Awesome!
Looks good Alan. MFMP favors youtube live, which leaves a recorded copy. That is a more accessible approach as well since some may not use facebook. Love that we can cut through the noise and test a claim directly like this.
Here's the Label :
However, it delivers more at lower back pressure. There is a warning (hidden deep in the documentation where even expert witnesses can't find it) that at VERY (undefined) low back pressures the pump can deliver "several times" more than the specification.
Since the pump has to overcome the difference between inlet and outlet pressure, does it mean that increasing the inlet pressure (for example by the recirculation pump) until the difference between inlet and outlet pressure is very low, will have the same effect ?
This could possibly be tested by supplying the water to the pump from a tank positioned above the inlet of the Prominent
Rossi has also indicated that there was a recirculating pump into a pressurized return tank ( (I think - On JONP?) .
That can be found in Rossi's notes concerning the Smith report.
They were published by Mats Lewan and can be found at :
https://animpossibleinvention.…h-supplemental-report.pdf
See points 3 and 7 on the first page of the notes.
Since the pump has to overcome the difference between inlet and outlet pressure, does it mean that increasing the inlet pressure (for example by the recirculation pump) until the difference between inlet and outlet pressure is very low, will have the same effect ?
This could possibly be tested by supplying the water to the pump from a tank positioned above the inlet of the Prominent
If you look at the way the pump is built, the ball valves on its inlet and outlet would both tend to become unseated if the inlet pressure is higher than the outlet pressure. On the face of it this means that there is nothing much to stop fluid from travelling straight through the pump under these conditions. Let's call this "push-through". This could contribute to the phenomenon the Prominent manual is warning about.
The extent of push-through will be modified by the position of the solenoid/diaphragm system. In its resting state, between strokes, I would guess that the diaphram should close off any flow and minimize push-through (I don't really know this however). When the pump is operating, the susceptibility to push-through will be different at different different portions of the pumping stroke.
So the situation is complex. But this all means that when there is a pressure imbalance in favour of the inlet side the accuracy of the pump may depend on stroke rate. It may be of interest, therefore, to set up a situation where the backpressure at the outlet is smaller than the forward pressure at the inlet and see 1) if the pumping capacity is grossly above the rated rate, and 2) if it depends on the stroke rate of the pump.
I was thinking of suggesting a couple of improvements to the betting, but decided your 'variable-bet' system was the best of the options. Minimising losses isn't a great strategy IMO.
Since the pump has to overcome the difference between inlet and outlet pressure, does it mean that increasing the inlet pressure (for example by the recirculation pump) until the difference between inlet and outlet pressure is very low, will have the same effect ?
This could possibly be tested by supplying the water to the pump from a tank positioned above the inlet of the Prominent
Yes .. I can set the inlet tank at different levels between -30 (- 0.07 bar) to +40 inches (+0.1 bar).
At present the level of the inlet tank will change as water is pumped out. I could top it up manually during a run or rig some plumbing to do it.
Here are some (out-of-focus) single-frame shots of the manometer. This particular pulse recorded about 2.3 psi = 0.16 bar .. but I think the frame missed the maximum. I'll record the manometer next run with better focus.
I'm absolutely sure that it is too early to estimate pumping rates. Nonetheless I am going to do it!!
In the first video you can clearly visualize the water level climbing in the output hose between the 33 and 43 second marks. I have measured at several points in this time period and have found that each stroke raises the level in the 1/2" hose by about half a diameter. Converting to cm and calculating through gives a stroke volume of about 0.8 cm^3 per stroke. At this early part of the video the stroke length is set to 50% of max so this means that the full stroke volume is about 1.6 cm^3 per stroke. Finally, the pump is set at 180 strokes per minute = 3 strokes per second. So the Pumping rate per second is about 4.8 cm^3 per second or roughly 17.3 L/h.
Lots of approximations here but we are most certainly not near 60 L/h which seems to be Mr Rossi's latest claim.
My prediction for the 1.5 bar run is 40 L/h. I bet a million quatloos (which I think isn't very much ever since the galactic confederacy suffered that bout of hyperinflation).
My prediction for the
1.5 bar0.15 bar run is 40 L/h. I bet a million quatloos (which I think isn't very much ever since the galactic confederacy suffered that bout of hyperinflation).
FIFY. Did you see the report that HALF of our atoms are captured from OTHER galaxies !!??
I'm accepting only real genuine milky way quatloons.
[ Edit : I'll leave that typo alone ... LOONS bet in QUATLOONS. ]
