Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • IH Fanboy


    We now have 2 sources indicating that that one of the Big Frankie units was out of commission on October 13 2015 ... one of the days when Penon was visiting the Doral site. The first source is the Penon report for that date showing the currents drawn by each of the reactors in BFs 1, 2, and 3 with BF4 not in the list. The second is Murray's letter to Penon in which he states that one BF unit was out of commission on that day.


    With BF4 out of commission, that leaves only 18 pumps to carry the 36000 Litres of water that Penon lists as being pumped on that day. But this contradicts the results of the experiments you sponsored. I would like you to address this specifically. If you think "spare pumps" were used, then how are they hooked up into the system? I don't see how. If you think that a data point in the Penon report is mistaken, then which one?

  • If you think "spare pumps" were used, then how are they hooked up into the system? I don't see how. If you think that a data point in the Penon report is mistaken, then which one?


    The BFs were not the only e-Cats at Doral. And as for the specific data point that might be mistaken for that day, it would be the 36,000 l/d number.

  • IHFB - he described the heat exchanger in detail to his expert, and stated how he got the tune it was made of - it had no fins.


    Bad luck.


    Wong did his own calculations based on information that he had. Nobody ever asked Rossi about whether fins were used--at least not in the depos we have access to. It is well-known that Rossi uses this method to dissipate heat. I suspect if the heat exchanger existed, it used fins. It would have all come out during the trial, which is why I was somewhat disappointed when it settled.

  • IHF wrote:

    Wong did his own calculations based on information that he had.

    Wong did his calculations based on information supplied by Rossi. Wong saw nothing of a heat exchanger.


    Rossi got the gist of the heat exchanger specs from reading ECW explanations, then explained the feasible-on-Rossi’s-paper results to Wong.

  • The reason the whole pump issue is such an obvious fail is because the only way to "get" a pump rate that is remotely close to being plausible is under the condition of near-zero (or even more absurdly negative) outlet pressure. Which makes no practical sense in any functioning fluid circuit. If you have no outlet pressure (or negative pressure as IHFB has posited), then you don't need a pump, it just gets in the way of the flow that would happen anyway. That's why there is no data provided by the manufacturer for low to zero pressure (or negative as plotted by Alan F.): there is no plausible use case for such low outlet pressure. And it gets worse: these are expensive pumps because they are designed to precisely meter the flow rate. But again, the only way to "get" a flow rate remotely close to the stated flow is to have all the pumps at maximum flow rate. (As Bruce__H shows and Alan F. confirms, 18 pumps fall short of the capacity needed for 36Kl flow, even under the absurd near zero or negative outlet pressure assumption). Any reasonable system requiring precisely metered flow would have the pumps operating well below the max so that they could effectively regulate the flow to spec. And any system that had negative or zero outlet pressure would eliminate the pumps entirely and replace them with a metering flow valve or restricter. And finally, Alan F.s result from the actual pump tested do not support adequate flow, even with all the absurd assumptions that can "get" an answer close to the flow rate: the only way to do that is to assume that a new pump would have higher flow than the old pump actually tested, based on the data showing that the old pump was not meeting the performance level provided by the manufacturer, and then applying a linear assumption in extrapolating what the performance of new pumps would be.


    I appreciate the effort and empirical research and analysis that IHFB sponsored and Alan F. performed on an identical model of one of these dosimetric pumps.


    What those results show is that is that there is no reasonable scenario where these pumps could have met the reported flow rate with 18 pumps.


    The far more credible explanation is that Rossi built his shoddy stagecraft with cool looking racks of pumps with digital readouts to bamboozle IH and other non-technical witnesses into thinking he had a real product, when all he really had was an elaborate scam.

  • I couldn't agree with you more - dummy E-cats, pumps and meters set up to bamboozle IH. A simple electric water heater/steam generator concealed within a mass of tubes and confusing wiring was the order of the day - psychological tricks of the maestro - and moving on to his SK - the droning hypnotic voice, the mesmerising 'ballerina' light source (Hg gas discharge or similar) with his silly puppet song at the end - surely more psychological tricks to entrap the weak-minded Rossiites?

  • The BFs were not the only e-Cats at Doral.


    Murray's letter to Penon notes that " ... at the time you completed the “MW1-USA electrical measurement” chart on

    October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units,..."

    Fabiani's notes show that all of these small ecats were permanently taken off line just before the 1-year test at the Doral site began (but just after Penon had paid his first official visit). Fabiani and Barry West both say that this is because they were electrically dangerous. West, who was responsible for the power wiring of the ecat systems, says that they were then stripped of their wiring.

  • The far more credible explanation is that Rossi built his shoddy stagecraft with cool looking racks of pumps with digital readouts to bamboozle IH and other non-technical witnesses into thinking he had a real product, when all he really had was an elaborate scam.


