Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

Quote from IH Fanboy

You ought to remember who lent you those quatloos.

You are right, Smith was wrong, and possibly malevolent. I say that because there is a pattern of misdirection in his report, some of which I've pointed out before. He said nothing of "conservative conditions." He said nothing of error margins, back pressure, or any qualifying language whatsoever. I might end up generously marking it up as a just a big mistake, but I'll make that determination once we see Alan's numbers.

At the end of the day, if they were mistakes, it appears that they cost IH some leverage during the settlement negotiations.

Well that's pretty speculative, as you have no evidence to back that up, other than possibly Rossi's interview with Mats, if you squint and look at it kind of sideways. What Rossi's statement about the pump actually shows is that he's either knowledgeably spinning fabrications to the ignorant, or he's just ignorant himself. Because his statements regarding solenoid driven dosimetric pumps are simply false. The pump issue was just one in a long line of damning evidence for anyone with technical knowledge. But the jury was not likely to be technically inclined, and therein lies the risk.

And you'll find that out soon enough how dosimetric pumps perform, once Allan posts his results.

Regarding Smith, he was using the flow rate given by the manufacturer on a dosimetric pump. The reason that pump costs 8 to 10 times more than the Grundfos centrifugal 'circulation' pump (that Rossi hid in the JMP side), is because it doesn't fluctuate much based on back pressure and other conditions. Why? Because it's dosimetric. It uses a solenoid to 'inject' a very predictable amount of fluid per time under a variety of conditions because that's what it is designed to do. BTW, notice how flat the back pressure curve is. That is quite strikingly different than the characteristics of a centrifugal pump. And the linear relationship on the manufacturers graph with stroke and rate is simply pointing out how stable the pump is and capable of highly controlled flow rates, by varying either the stroke length or the stroke rate).

So it wasn't unreasonable for Smith to use the manufacturers rating given the type of pump involved. Because the whole purpose of using a highly controllable dosimetric pump is to have precise control over the 'dose' (flow rate). Running the pump at the max rate AND max stroke makes little sense, since operation at the limit prevents there from being any control of flow (above the max, since it will have 'maxed out'). The rating the manufacturer gave is the upper end of what someone needing a precisely controlled pump could expect to work in their application. If you need to have precise flow higher than 32 l/h on a continuous basis, the solution is to buy the pump that is the next size up.

Why would anyone (except the Dottore) buy an expensive dosimetric pump and then run it continually at max stroke length and max stroke speed? You will then have lost the very capability that you paid so much extra for: the ability to precisely control the flow. Did Fabiani design computer control circuits for those pumps only to then set them continuously at their max? According to Rossi, not only were they at their max, they were running at almost double their max (which you will soon find out is impossible).

I got to hand it to the Dottore, he is a master of surfing plausible deniability to infinity and beyond!

So far, it's netted him 11.5 million dollars (minus legal fees) for rather crude stage craft. Not bad pay, if you can find the work!

Those digital readouts and the ability to control them with computers does make for good theatre, though, so there's that.

Quote from sigmoidal

The rating the manufacturer gave is the upper end of what someone needing a precisely controlled pump could expect to work in their application. If you need to have precise flow higher than 32 l/h on a continuous basis, the solution is to buy the pump that is the next size up.

So you are saying that when the manufacturer says minimum flow rate, it really means upper end? Having a tough time wrapping my head around that one. Maybe if the pump is completely maxed out, you lose some control, but at what flow rate is it completely maxed out? I guess we'll know soon enough.

Quote from IH Fanboy

So you are saying that when the manufacturer says minimum flow rate, it really means upper end? Having a tough time wrapping my head around that one. Maybe if the pump is completely maxed out, you lose some control, but at what flow rate is it completely maxed out? I guess we'll know soon enough.

Well not exactly 'upper end', and I can understand the confusion. The reason it's 'reversed' from what you want it to mean is that they are quoting it more like 'guaranteed performance'.

For example, their graph shows that for 144 strokes/minute (this is the 80% line two down from the top) and 70% stroke length (along the 'x' axis along the bottom), you get 'minimum' 20 l/h. (I chose that example because the line crosses at a convenient point to read).

At the max (100%) stroke rate of 180 strokes per minute, and the max stroke length (also 100%), the graph shows that you get 'minimum' 36 l/h (guaranteed performance). But that is the max the pump can deliver (unless there is some way to run the pump at more than 100% stroke rate of 180/min, or even less likely due to physical constraints, that you can somehow increase the stroke length beyond 100%).

