Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

I have this insight that these are the components of a gravity fed pump.

water pump, water tank placed at a height of specific number of meter, Pipe,

possible scenario: Water pump gets water from a source put it through directly to the water tank maintaining a constant flow. Water fills tank, tank maintains a fixed volume of water because of the constant flow/intake.

water tank is full, thus releases water down through a pipe(outlet). Note that, diameter of pipe is identical with pipe from intake and outlet. You reduce the diameter of pipe at endpoint "Gravity provides pressure, pressure plays a role in flow rate."

larger tank, small outlet gives too much force/pressure, add a valve.

water pump remains untouchable. Thus its specs/capacity remains the same. My point here is each of components plays a role to achieve something effective. This concept may sound crazy but is very doable. Cheers!

buying a big pump and running it through a long time, is not cost effective. It consumes fuel and subject to wear and tear.

buying a small pump and banking up water through a tank surely works, even in summer. Works in plants too.

Alan Fletcher

Hi Alan.

Did you know that this pump can be programmed to run a set number of strokes and then stop?

I suggest that a simple way to conduct your experiment could be to run the pump at maximal strokes rate and stroke length for 100 strokes, or whatever you find suitable, then measure the output. Having the pump run for a set number of strokes appears to be available in the "batch" and "calibration" modes of the pump.

There are some good instructional videos for Prominent pump available on the internet. Here is one walking you through how to use the front interface for programming the pump operation

And here is one that covers pump calibration. This is a particularly good one because it looks to me as though the setup in use might be one you could adopt for your experiments

OK. I see your point although I don't think that Prominent would recommend this method of calibration if startup and shutdown errors were a real issue.

On other fronts, I actually think you don't have to worry too much about changing output heights much in your experiment. No one really contests that the distance between pump outputs and the fluid levels inside the reactors at Doral was more than 1 metre (actually from the photos it seems less than that). It seems like measurements at just 1 metre head of water and 0 meters would address the most important issues squarely.

What I think is more important is how pumping capacity depends on inlet pressure. This is pretty much totally ignored in the Prominent literature. I assume that is because they believe most setups will have the pump drawing up water from below -- thus producing a negative inlet pressure. But in his most recent release of information via Mats Lewan's website, Rossi seems intent on arguing that there was positive pressure on the inlet side of the pump. The amount of pressure is unknown but I think that any data characterizing maximal pumping capacity at different inlet pressures would be useful.

The final thing to consider is something that I don't believe you can do much about. It is possible to argue that running a pump like this flat out at 70C for months on end is likely to change its operating characteristics and perhaps increase its maximal capacity. I think the mechanism would be something like the diaphragm fatiguing under high temperatures and with constant activity and perhaps allowing more water to enter per stroke. As I say, I'm not sure how one addresses this. Maybe you can think of something.

?..regarding pump specifications: in Germany the term "x m WS" is related to a pump and means "x m Wassersäule", which is the head of the pump ("Förderhöhe"), at which it can deliver a certain flow rate in l/h or m^3/h....

The Prominent pumps on the E-Cat units at Doral are fed by a condensate holding tank sitting on the floor of the red shipping container. Penon, Smith, and one of the on-site technicians, Barry West all treat the pumps as having to suck up condensate from this tank. In recently released notes and in his interview with Mats Lewan, however, Rossi has begun suggesting that this tank is sealed and pressurized rather than at atmospheric pressure. The pressurization is apparently due to a "recirculator" sitting on the JMP of of the facility that Rossi has never spoken about before but now seems very important. If I understand correctly, the recirculator pumps condensate into the holding tank on the floor of the E-Cat plant which creates a head of pressure that then appears at the suction side of the Prominent pumps. I can't tell you how large that head of pressure would be, Rossi appears to be keeping it secret.

I suspect that in disclosing the existence of this recirculating pump Rossi is creating room to argue that it is pressure at the inlets of the Prominent pumps that accounts for their high capacity. It would therefore be interesting to see if the capacity of the pumps actually does depend on inlet pressure. It would be a shame if you did your experiments, sold the pump, and then afterwards learned that Rossi is claiming that inlet pressure is the key to everything.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

In any case, adding a recirculating pump to the input will accomplish something between nothing ... and forcing water through the suction/dosing valves with a little modulation by the diaphragm.

I understand your point about forcing water through the pumps with little modulation. If it is true then I don't understand the role of the Prominent pumps in the systems at all. But I think this is where Rossi is heading

Quote from Alan Fletcher

I'm working on a "Phase 0" experiment (discharging the pump directly into a 1-liter measuring cylinder (ordered).

At 60l/hr it will take a minute to fill. As before:

start the pump

start timing when the level crosses the lo-mark (eg 100ml).

stop timing when the level crosses the hi-mark (eg 900ml).

stop the pump

My biggest concern is that (particularly with the pulsed output) ripples/splashes will make it hard to read when the water level crosses a mark. Timing is at the frame rate of the camera, eg 1/30 sec : no problem.