    And this highly probable explanation of it being a scam approaches virtual certainty when viewed in the context of Rossi's long history of promoting elaborate scams:

    • Petroldragon elaborate scam: tens of millions of dollars of cleanup and persistent toxic waste site to this day in Italy
    • Thermoelectric device elaborate scam: DoD contract with millions of dollars squandered by the US government with no working product
    • Fake engineering degree scam: Purchased a fraudulent engineering masters degree from now non-existent fraudulent Kensington University in California
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: wet steam dribbling out of a rubber hose in the wall as Rossi manually fiddles with relay switches to "demo" his "reactor" with lead shielding
    • 10K E-Cat elaborate scam: pure nickel 62 salted "ash", followed by salted copper "ash" to intrigue and bamboozle unassuming Swedish scientists, Cook, and others
    • 1MW E-Cat elaborate scam: dummy reactors performing the same as active reactors, fake customer, electric heating strips, imaginary silent heat exchanger with large imaginary fans venting out the mezzanine fixed glass side window "disappears" the day after the 350 day "test" completes, etc., etc., etc.
    • Plasma QX elaborate scam: plastic sprinkler parts presented in Stockholm with tricky plan to manually switch on the unit caught on video.
    • Plasma SK elaborate scam: 7 "camera angles" complete with "ballerina" and satisfying conclusion via musical puppet show conducted from Rossi's home condo "headquarters" (as verified by Frank Acland) where he purportedly will remotely control over the internet "reactors" that he says caused him illness due to radiation exposure in testing, but will provide heat to industrial "satisfied customers".

    None of the above have resulted in anything useful, most have resulted in sizable financial loss to others, except the last two, which to date have at least resulted in a sizable waste of time.

  • ... as for the specific data point that might be mistaken for that day, it would be the 36,000 l/d number.


    Any other days on which this might be mistaken? There is no evidence that the faulty BF was ever used again -- a photo taken by IH personnel during their walkaround on the final day of operations at the Doral site shows the piping leading from the pumps on the bottom BF have been physically disconnected from the BF itself and that the sight glass on that BF has no meniscus showing -- so do we now suppose that there are other days between October 13 2015 and the end of the trial on which the 36000 L/d figure also is wrong?

  • Wong did his calculations based on information supplied by Rossi. Wong saw nothing of a heat exchanger.


    Rossi got the gist of the heat exchanger specs from reading ECW explanations, then explained the feasible-on-Rossi’s-paper results to Wong.



    We only saw portions of most depos. Wong might have been told by Rossi to do a calculation based just on the piping as a worst-case calculation, ignoring any fins. We have no idea what else might be involved that never made it into the snippets of the record that we have. Either side might have this kind of information and withheld it from the initial briefing, with plans to introduce more evidence during trial.

  • What those results show is that is that there is no reasonable scenario where these pumps could have met the reported flow rate with 18 pumps.


    You and Bruce keep hanging your hat on this one. Seems kind of tenuous to me. The flow rates measured by Alan are consistent with 3 BF @ 27k l/d, and 4 BF @ 36k l/d. And that is mostly what we see in the logs. Yeah, you guys pin-pointed a time period in the log that doesn't match up. Okay, well done. But most of the data comports.

  • You and Bruce keep hanging your hat on this one. Seems kind of tenuous to me. The flow rates measured by Alan are consistent with 3 BF @ 27k l/d, and 4 BF @ 36k l/d. And that is mostly what we see in the logs. Yeah, you guys pin-pointed a time period in the log that doesn't match up. Okay, well done. But most of the data comports.


    I think that's pretty compelling evidence given the testimony that the system leaked all over the place and specifically that one of the BF's was shut down completely, consistent with photographic evidence.


    But dismissing that compelling argument for a moment, since I've no need to "hang my hat" on merely that, what about:

    - absurd assumption of near zero or negative outlet pressure in a working fluid circuit?

    - absurd assumption that dosimetric pumps were all set to max (though there is no evidence showing what they were actually set to)?

    - actual empirical results from Alan F. operating under absurd conditions still don't meet the stated flow rate unless up-rated to presumed performance of a new pump using a linear assumption applied to performance outside the manufacturer's specifications to extrapolate the estimated performance of a new pump?

  • But dismissing that for the moment, what about:

    - absurd assumption of near zero or negative outlet pressure in a working fluid circuit?

    - absurd assumption that dosimetric pumps were all set to max (though there is no evidence showing what they were actually set to)?

    - actual empirical results from Alan F. still don't meet stated flow rate unless up-rated to presumed performance of a new pump using a linear assumption applied to performance outside the manufacturer's specifications to extrapolate the estimated performance of a new pump?


    Dang Sig. Not sure why these need to be re-hashed SO MANY TIMES.