But that is at 'medium' back pressure (which for this pump appears to be 1 bar, as that is where the correction factor k =1). To find out how performance varies based on other back pressures, you have to use the correction factor shown underneath. The correction factor (on the 'y' axis) is what you multiply the flow rate by to get the actual, as a function of back pressure (on the 'x' axis). So at .5 bar, you multiply the flow by about 1.08.

Don't make things complicated, if steam turbine is powered by steam, there is this thing that we called chimney or exit point of steam. This could be exploited and rigged back to to turbine. You only let go of steam if you intend to make rain.

Flow rate needs to be adjusted. It is simply the art of reduction, of-course calculations be made. You don't bite more than you could chew right? either way you'll get choked. Same concept to flowrate.

And at .1 or .2 bar back pressure? And are the curves in the graph conservative, accurate, or otherwise? This is why we are doing what we are doing.

experimentation beats speculation and skepticsm. find the right mix. He will guide you. It will be dependent on your temperature. Let's say you have a fire, on a stove. you put too much fuel, with less intake of oxygen, it will suffucate. too much air less fuel, decent amount of heat. fire is short lived. Works like a triangle. Possibilities of circle/circles is infinite. same principle applies right? hope you agree.

Quote from IH Fanboy

And at .1 or .2 bar back pressure? And are the curves in the graph conservative, accurate, or otherwise? This is why we are doing what we are doing.

Well, they don't say on their graph. So maybe it goes up to something 'big' like 1.2

But I hope you see the point that this is really a very flat 'correction factor' curve (or line). Especially in comparison to centrifugal pumps. That's because it's a dosimetric pump.

And yes, I applaud Alan F and your investigation. Perhaps Rossi found some bizarre operation mode of dosimetric pumps where they operate at twice the rated flow rate when operated way outside the normal range.

Given how these solenoid pumps work, I think that's exceedingly unlikely.

But you will find out for sure soon. And because of your generosity and desire for discovery and openness, we'll all get to know for sure too.

So again, I sincerely appreciate the gift of your contribution here.

It's what I love about research, and why I am so thankful to get paid to do it (in an unrelated area).

P.S. Maybe I shouldn't really have used the word 'conservative' regarding the pump rating. A better word is maybe 'practical'. In any case, the point is that dosimetric pumps are specifically designed to deliver precisely controllable flow rates, and the way that they are designed results in rather specific limits to their performance, as I believe Alan will be able to discover and demonstrate.

Quote from sigmoidal

But you will find out for sure soon. And because of your generosity and desire for discovery and openness, we'll all get to know for sure too.

Thanks for those kind words. I got to say though, Alan F. will deserve the most kudos by far given the amount of time he will be devoting. Initiating and funding the effort was pretty easy on my part.

Quote from sigmoidal

Ok, it seems appropriate for anyone interested in making Bold Predictions, to do it now, before the experiment commences.

Here are my Bold Predictions:

based on the manufacturers data, provided by Para, Nigel's rate * volume calc, and allowing AF measurement error, betting all the Quatloos I begged off IHFB, I boldly predict the resulting observed maximum volume rate will be less than 42 l/h.

Further, I predict (but with no remaining quatloos to bet) that any amount higher than 37 l/h will be characterized by IHFB as proof that Smith was both wrong and malevolent with his 32 l/h statement, despite the fact that it came from the model faceplate rating under conservative conditions, and despite the fact that a number less than 42 l/h still supports Smiths conclusions contradicting Rossi's claims, which require at least 59 l/h.

Why 42? Look at the manufacturer's graph and Nigel's calcs, add a huge experimental error factor, and remember the answer to the ultimate question raised by galactic hitchhikers.

Display More

sigmoidal,

I''ll bet against you. Blind.

In no way i am equipped to participate in this bet, but since you are one of the best contra-indicators i have come across in a long time i am willing to risk all Quatloos i have.

Seen this?

Quote from we_cat_global

sigmoidal,

I''ll bet against you. Blind.

In no way i am equipped to participate in this bet, but since you are one of the best contra-indicators i have come across in a long time i am willing to risk all Quatloos i have.

Seen this?

Display More

We will see. You have found genuine RossiReaderSays support for your position. The only case (as I said above) in which I reckon that possible is if it is possible to vary the stroke-rate above the manufacturers stated maximum of 180 strokes/min. SinCe flow will be linear with stroke rate a +50% on stroke rate would be +50% on flow.

