!"

  • Perhaps really IH didn't properly load those reactors, which didn't work for that very reason. Darden couldn't put the correct fuel even when he gave the reactor to Boeing to test it. IH was not even able to do such a basic thing ..... but then they continued to argue that if they could not do functional reactors was because Rossi hadn't given them the right information. The hypothesis that they were incapable seems to me much more plausible.


    No one one involved with the Doral test ever said that the small E-Cats failed to produce excess power. They were shut down apparently because of water leaks and grounding problems. Rossi never complained about this as far as I know. Do you know any different?

  • No one one involved with the Doral test ever said that the small E-Cats failed to produce excess power.

    On the contrary, everyone I know (other than Rossi and Penon) who was involved in the Doral test said there was no excess heat. They sent me sample data and based on that, I agreed.


    Have you read the reports from Penon, Murray and Smith? If you have, and you still think there was excess power from any part of that reactor, then you and I have vastly different technical standards and I do not think we can ever agree about anything.


    The most damning evidence against the Doral test was the Penon report, which was uploaded by Rossi himself. It was on the basis of this report, and nothing else, that he demanded $267 million. Do you think he deserved the $267 million? Did you find that report convincing?

  • Admins : can you please move all posts not directly related to the Gamma L TESTS to ... some other thread?

    I got the scale. It displays in grams, though its accuracy is +-0.2 oz = +-4g

    Zero-tared the scale with the cylinder, then carefully added water (drop by drop) until it reached 1.000 : the meniscus-level in poor light looks good.

    HOPE to try a wet run tomorrow ...

    I plan to video-record the SCALE and note the time at selected events.

    1. start pump ... wait until the flow stabilizes

    2. record "low level" weight and time

    3. record "high level" weight and time

    4. stop pump


    Main question is how quickly the display keeps track of the changing weight. But now I'm not limited to 1 liter, so I can do longer runs to get more data.

    IF I think it's not keeping track dynamically then I'll go back to the "volume" test method:

    1. prime pump then stop it

    2. zero-tare the tank (don't need to empty it).

    3. start the pump and record the on-time

    4. stop the pump and record the off-time

    5. read the static weight pumped

  • Alan Fletcher


    I think that once Alan Smith's adjustable back pressure valve reaches you, you will be able to use it not just to put pressure on the pump discharge tube, but to put pressure on the inlet as well. According to my deficient understanding of these back pressure valves they are basically just leaky faucets that leak whenever the pressure is more than what you have asked for. You should therefore be able to place the valve in 1 leg of a Y junction like this one ...


    https://www.homedepot.ca/en/ho…3ErAV1EAYYAyABEgLz-vD_BwE


    At the inlet goes your regular household tap pressure, at one of the outlets goes the back pressure valve, and in the other outlet goes tubing leading to the pump inlet. The back pressure valve should leak whenever the pressure is above your setpoint leaving whatever is going down the tubing to the pump inlet at your desired pressure.


    I think that the 2 most important trials not yet done are


    1) outlet back pressure of 0.5-2 bar to see if the pump matches its specifications


    2) atmospheric (0barg) outlet pressure but perhaps 0.5 barg inlet pressure. This is the configuration in which one would most expect to see overpumping and is also the configuration that Rossi et al have been suggesting recently.


  • I agree with this. Just a comment. the idea that you should use one of these pumps with a reverse pressure of 0.5 bar is risible. It means essentially that there is a more powerful pump somewhere else in the system which is dominant in controlling the flow. It also requires the water reservoir to be pressurised: contrary to all previous statements (and the test plan) showing this to be an open system.


    With such extreme retrospective rewriting of the test setup almost anything can be post hoc justified. It offends my sense of justice.

  • THH


    Yes. The idea that seems to be abroad is that there is a pump somewhere on the JMP side that does many things in a way so novel that Mr Rossi can't even speak about it for fear of endangering some patent application. The way I read all this is that there will be a claim that the net flow through the Prominent pumps will be a sum of the imposed flow from this master pump and the "topping up" contribution from the working of the Prominent pumps themselves. Fortunately this is an empirical statement that Mr Fletcher can investigate.

  • @ Bob,

    2) It does not matter if this test shows the pumps cannot produce the volume needed.

    I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.


    It can provide some hints on the physical factors affecting the real flow of the pump, but it can't say nothing about the human factors that eventually decide which value will be declared by the testers.


    In the Ecat saga, there are reasons to deem that the most important human factor is the propensity of the many actors to deliberately misrepresent the real data. Let's call it the Misrepresentation Propensity Factor (MPF). It's impossible to test the real MPF of a person, especially if he is aware of being under scrutiny. The only way to get a rough estimation of someone's MPF is deducing it from information released when there was a good confidence that nobody would have checked the reliability of his statements.


