Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • Alan - thanks for shedding light on the pump issue, it is much appreciated. To return the favour, when you have finished with the pump stuff, I will do a compete 100% disclosure (with spreadsheet) of the calculations about the vanishing heat exchanger, which indeed cannot work, but not for the reason most people think...

  • 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.

    I'm going to make a confident prediction that Smith's stated maximum flow rate of 32 liters per hour, with no qualification, is bunk. We'll see how high it goes.

  • Eric,

    I predict it will be well above Smith's stated 32 l/h maximum. Whether it is high enough to account for Penon's numbers is anyone's guess right now. And this is a used pump, whose performance might be degraded. So there is a non-zero probability that we will need to follow up these tests using a new pump. If we get to that point, I might be willing to foot the cost there as well, although would be nice if others decided to pitch in.

  • I will judge the result of the pump testing with the (very) little relevant technical knowledge I have; I will probably just defer to you guys, so I very much hope you can come to agreement.

    The results will probably have little bearing on my assessment of the plausibility of the whole Doral thing, but I find them interesting nonetheless.

  • I'll admit, it's a moving target. But this was foundational to IH's case, and THH has hammered on it for a long time. It will be good to have some independent data.

    No, I have not hammered on this. The only one of the tech isues that was 100% - which I hammered on - was the impossibility of a 1MW heat exchanger - or anything remotely like - according to the design Rossi stated he used. I've offered to defend that in detail here (It needs detail, because there is an apparent way to weasel out of the wrong heat transfer coefficient being used).

    I've kept pretty quiet about the other test stuff because frankly it is contradictory. We can say that the numbers provided do not make sense, but how they are spoofed remains unclear. In that situation guys like you will (incorrectly) take any incorrect gueses about how they are spoofed as:

    (a) evidence the guesser is in league with Satan

    (b) strong evidence that in fact the test is good.

    That having been said, I'm standing by my guess of 40.5l/h for the pump flowrate.

  • Fair point. I assume you'll be minimising the height difference between the pump and the input tank then?

    Ideally I'll use a tall, narrow tank for the output, and a flat, wide tank for the input. I'm guessing the bottom of the output tank will be no more than one foot above the bottom of the input tank. The top of the output tank has to be low enough that the output height starts at ZERO, that is, level with the center-line of the pump.

    This assumes I'm using a gravity feed to drain the output tank into the input tank. I could put in a .... ummmm ... recirculating pump to do this, giving me more geometric freedom.

    Edit : I still don't think the suction end is a big deal. But I can run some short tests into a small container, with the input tank at various heights, to see if there's a significant effect.

    What I need right now is a bag'o'plumbers tools ... just like the Krivits photo that Mary Y keeps gloating about. :P

  • According to Bruce_H at…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).

    For obvious reasons, this is just stupid.

    If one already has a pump in the circuit capable of delivering whatever silly total flow claimed by Signor Rossi, there is no need whatever for a metering pump,

    All one needs to get the desired flow is an adjustable valve on its outlet, and a flowmeter. Possibly a top-up reservoir to ensure the circuit is always full of water.

    To be really clever, link the flowmeter to the valve.

  • It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that Prominent pump model numbers incorporate the MAXIMUM rated flow in litres/hour as their last 2 digits.

    Nor that their own blurb tells us that for the 0232 tells us that the maximum stroke rate, which cannot be exceeded, is 180 strokes/minute, and that that would, at maximum stroke length of 1.25mm, deliver 650 mL/minute = about 39 litres/hour

    If anyone is suggesting that 32l/hr is a MINIMUM flow rate, then I can guarantee that they have no experience whatsoever of diaphragm metering pumps

  • There are two questions at hand :

    a) what is the maximum measured flow rate for various outlet heights

    Addressing Smith's claim that you can't move 1MW's worth of water with those pumps

    b) what is the fluctuation of the flow rate over (say) a month.

    Addressing Murray (?) and Jed's hypothesis that the flow won't be rock steady.

    I have NO experience of diaphragm metering pumps.

    The spec says "MINIMUM" ... but I think that means that if you set the stroke length and rate to MAXIMUM then you will get AT LEAST 32l/hr at 2 Bars.

  • Then you might want to ask the manufacturer why their specs and manual state that it is a minimum flow rate.

    It is a bit weird, 'minimum guaranteed' would be clearer phrasing but for this type of pump you don't expect the flow rate to be much above this value. In fact there is no physical way it can be.

    I think Smith taking 32l/h off the faceplate as a max is reasonable if he states he is assuming 2 bar and didn't use the manual. Otherwise it is a strange mistake to make and could be seen as suspicious. As pump manuals go this one is pretty clear.

  • I appreciate the effort here but I'm wondering, has anybody (preferably a native speaker) contacted the manufacturer and asked what the operating range is for the pump in question? They usually are more than happy to provide the answer. Ask them what a reasonable maximum flow capacity can expected for this pump. If the manufacturer gives a value high enough then the experiment probably is not going to tell us much.

    Also the flow rate is specified as 'dosing rate.' My guess is that certain applications require the injection of a certain rate of liquid in which case you want to make sure the pump provides at least that amount. Of course one also would be interested in the maximum rate but the dosing rate as a minimum rate makes sense to me.