If the stroke rate is controlled by the pump and lImited by that this cannot happen.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We will see. You have found genuine RossiReaderSays support for your position. The only case (as I said above) in which I reckon that possible is if it is possible to vary the stroke-rate above the manufacturers stated maximum of 180 strokes/min. SinCe flow will be linear with stroke rate a +50% on stroke rate would be +50% on flow.

If the stroke rate is controlled by the pump and lImited by that this cannot happen.

Well, it might - if the pump valves were completely knackered there is the possibility of uninterrupted flow from a sufficient head of liquid, assisted by the pump.

Quote from PeterMetz

We have some native German speakers here. What does 'DOSIERLEISTUNG' or 'DOSIER LEISTUNG' suggest? Minimum flow rate, maximum flow rate, or even 'minimum maximum' as some have suggested? 'DOSIERLEISTUNG' is what's on the nameplate of the the meter but the pump manual which is in English refers to it as 'Minimum pump capacity at maximum back pressure'. This and the fact that they use the word dose to me suggests it's a minimum pump rate for the maximum back pressure and as the back pressure goes down the pump rate goes up.

Peter - "Dosierleistung" is more or less the "required flow rate" = dosing capacity. In general these kind of pumps are designed to be able to deliver a specific constant flow rate (Dosierung) of the related liquids (water), depending on their application. The term or feature "Dosierleistung" is of course limited to a minimum and maximum flow rate depending on their design. You cannot simply change by some tricks their minimum or maximum flow rate by a factor of 2 (would mean to double their maximal allowed rpm, which is by design more or less impossible, unless you are wiling to destroy the toy).

SInce a couple of people here seem to argue that labels or manuals may be wrong ("go and figure if this is true at all, maybe the user manual is wrong"????) - this is rediculous. They have no clue about product design, verification, manufaturing, and selling. Liability and correct labeling is an essential part of the related product certification and approval, at least in our part of the world.

Quote from we_cat_global

sigmoidal,

I''ll bet against you. Blind.

In no way i am equipped to participate in this bet, but since you are one of the best contra-indicators i have come across in a long time i am willing to risk all Quatloos i have.

Seen this?

Display More

OK, I'm happy to take your millyun Quatloos. There's a saying: "I read it on the internet so it must be true".

What's amusing to me is what the RossiSock quote you mention says about Rossi.

But hope springs eternal. Maybe the experiment will violate mechanical properties and magically work at twice its capacity.

It will be really interesting to see what RossiSock messaging strategy appears on JONP after Alan F's test, as it's obvious the Dottore reads here in his 'spare' time. (Ciao Dottore!)

Quote from sigmoidal

OK, I'm happy to take your millyun Quatloos. There's a saying: "I read it on the internet so it must be true".

What's amusing to me is what the RosisSock quote you mention says about Rossi.

But hope springs eternal. Maybe the experiment will violate mechanical properties and magically work at twice its capacity.

It will be really interesting to see what RossiSock messaging strategy appears on JONP after Alan F's test, as it's obvious the Dottore reads here in his 'spare' time. (Ciao Dottore!)

Display More

sigmoidal,

Sockpuppets or not is irrelevant. "I read it on the internet" is irrelevant.

You, as a contra-indicator, are relevant. The guys that try to find some info through a simple experiment are relevant.

In your posts it becomes clear you are a theorist that continuously draws the wrong conclusion. THHuxleynew is another one. I imagine you guys never getting shit done in your life. The theorist in your head always outsmarts the doer. There is always a reason not do what you planned on doing. Bachelors’ wives and maidens’ children are well taught springs to mind.

It is so much easier for you to just comment negatively instead of having "skin in the game". To do something.

Pierluigi Collina, a famous , retired Italian football referee teaches during his workshops that the best thing to do, for example if you have to decide on showing somebody a red card or not, is to make the right choice. The second best thing to do is to make the wrong choice. By far the worst choice is to delay your decision and corrupt your thinking by doing that.

Alan Fletcher and IH Fanboy execute a good idea immediately. kg031590 sums it up nicely; experimentation beats speculation and skepticism. Power to these guys.

Andrea Rossi is a doer as well. He has come to this point in life because he excels in execution. You think he is a hardworking fraud, i think he is a very persevering inventor.

The continuous setting up of a framework of negativity where a well meant effort can be slaughtered effectively has been tiresome for a long time now.

Cheers,

JB

Quote from Zeus46

Einbilden Peter... Nein so etwas!

