Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

Calibration?

Nice idea.

I haven't looked at pumps since college, but some thoughts for what they're worth...

This is a solenoid pump, they are designed for reproducible flow rates over large pressure ranges. I think Rossi is purposely making a big deal of the pressure dependence knowing full well it is mostly relevant for centrifugal pumps. The pump manual shows a capacity correction factor of 1.1 for 0.5 bar relative to 1 bar, with a very slow increase with reducing pressure. It is highly unlikely that it will increase above 1.2 for pressures of 0.1 or 0.2 bar (I haven't looked at the test system but these pressures seem quite low for any system involving work or losses) leading to an optimistic capacity of 43.2 l/h at max stroke and rate. Connecting other pumps etc shouldn't make a difference here, the flow is driven by a moving diaphragm in a fixed size container with inflow and outflow stopper valves, this is very different to a centrifugal pump. There is no chance in hell of reaching 75 l/h without using trickery to exceed the max stroke rate, as the container surrounding the diaphragm would need to be nearly twice the volume that it currently is for this to happen.

Regarding the 'minimum' capacity, this is more word-play. Minimum here is the manufacturer saying that they guarantee the capacity won't be below this for water at a certain temp etc. They show an expected range of -5 to+10%, so again being generous that is 1.15*43.2 = 50 l/h absolute tops. I think it is pretty fair to replace 'minimum capacity' with 'expected capacity' here.

Also I hope the poor pump didn't get too hot with all the excess heat, since its max operating internal and external temps are only about 50 degrees.

Quote from Eric Walker

Just to collect the source of the "0.2 bar" number for future reference, it was mentioned in a question of Mats Lewan that he put to Rossi. (Presumably the number came from Rossi at some point earlier in the interview.)

Eric,

You are right on the interview with Mats Lewan where indeed .2 Bar is stated

However that contradicts his published notes about the Smith report in which he states that the average water column height was 1 meter, (or .1 Bar)

LDM, I'm not trying to assert that it was 0.2 bar. I just wanted to have the data point on hand for easy reference, and also so that it could be considered as one of the parameter values being tested.

I personally would not even want to attempt to sort out what the true pressure was on the basis of statements and evidence available to us.

I think your 'H' should include the height from 'input tank water level' to 'pump'

Quote from Jimmy

Regarding the 'minimum' capacity, this is more word-play. Minimum here is the manufacturer saying that they guarantee the capacity won't be below this for water at a certain temp etc. They show an expected range of -5 to+10%, so again being generous that is 1.15*43.2 = 50 l/h absolute tops. I think it is pretty fair to replace 'minimum capacity' with 'expected capacity' here.

Good comment. But I would like to point out that Smith clearly went with "Maximum" of 32 l/h in his "expert" report. And Rossi has called him on it.

Quote from Eric Walker

LDM, I'm not trying to assert that it was 0.2 bar. I just wanted to have the data point on hand for easy reference, and also so that it could be considered as one of the parameter values being tested.

I personally would not even want to attempt to sort out what the true pressure was on the basis of statements and evidence available to us.

I didn't think that you where trying to assert that the pressure was .2 Bar

The reason for bringing up the .1 bar was the same as yours, being a possible set-point parameter to be tested.

I don't want to distract too much from Alan's efforts. But I think it is important for everyone to understand one of the purposes for this effort. IH's expert Rick Smith stated unequivocally that the pump had a maximum rating of 32 l/h. See p. 16:

On the next page (p. 17), he then went on to make the following comparison, stating that the four BF units were only capable of outputting 482 KW thermal, whereas Penon reported thermal outputs of between 517 KW and 846 KW.

Smith then concluded that Penon's reported numbers must be incorrect and the entire ERV report invalid on this basis:

In addition, Dewey has stated here on this forum: "A specific metering pump was designed to deliver strokes per minute with a specific diaphragm capacity and as a result, it is impossible a particular pump to go much above capacity, pressure independent.

Pace nailed it and there is an affidavit available to that effect . . . ."

A similar pump, having the same specification as the pump used by Rossi, has been purchased from e-Bay. While it's a used pump, and may be a dud, it may not be, and hopefully it can at least give us some data points, and we can extrapolate its performance out to 24 feed pumps (as used by Rossi), and determine whether Penon's numbers are viable or not.

According to Bruce_H at http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/…ssi-gets-back-all-rights/ it seems like Rossi now claims that there is a recirculator that "pushed water into the inlet side of the Prominent pumps attached to the E-Cat devices. This supposedly helped each one deliver the 75 l/hour of water into the system".

