Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

I think it is time to invite all those with doubts about Mr. Fletcher's setup to chime in.

If you think that there are problems relating the outcomes of Alan's experiments to the capacity of the pumps used during the 1 year test in Doral, then what are they? How should his procedures be improved or altered?

What was the flow rate claimed by Rossi?

Depending on at which point and which pressure, 60 l/hr and up to 75 l/hr. There is another device, a "recirculator," that needs to be added to the setup to compare apples with purported apples. Also, a control run at around 1-2 bar must be done to ensure that the pump that Alan F. obtained is within operating specs.

On ECat World (https://disqus.com/home/discus…_28th/#comment-3402725739) , the poster who calls himself GiveADogABone put up the following piece of Rossisays

"http://www.rossilivecat.com...

search on 'prominent'.

The post is dated April 8, 2017 at 5:17 AM

the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to 20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW."

I can't find this passage currently on the Rossi Reader site because it only contains messages for the past month or so. Maybe someone else can. But you can see that back in April Rossi was claiming 90 L/H for the pump.

Edit: I have found the original passage at http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html (look for the post at Aplril 8 2017). It is not Rossi who says this but instead the poster "DT". Rossi answers with "I cannot comment on issues that have to be discussed in Court."

Bruce_H - you can search JONP archive at:

http://rossilivecat.com/all.html

Eric - R sent Bass out to find a "steam recirculator" about 2 weeks before the "customer" power rental agreement was to start. Bass figured out that such an animal did not exists - it is an entertaining exchange that seemed destined for evidence based on

on the Monday morning quarterbacking that is going on.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

FLOW : 36.0871 l/hr at 0,15 bar

NOTE : for 24 pumps this is 0.65 of Penon's reported 32,000 Kg (aka Liters) / day

Note that you can't say to be in the same Doral conditions. (Recirculator/ an input over pressure in that case).

And also I'm not sure that all the messy geometry of your piping isn't creating any extra impedance or back pressure.

So your result should be quite conservative.

Anyway even with your result that the Doral plant would have an output energy of 650kW. If we divide 650/20 we still obtain a COP of 32.5 that is still impressive !

Quote from Alan Fletcher

4. I'm still wondering why the manometer is reading so high. There is one point where the tube is a bit kinked ... could this generate back-pressure? I'll cut the tube to eliminate the coils.

I think I'll order a couple more manometers with wider range(s). I think cheap ones are fine (range about $2 to $20, ISTR)

5. Filling the cylinder takes about 2 minutes. Is this enough? I could either use a larger container (as initially described WAY back) and measure between two calibrated points, or we could weigh the discharge tank. Do we need 0.01kg or 0.001kg resolution?

4. Can you clarify what manometer readings worry you? Is this peak pressure during a pumping stroke or steady-state after a run when the water column is still up to the top of your setup?

5. Right now you are running about 1 L of water through the setup and so a 0.01 Kg resolution would produce about a 1% error. That seems fine to me. The more water you put through the system in each run the smaller this error will become. This is an advantage of measuring weight and time rather than volume. With a suitable scale at 0.01Kg resolution you could gather a whole bucket of output water during a run. Then afterwards, at your leisure, you can find the weight of the water and the duration of the run (as recorded on your video). Divide one by the other and voila! This means you won't have to hop around trying to spot where the meniscus is.

Quote from ele

Note that you can't say to be in the same Doral conditions. (Recirculator/ an input over pressure in that case).

And also I'm not sure that all the messy geometry of your piping isn't creating any extra impedance or back pressure.

Any idea what the inlet overpressure might be? I think this is something Mr Fletcher could explore.

Quote from Bruce__H

On ECat World (https://disqus.com/home/discus…_28th/#comment-3402725739) , the poster who calls himself GiveADogABone put up the following piece of Rossisays

"http://www.rossilivecat.com...

search on 'prominent'.

The post is dated April 8, 2017 at 5:17 AM

the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to 20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW."

I can't find this passage currently on the Rossi Reader site because it only contains messages for the past month or so. Maybe someone else can. But you can see that back in April Rossi was claiming 90 L/H for the pump.

Edit: I have found the original passage at http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html (look for the post at Aplril 8 2017). It is not Rossi who says this but instead the poster "DT". Rossi answers with "I cannot comment on issues that have to be discussed in Court."

Display More

Well if you operate these pumps under enough reverse pressure it will no doubt push water through the cylinder destroying whatever valves there are. In that case the flow rate would be determined not by the pump but by the negative pressure - since Rossi has this complex control mechanism driving the pumps that would be a bit silly. Other than that I can't see Rossi's claims as being remotely plausible.

It looks as though they operate as we all expected: 10-20% higher than the headline rate at low pressures. It will be interesting to see the dependence of rate on pressure and whether this is linear.

Quote from Bruce__H

Any idea what the inlet overpressure might be?

The setup is wrong.

In fact Rossi has used a closed loop so you must know at which height the steam was condensed in order to calculate the input over pressure.

In a conservative closed circuit input and output pressure are equal.

You have used an open circuit and that is already wrong.

Also we have no guarantee that pulse rate and spacing you are using is the same as Rossi and also as very well specified by the Prominent white paper you should the correct accessories for piping.

Also your result contradicts the manual from Prominent.

http://allwatertreatment.co.uk…tGALadosingPumpManual.pdf

at page 64 you have that 32l/h is the minimum flow at max pressure while 36l/h is the minimum flow at medium back pressure.

Quote from randombit0

In fact Rossi has used a closed loop so you must know at which height the steam was condensed in order to calculate the input over pressure.