Hab nix gegen bessere Antworten oder Erklärungen...nur gegen wenig oder gar nicht hilfreiche Kommentare.

Peter took major umbrage to me telling him the same thing, for some reason (answer in 'clearance items')... He claimed I didn't understand the question: How 'helpful' was that?

That was my way of explaining otherwise.

Well WCG, you don't know me or what I do, so I guess you can be forgiven, though your presumption proceeds you here.

I am privileged to get paid to do grant funded experimental research. I am the primary research methods contributor to the major portion of the experimental design in my team. The experimental research proposal gets sent to a national panel of peer experts for review and scoring, competing with the best contributions from others around the country. Typically only 10% of all these proposals get funded (always for millions of dollars). Once funded, the experiment typically takes between 3 to 5 years to complete. Then about 4 to 8 manuscripts describe the results. I've been successfully obtaining this kind of competitive grant funding for over 18 years, and have over three dozen peer reviewed publications in high impact journals, and have received multiple awards for best abstract submission at conferences over the years. The number of publications I've coauthored is actually low among my peers, but my impact factor is much higher, because I don't believe in publishing to get stars on my resume. Instead, I focus on designing experiments that do the best job possible of eliminating bias and other 'alternative explanations' for the experimental outcome, because robust experimental results speak louder than a long publication list on your CV. This is because of an important principle: truth, robustly discovered and disseminated, speaks louder than bluster. Our results have now been replicated and a Google Scholar search shows that over 70 manuscripts from researchers from around the world have independently replicated our results, or have advanced new insight into our original findings. The national professional society related to my field now recommends the results of our research as the best approach for practice.

Now, in response to your point: if the theoretical foundation of our work was flawed, there is no way our findings would have stood up over time. On the other hand, if our experiments were not innovative, we would never have gotten funded (because why pay for what is already known). In order to succeed in competitive research, you need both strong theoretical grounding AND innovative thinking. And if you don't 'execute', you'll never get funded again.

Over the years, I have met many interesting people from all over the globe. Because of my past, some of them have a similar background in engineering and have spent much time in areas much more closely aligned and sometimes overlapping with LENR, in comparison with my 'day job'. And this is what interests me about the field.

So I entirely agree with your statement that good experimentation beats skepticism and negativity. It is, in fact, one of the keys to our success.

It is why I am convinced that Rossi is a con man. He is extraordinarily deceptive. That is a fact based on evidence provided to a Federal Court.

His 'demonstrations' cannot be called experiments. Instead, he does everything possible to ensure that there is massive potential bias and alternative explanations for his claims.

And it's not just his E-Cat demonstrations. He has a fake 'journal' that he uses to disseminate false information, he has a track record of getting paid for 'inventions' that never actually materialize.

Now, Alan Fletcher is going to do an experiment. Unlike Rossi, I am quite confident that Alan will conduct the experiment in ways that show his results are valid.

Because that's what you normally assume a reasonable human being doing research will try to do. And if you find that it's not valid, you'll try to fix your mistake so you can make your findings valid. It's this assumption that researchers are striving for valid results that Rossi repeatedly exploits (causing the Swedes to get suddenly silent).

So we await Alan's test results...

(BTW, how's your 'execution'?)

Cheers, and all the best.

sigmoidal,

Many thanks for your elaborate answer. It confirms some of my presumptions and i now better understand your position in all of this.

I am a trader by heart, started and sold a trading software firm and now i am lucky enough to get paid to spot promising startups in which i sometimes invest myself. I am not very talented, but always could make a decent living from what i did. Mostly because i could find the right guys for the job and get them to work.

It seems we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Your work is more about the process. Mine has always been about the outcome. Your work is more about telling others what they want to hear, where mine has always been telling people what they don't want to hear, etc.

Rossi makes your skin crawl. I can see that. He does nothing by the book, bends the truth and ignores whatever process. He just focuses on the outcome (whatever the two of us imagine his ideal outcome is).

I like him for exactly the traits you hate him for.

We will probably (hopefully!) cross swords again. Our positions make that inevitable. But that is what makes this forum, or the whole Rossi story so entertaining. However, when stuff gets drenched in a thick Mary Yugo sauce too much i feel the need to balance. I am no match for most of the skeptics since English is not my mother tongue and i do not have any technical background (besides managing some world-class developers), but can't resist to sometimes chip in.

Indeed, let's await Alan's test results (although i do not think that whatever the outcome is will drastically change the minds of the people active on this forum).

Cheers, and all the best,

JB