Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

Quote from Alan Smith

Comment and annotated picture sent to me by email by a friend of Rossi's. I have no opinion on his comments personally, but he said:-

" Please note the output of the pumps sends fluid up about 150mm into the white header, then left, then it drops lower than the pump inlet, which will cause a negative back pressure in the header and on the outlet of the pump. The internal reactor fluid level, as shown by the sight gauge at the left of the pumps is only a cm or so above the centre of the pump.

I agree with this. The yellow horizontal lines are lined up with the water levels in the sight glasses (on the left) so they should, indeed, show the fluid levels inside the Big Frankies. Overall this means that the backpressure at the outlet of the pumps should be about 0 bar (i.e., 1 bara). I don't think that Alan Fletcher needs to copy the whole output path to duplicate the conditions seen here. A run with no backpressure at the outlet of the pump will do it.

By the way, in the picture shown the lowest Big Frankie looks like it is out of use since its sight glass seems clean and dry. Likewise, the bottom row of pumps seems completely out of use.

Quote from JedRothwell

It was not closed. You can see from the photo of the tank that it was not airtight.

As usual Mr. Rothwell you demonstrate all your incompetence. The point is not if the circuit was airtight or not, the point is gravity.

Gravitational field is called conservative because the total mechanical energy of any body is constant.

That true even for water. In a circuit where you pump water at height H and then recycle the same water to pump it again pressure in the

input and output should be the same.

In case of Rossi the condenser was quite higher than the condensation point and this could add an over pressure factor.

If the water was taken from a reservoir tank than the water level of that tank should be taken into account.

Quote from sigmoidal

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

Being insulted by you is a nice compliment.

Quote from sigmoidal

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

Laws of Physics are always right your interpretation is not. Also you have not to use hydrodynamics in that case. Pressure relations considered here regard hydro statics and gravitation.

Quote from sigmoidal

We now have empirical evidence that Rossi's claim of 75 l/h was untrue.

No sir, this is what you would like but is not true.

We have numbers taken in one run not done in the correct conditions.

Also the values obtained are similar to the minimum flux cited in the manual of the pump. So your affirmation regarding running above the maximum is the real FUD.

Quote from randombit0

In a circuit where you pump water at height H and then recycle the same water to pump it again pressure in the

input and output should be the same.

In case of Rossi the condenser was quite higher than the condensation point and this could add an over pressure factor.

If the water was taken from a reservoir tank than the water level of that tank should be taken into account.

What inlet and outlet pressures do you think would approximately replicate the conditions seen by the Prominernt pumps in the 1-year test at the Doral facility?

Quote from randombit0

Also the values obtained are similar to the minimum flux cited in the manual of the pump. So your affirmation regarding running above the maximum is the real FUD.

I'm sorry, but you are either extraordinarily deceptive, in a manner parallel to Dottore Rossi, or you are utterly uninformed on this issue. Because regarding this dosimetric pump, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (or you are intentionally deceptive).

If you think the Prominent pump, when stating it's 'minimum', is stating something other than it's guaranteed minimum performance, you then you are mistaken. And you obviously don't understand how reciprocating solenoid pumps are rated. Regarding Dottore Rossi's statements, he is similarly mistaken, or just being his normal extraordinarily deceptive self. This pump has a nominal rating of 36 l/h under which it can control flow under reasonable conditions, and it can be pushed up to something like 38 l/h under certain extreme conditions that max out it's metering capacity.

Running this pump at anything like 60 l/h and above without destroying it in the process is physically impossible.

But since you seem so convinced of your perspective, please educate us all on why Alan Fletcher, when setting the pump at its MAXIMUM capacity (stroke and rate), can only get 38 l/h (which is a little over it's stated 'minimum')

Also, please educate us all on why anyone would claim that a metering pump like this was operating at 180% to 210% of rated capacity, completely outside of it's ability to 'meter' (and as Alan is and will continue to demonstrate, a rate that the pump itself is physically incapable of operating at).

Also, please explain to all of us how a pump that is valved to deliver a metered volume by controlling it's stroke volume (via stroke length) and stroke frequency can violate the laws of physics by magically exceeding that volume * frequency (by 180 to 210 percent).