    That's the reason why the best opportunity to estimate the MPF of the people involved in the Ecat story is provided by the earliest tests, in particular by the January 2011 demo, the first diffused on the web, when the endorsement of a few academics seemed able to provide a sufficient protection against any questioning about the truthfulness of the data used to calculate the excess heat, so that it was not paid too much attention in publishing a lot of collateral information (pictures, videos, interviews, etc.).


    Speaking of pumps, we can for example estimate the MPF of the author of the calorimetric report of the January 2011 demo (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf). In this report, he wrote that the water flux was "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s", ie 17.6 L/h. But the information available on the web show that he knew that the max output of the pump (the yellow one) was only 12 L/h, and, moreover, he couldn't ignore that during the demo this pump was operated at a much lower speed than the maximum. So you can easily deduce that his MPF is indeed very high, ie he has (as regard the Ecat stuff) a high propensity to deliberately misrepresent the experimental data under his control. That's also the main reason why the Ferrara and Lugano reports, signed by him as lead author, have no merit at all.


    The same reasoning applies to the all the other persons who contributed to the writing of the January 2011 calorimetric report, and that were aware of the real characteristics of the pump. Several people. Not only Rossi!


    When the truth is based on sb'says, it's first necessary to calibrate the persons, not the instruments.

  • I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.

    With this I agree. Andrea Rossi's e-Cat is a Schrödinger's cat and will be until it hits the market, which is the final and ultimate arbiter. One of the purposes of this test is to expose the faux certainty of Jed, Sig, Zorud, Shane, and others (and indeed most participants of lenr-forum).

  • @ IH Fanboy,

    One of the purposes of this test is to expose the faux certainty of Jed, Sig, Zorud, Shane, and others (and indeed most participants of lenr-forum).


    I don't know what the real purpose of this test is, but it is evident that it is going to repeat with the Prominent red pump, what has been already done in 2011 with the LMI yellow pump. The difference is that while the present test is affected by many uncertainties due to the unknown real configuration of the pump, in 2011 the pump was calibrated for 2 weeks by the testers themselves:


    Quote


    Excerpt from: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf


    The flow rate, Levi continued, was measured with a high precision scale. “The flow rate was 146 g in 30 seconds. Using a simple measurement gives a simple result. There was a pump putting in a constant flux and what I have done is – with the reactor completely off take measurements – we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration. After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment. […]



    So there is no uncertainty here. The tester (*) knew which was the real output of the pump, but he issued a document, under the aegis of his university, reporting a much higher value. This is sufficient to consider all this story a farce since the beginning.

    Many other people, who contributed to write and revise the report, knew the performances of the yellow pump, including someone cited by you, but the report has been eventually issued without any reference to the discrepancy between the maximum output of the pump and the allegedly measured flow. This fact is sufficient to determine the lack of credibility of any successive development of the Ecat story and of its protagonists (*).



    (*) I'm not talking about Rossi, he is not a scientist, all the credibility in the Ecat performances comes exclusively from the academics who participated to this saga.


  • While I don't follow all of Ascoli65's logic here his identification of the flowrate issue in that early test is well documented and influenced me to view any such data introduced by Levi with great skepticism. And, indeed, it is consistent with the Lugano test, where again Levi makes a fundamental mistake that allows a COP=1 system to be measured as COP=3.


    IHFB is simply biassed, so he does not consider the positive nature of the errors in Rossi tests, but there is a consistent pattern.

  • Many other people, who contributed to write and revise the report, knew the performances of the yellow pump, including someone cited by you, but the report has been eventually issued without any reference to the discrepancy between the maximum output of the pump and the allegedly measured flow.

    Please source your accusations. You have provided no evidence.

  • @ THHuxleynew,

    And, indeed, it is consistent with the Lugano test, where again Levi makes a fundamental mistake that allows a COP=1 system to be measured as COP=3.


    There is a major problem with the terminology here. If your "again" is with respect to what Levi, and others, did in January 2011, they are not "mistakes", unless in English this word applies also to deliberate misrepresentations of experimental data.


    Quote


    IHFB is simply biassed, so he does not consider the positive nature of the errors in Rossi tests, but there is a consistent pattern.


    I don't understand what "positive nature" means in this context. Anyway, I find also biased to speak about "Rossi tests", it gives the wrong impression that all the responsibilities lie on a single person. Actually, they were "Ecat tests", not necessarily designed by Rossi. For instance, the January 14, 2011 demo was an "Ecat UniBo test", and under this name it has been presented to the public:

    .