If I can read the level to +- 0.1 inch then the flow-rate error will be +- 1.6% at 60l/hr

I think that's good enough.

Display More

I was not going to say a word but thanks but (well I am rigel after all ) I would like to find anything out that can not be disputed. Please keep the pump until the critics jump in on both sides in case something is in question Thanks! We do not want to hear a question like "but in this condition well this happens" or any such thing. People are watching this.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

In any case, adding a recirculating pump to the input will accomplish something between nothing ... and forcing water through the suction/dosing valves with a little modulation by the diaphragm.

I am not sure.

As earlier stated, I am NOT a pump expert.
But my (maybe bad) reasoning says that the recirculation pump is pumping water through the Prominent at both sides (They are dual stroke, with dual diaphragms ?)
Now if the diaphragm increases the volume in the Prominent pump, it will suck additional water in the pump. This additional water will be forced out during the release stroke because at that time the pressure of the diaphragm will close the inlet check valve despite the pressure at the inlet side from the recirculation pump (Unless the inlet pressure is very high) . At the same time the other diaphragm is in the inlet position and the recirculation pump is forcing water through the check valves at that side.

So I expect that you will get a basic flow from the recirculation pump with an added flow from the Prominent which can be modulated.

Quote from LDM

I am not sure.

As earlier stated, I am NOT a pump expert.
But my (maybe bad) reasoning says that the recirculation pump is pumping water through the Prominent at both sides (They are dual stroke, with dual diaphragms ?)
Now if the diaphragm increases the volume in the Prominent pump, it will suck additional water in the pump. This additional water will be forced out during the release stroke because at that time the pressure of the diaphragm will close the inlet check valve despite the pressure at the inlet side from the recirculation pump (Unless the inlet pressure is very high) . At the same time the other diaphragm is in the inlet position and the recirculation pump is forcing water through the check valves at that side.

So I expect that you will get a basic flow from the recirculation pump with an added flow from the Prominent which can be modulated.

You may be right....

But in that case the water flowing through the system is already hot and so the heat required to sustain the flowrate does not include the 70C -> 100C rise claimed (which would be enough for COP > 6). Basically this is cheating.

Rossi has weird pressure readings consistent with water but not steam, weird temperature readings consistent with water, and no evidence of phase change., so with the recirculation cheating the mystery is solved. But there are a few other ways to solve it, so i would not leap on your idea as necessarily correct.

Quote from THHuxleynew

so with the recirculation cheating the mystery is solved.

Ohh what a great scientist and expert ! Without being at Doral without reading any data and without installing even a single therrmocouple you pretend to accuse Rossi of cheating.

This only demonstrate how strong are your prejudices ! You are so convinced (or maybe you have do appear so convinced) that Rossi has cheated that you distort reality for demonstrating your own thesis.

You purposely ignore that there was an ERV that has done his own measures. Note that if you measure the temperature of the water at input and output you automatically exclude any possible "recirculation trick" because the input temperature would rise.

Quote from ele

Ohh what a great scientist and expert ! Without being at Doral without reading any data and without installing even a single therrmocouple you pretend to accuse Rossi of cheating.

This only demonstrate how strong are your prejudices ! You are so convinced (or maybe you have do appear so convinced) that Rossi has cheated that you distort reality for demonstrating your own thesis.

You purposely ignore that there was an ERV that has done his own measures. Note that if you measure the temperature of the water at input and output you automatically exclude any possible "recirculation trick" because the input temperature would rise.

Innacurate summary:

I do state (not pretend) that from published information this test makes that type of scientific (not Rossi) cheating possible. Not even perhaps likely: there is so much inconsistency in the data, and so many question marks over its provenance, that almost anything is possible.

Your position here is that I and others cannot be sure this test did not work as claimed. That is true. But it is irrelevant. We can be sure that the information from the test does not allow anyone to conclude that it is certain (or even likely) that the test worked as claimed.

It is difficult even with well-run experiments to be certain of interpretation. Rossi's tests are so very badly run, with standard checks ignored, equipment and setup not properly documented and changed by Rossi, data showing operation on the edge between different modes with no resolution, data collected manually, that no clear information emerges. The best way to illustrate this is a thought experiment. Suppose no test is done, but Rossi announces with confidence the results. Should he be given the benefit of the doubt? Yet the tests he does are as uninformative as no test.

Only people with your mindset can see that lack of knowledge from tests as justifying Rossi's claims. My comment about cheating was a technical one. The circuit configuration that was suggested by LDM allows false results. It is not Rossi cheating: Rossi has asked for the power form heating the water to be ignored, so he does not could this. However I, as an observer, have to explain all facts, not just the ones Rossi tells me to explain.

Note that if you measure the temperature of the water at input and output you automatically exclude any possible "recirculation trick" because the input temperature would rise.

You are missing the point of recirculation using a different pump, as LDM suggests might be the case. if this is true water can circulate through the steam riser or some other path bypassing the low temperature input completely.

Hi Alan,

Get what is needed, and the cost will be taken care of.