And finally, if the pump manufacturer actually meant that the minimum flow is 32 l/h, why are ALL the lines in the manufacturer's literature between 1 l/h and 32 l/h flow (except that the extreme case of 100% stroke AND 100% rated frequency you can 'get' 36 l/h at 1 bar). Please explain why the manufacturer's specification curves showing metering capacity at 1 l/h is not the 'minimum' vs. your absurd claim that 32 l/h is the 'minimum'.

I think observers here are capable of discerning who gets the FUD crown in this debate.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

** STOP IT !!!! **

These are PRELIMINARY RESULTS -- MAKE NO CONCLUSIONS

OK. We'll wait for your results.

However, the laws of physics do apply to this pump, and they are conclusive.

Also, manufacturers rate metering pumps in a generally consistent manner. And this manufacturer shows that this pump can accurately meter volume down to 1 liter/hour (not the 32 liter/hour Rossi claimed was the 'minimum')

So it's entirely appropriate to question those with explanations that contradict the manufacturers ratings and to question extraordinary claims regarding pump capacity and ask what extraordinary 'theory' supports those claims.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

** STOP IT !!!! **

These are PRELIMINARY RESULTS -- MAKE NO CONCLUSIONS

I concluded from the start that:

1. The manufacturer knows how the pump works.

2. It is physically impossible for this pump to produce a higher flow than it says it will. It is metering pump. It is designed to control the flow with precision. If you manage to squeeze more water through it by pressurizing the water or by some other method, you will break the pump. That would be less true of something like a peristaltic pump.

3. The manual is correct. It is clear to me what it means. Manufacturers get in big trouble selling machines with inaccurate manuals. Trust me, I used to write manuals for big companies. No one sells a pump rated X gpm which is actually 2 or 3 times X gpm. That would be crazy. The company would get in trouble with regulators, and it would also lose many sales opportunities selling to people who need 2 or 3 times more capacity. Why would any company throw away money like that?!?

4. In my opinion you are wasting your time testing this. It is like testing a 0 to 120 deg C thermometer to see if it can measure the difference between room temperature and boiling water. Of course it can. That's what thermometers are for. They have been doing that since 1612. What next? Are you going to launch a 2-week project to find out if automobiles can drive faster than 20 mph?

Quote from sigmoidal

However, the laws of physics do apply to this pump, and they are conclusive.

Amen.

Quote from sigmoidal

Also, manufacturers rate metering pumps in a generally consistent manner.

Yes, they do, if they want to stay in business. As I mentioned above, it would be crazy for a company to claim 2 times less capacity than their machine actually has. Companies may exaggerate the capability of a machine a little, but no one specifies far lower performance. That would be writing off a bunch of sales for no reason. A GM RAM pickup truck can tow 30,000 pounds. GM would never advertise that it is limited to 15,000 pounds. That would be insane.

Alan Fletcher

I don't think you need to worry too much about the calibration function on the pump. After all, your measurements are directly on the pumped liquid itself. You are not worrying about how much the pump thinks it is pumping. It is like using the Delorme GPS unit and not worrying about what the car's speedometer says.

Overall I think you are doing just fine. From my perspective you have had a completely typical day at the bench. Getting any new system going involves controlling 1001 details and that is what i see happening.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

On the specification (etc). This a diaphragm pump, not a piston.

Oops. I got that wrong. Sorry. I thought it was a piston.

That is more like a peristaltic pump. Which is like, umm . . . the esophagus and the intestines, whence the word comes from. Think of that next time you are hooked up to an IV pump.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

ps : My car's speedometer reads 5 mph high at 60 mph. I don't trust the specification there, either.

I calibrated it against a DeLorme GPS Unit.

Fun fact: Police everywhere assume speedometers are only good to +/-5 mph. They seldom issue speeding tickets for less than a 5 mph violation. Although one nabbed a friend of mine for 30 mph in a 25 mph zone. (She deserved it.) Anyway, this is causing pain to regulators, legislators, and auto insurance people who are devising new laws for self-driving automobiles. Will we have the cars to do as we say, or do as we do? It is the same problem parents have faced since time immemorial, but robots always do as you say, unlike children.