    - There was a pump on the other side of the wall to send the condensate back to the e-Cat side. You could very well have some negative pressure at the outlet of the e-Cats. There was some professional steam guy on the forums a couple of years ago that vouched for this--and that it was a common setup.

    - The dosimetric pumps would probably be set to max settings--why wouldn't they? And they don't have to run at Alan's measured max flow rates to hit the Doral pump numbers.

    - Alan measured what the pumps actually pump. IH's experts misread the manual on rated pump flow rates. That is a rich history in and of itself.


    It is remarkable how many straw men have been knocked down here over the years.


  • I can guarantee you that running racks of dosimetric pumps all at max is not a "common setup". As to this vague reference to a "professional steam guy" I'm extremely skeptical. It would help if you can find that reference.


    I've explained over and over why setting dosimetric pumps all to max makes no sense if you need precise control. What happens, for example if conditions change slightly (temperature, pressure, etc.) such that you need 101% of max. And if your reply is that it was designed so that this would never happen, how can you argue that precise dosimetric pumps were needed at all. Methinks you've never designed a controlled circuit.


    IHFB: "Alan measured what the pumps actually pump. IH's experts misread the manual on rated pump flow rates. That is a rich history in and of itself."


    You didn't respond to my point on that. Alan F. plots two curves (actually a set of data points): one from the actual measured output of the pump you bought him, and one curve above that which is a linear extrapolation of the actual measured output, which is Alan's estimate of performance of a new pump. The actual measured output of the old pump, multiplied by the number of pumps, still does not meet the stated flow rate.


    (That's why the Internal Quatloo Revenue Service [IQRS] confiscated all your Quatloos and gave them to me.) ;-)


    And finally, it was Rossi who misinterpreted the manual regarding rated pump flow rates and the use of "minimum" and "maximum" regarding performance. I had to hammer that issue over and over to you. I'm can't remember if you ever conceded that, but it became moot, as Alan F. performed the empirical tests which demonstrated that Rossi's asserted statements were an incorrect interpretation.


  • How does it condensate? There are insulated pipes with less length than the supply pipe coming from the Plant used to cool the 'steam' into liquid.

    'Steam' is amazingly (supposedly) moving 145 mph into 4 lengths of pipe, with fairly sharp (but smooth) turns, somehow transfers at least 1MW/s into a sealed and insulated container (which in short order should be almost as hot as the 'steam' coming in), and suddenly it is water than can be pumped out.

    Miraculous.

  • @Sig,


    The orange curve is the Prominent pump. Edit: I just realized that you think Alan didn't measure the Prominent pump numbers all the way to 0 bar. He did. The red dots occlude the orange dots. Edit2: Sig is right I was wrong. BUT see below. Measured flow rate values still support the stated flow rates in Doral.


    http://lenr.qumbu.com/prominent/run40/PROM-171218-02.png


    With outlet pressure of 0 bar, you are just above 72 L/hr. This is significantly higher than what is needed to support the Doral numbers.


    18 pumps (3BFs) = 72 l/hr * 18 * 24 = 31104 l/d, which is > 27,000 l/d.


    24 pumps (4Bfs) = 72 l/hr * 24 * 24 = 41,472 l/d, which is > 36,000 l/d.


    Despite what ya'll would love otherwise, the Prominent pumps are well capable of pumping the stated flow rates in Doral.


    And you might not want to bring up Quatloos, as you know I'm very far ahead in those measurements!


  • Sorry, I won and have all your Quatloos.


    The reason is that the orange/red dots are not from an actual pump. You don't know that those points are accurate. They are mathematical extrapolations assuming linear up-rating based on manufacturer specs in the region that they show performance, and then extrapolating that uprated performance to the absurdly low outlet pressure not provided by the manufacturers. You realize that, right?


    Or are you now asserting that you empirically tested a new pump? If so, you better check with Alan on that - I highly doubt he'll back you up on that.

    But if you need to negotiate a Quatloo loan, I'm willing to help you out. The bet was that your empirical tests would show inadequate flow. Alan's test confirmed empirically that there was inadequate flow.


  • Whoa, I think you have a major misunderstanding here. Alan measured the Prominent pump to 0 bar. Alan can clarify if needed.


    Edit: Sig is right I was wrong. BUT see below. Measured flow rate values still support the stated flow rates in Doral.

  • Whoa, I think you have a major misunderstanding here. Alan measured the Prominent pump to 0 bar. Alan can clarify if needed.


    What do you think "Red: Fletcher scaled to Prominent at .5 bar" refers to? I think you are the confused one here. Please check with Alan F.


    The red dots are NOT empirically tested data points - they are the estimated performance ASSUMING manufacturer's rated performance and EXTRAPOLATING outside the manufacturer's provided specs. Alan F. explained this already. So again, please check in with him on this.