I guess this will be the explanation used if it turns out in Allans testing that the pump doesn't deliver Edit: 5975l/h (corected after coments from IH Fanboy and Jimmy).

Quote from DNI

According to Bruce_H at http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/…ssi-gets-back-all-rights/ it seems like Rossi now claims that there is a recirculator that "pushed water into the inlet side of the Prominent pumps attached to the E-Cat devices. This supposedly helped each one deliver the 75 l/hour of water into the system".

I guess this will be the explanation used if it turns out in Allans testing that the pump doesn't deliver 75l/h.

The pump only need deliver ~56 l/h for Penon's numbers to be viable.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Slight change in Phase 1 setup. I'll report on all the heights, but since the level in the input doesn't stay constant only the height above the pump matters.

Here's a candidate for the output tank ... http://www.ebay.com/itm/Storag…db97ff:g:aCUAAOSwjqVZNIOC $22 + $40 shipping! though it's maybe not quite transparent enough for reading the level. (Lab quality is $300 !!) Will scout local hardware stores.

You've probably got it, put make sure that the funnel tubing is sized so that it doesn't just fill up and overflow. It is probably better to not put the tubing from the funnel under the water level in the output tank. If you are worried about splashing but a small screen between the water entry point and camera. The inflow should probably have a small but positive head relative to the pump to avoid bubbles. This type of pump shouldn't be too sensitive to suction head. You could also use dyes or a small float in the outlet to help with recording.

Quote from IH Fanboy

The pump only need deliver ~56 l/h for Penon's numbers to be viable.

Not exactly, Penon's numbers range from 517 to 896 kW with a typical value of 846 according to your numbers above. These a bigger than Smiths calcs by factors of 1.48, 1.76 and 1.86 respectively and flow rates of 47, 56 , 59.5 l/h. If the pump used is the same as the one you guys have bought, it is a metering pump and any suction head should have little effect (would be nice to check for yourselves). This is very different to a centrifugal pump, which is much more common. These metered pumps have inlet and outlet one way valves that open at fixed intervals. Pushing extra flow through it completely defeats the purpose of a metering pump and is...not sensible.

Smith did screw up in the report, but only by a factor of up to 1.3 at very worst....still well below the numbers Penon needs.

Quote from Jimmy

Not exactly, Penon's numbers range from 517 to 896 kW with a typical value of 846 according to your numbers above. These a bigger than Smiths calcs by factors of 1.48, 1.76 and 1.86 respectively and flow rates of 47, 56 , 59.5 l/h. If the pump used is the same as the one you guys have bought, it is a metering pump and any suction head should have little effect (would be nice to check for yourselves). This is very different to a centrifugal pump, which is much more common. These metered pumps have inlet and outlet one way valves that open at fixed intervals. Pushing extra flow through it completely defeats the purpose of a metering pump and is...not sensible.

Smith did screw up in the report, but only by a factor of up to 1.3 at very worst....still well below the numbers Penon needs.

Touché. 59.5 l/h not ~56 l/h. I had mistakenly used the "most common produced energy number" of 846 KW thermal rather than the "highest daily produced energy number" of 896 KW thermal. Whether Smith's screw up is only by a factor of 1.3 is what we are about to determine. Let's hope that it was a screw up and not something more sinister. I've pointed out other misdirection in Smith's report, so I'm quite skeptical.

Quote from IH Fanboy

The pump only need deliver ~56 l/h for Penon's numbers to be viable.

Just remember also that Penon's numbers are notes as reduced flow rate, and reduced by 10% from the measured by flowmeter flowrate. on Rossi's instructions.

For this purpose, the numbers are only viable if the (real, after reasonable tolerances) max flowrate can equal the flowmeter flowrate to within flowmeter tolerance.

So that is +11% on the reported (reduced flow rate) figures.

I'd expect the typical flowmeter rate to vary linearly with pressure, which means +26% from its faceplate rate of 32 l/h or 40.4l/h

The measured flowmeter rate (for most of the time) was 1500l/h or 62.4l/h, Nearly 50% higher.

So I'm going to make a cautious prediction of 40.5 l/h at low back-pressure, with an expected tolerance of no more than 10%. This is still way outside what is possible if the Rossi/Penon figures are good, thus showing that some assumption Penon makes must be wrong, or the data is fabricated.