It was not closed. You can see from the photo of the tank that it was not airtight. The loop had to be open with a gravity return pipe, which had to be mostly empty at that flow rate -- or anything close to or lower than that flow rate. That is one of the reasons we know the flow meter readings were far too high.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

A few more thoughts on the method :

1. I can do a timed run by filming the on/off switch, rather than hitting the switch and (cellphone) stopwatch simultaneously. The switch has an indicator light which probably takes less than a frame (1/30 sec) to change.

2. I'll film the start-up at various points in the tubing to see if we have a "bubble" problem (caused by dripping leaks).

3. In my case the head is the highest point in the tube, not the outlet. Water runs free down the tube from that point, so there is no suction.

4. I'm still wondering why the manometer is reading so high. There is one point where the tube is a bit kinked ... could this generate back-pressure? I'll cut the tube to eliminate the coils.

I think I'll order a couple more manometers with wider range(s). I think cheap ones are fine (range about $2 to $20, ISTR)

5. Filling the cylinder takes about 2 minutes. Is this enough? I could either use a larger container (as initially described WAY back) and measure between two calibrated points, or we could weigh the discharge tank. Do we need 0.01kg or 0.001kg resolution?

Display More

For point 4 you could do a quick back-of-envelope for other head losses (http://my.me.queensu.ca/People…ellens/LossesinPipes.html), but I would be surprised if they caused that kind of difference.

Quote from randombit0

Also we have no guarantee that pulse rate and spacing you are using is the same as Rossi and also as very well specified by the Prominent white paper you should the correct accessories for piping.

Also your result contradicts the manual from Prominent.

http://allwatertreatment.co.uk…tGALadosingPumpManual.pdf

at page 64 you have that 32l/h is the minimum flow at max pressure while 36l/h is the minimum flow at medium back pressure.

It is running at max spacing and rate, do you expect a higher flow rate otherwise?

These pumps are not complicated, do you think changing some of the pipe fitting is going to substantially increase the flow rate? By how much and by what mechanism?

Looks pretty close to the manual to me, especially if running at 0.4 bar backpressure.

Quote from randombit0

The setup is wrong.

In fact Rossi has used a closed loop so you must know at which height the steam was condensed in order to calculate the input over pressure.

In a conservative closed circuit input and output pressure are equal.

You have used an open circuit and that is already wrong.

Also we have no guarantee that pulse rate and spacing you are using is the same as Rossi and also as very well specified by the Prominent white paper you should the correct accessories for piping.

Also your result contradicts the manual from Prominent.

http://allwatertreatment.co.uk…tGALadosingPumpManual.pdf

at page 64 you have that 32l/h is the minimum flow at max pressure while 36l/h is the minimum flow at medium back pressure.

Display More

I understand what you are saying. The condensing water creates a head of pressure and if the circuit is closed then this head of pressure would have appeared at the inlet to the Prominent pumps.

But as far as we know from Mr Rossi, the steam condensed to water in the pipes of the 2nd-story heat-exchanger. This puts a limit of about 15 feet of water or about 0.5 barg on the pressure at the inlet of each Prominent pump. Would that be about right?

Quote from JedRothwell

It was not closed. You can see from the photo of the tank that it was not airtight. The loop had to be open with a gravity return pipe, which had to be mostly empty at that flow rate -- or anything close to or lower than that flow rate. That is one of the reasons we know the flow meter readings were far too high.

I agree. The big tank sitting in a wooden cradle just outside the red E-Cat plant is a large external reservoir of water that was used to top up the system when water levels in the internal reservoir sitting on the floor of the E-Cat plant began to run low. This external reservoir is open to the atmosphere. But according to both Penon and Barry West the external reservoir fed the internal reservoir by gravity. I don't see how this could work if the internal tank was part of a closed circuit with a large head of water on it.

Nor does the idea that this is a closed system match Mr Rossi's deposition testimony that he often measured the water level inside the internal reservoir and that it ranged from full to 70% full to even less. If this internal reservoir tank is sealed and under a head of pressure then what is measuring ... the size of an air bubble trapped in the reservoir? How would that help?

Quote from Bruce__H

This external reservoir is open to the atmosphere. But according to both Penon and Barry West the external reservoir fed the internal reservoir by gravity. I don't see how this could work if the internal tank was part of a closed circuit with a large head of water on it.

Exactly. You cannot have a gravity feed from an open container into a closed pressurized container.

Also, the internal container was of the same plastic material and construction, which cannot be made airtight.

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

Wow! I go on an extended weekend vacation and missed the whole thing! Nice work Alan, and thanks to supporters, especially IHFB.

If I had been online recently I would have made my bet (which I believe was the first as referenced above), more specific. But I am now 'back in the quatloos' having won a millyun from we_cat_global plus some unspecified amount lent by IHFB.

Interesting to see an appearance from randombit0 attempting to spread FUD about the test.

Surprise: the laws of physics (as applied to mechanics and hydrodynamics) prevail, once again!

Sincere thanks to Allan Fletcher and supporters. We now have empirical evidence that Rossi's claim of 75 l/h was untrue. (In addition to the theoretical limits and the absurdity of Rossi asserting that he was running all the precision metering pumps above 200% of the max rate that they can meter).

Now, where did all that heat go again?

According to Rossi on JoNP recently, he stated that 30 to 40% went into the endothermic process of his product. This must be one of the products he stated under oath he never made or sold. Perhaps this is from the few grams of Pd sponge, or the few grams of graphene? .75 to 1 MW for 350 days. That's some highly energized particles!

Rossi is extraordinarily deceptive.