Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test


  • I agree with this. Just a comment. the idea that you should use one of these pumps with a reverse pressure of 0.5 bar is risible. It means essentially that there is a more powerful pump somewhere else in the system which is dominant in controlling the flow. It also requires the water reservoir to be pressurised: contrary to all previous statements (and the test plan) showing this to be an open system.


    With such extreme retrospective rewriting of the test setup almost anything can be post hoc justified. It offends my sense of justice.

  • THH


    Yes. The idea that seems to be abroad is that there is a pump somewhere on the JMP side that does many things in a way so novel that Mr Rossi can't even speak about it for fear of endangering some patent application. The way I read all this is that there will be a claim that the net flow through the Prominent pumps will be a sum of the imposed flow from this master pump and the "topping up" contribution from the working of the Prominent pumps themselves. Fortunately this is an empirical statement that Mr Fletcher can investigate.

  • @ Bob,

    2) It does not matter if this test shows the pumps cannot produce the volume needed.

    I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.


    It can provide some hints on the physical factors affecting the real flow of the pump, but it can't say nothing about the human factors that eventually decide which value will be declared by the testers.


    In the Ecat saga, there are reasons to deem that the most important human factor is the propensity of the many actors to deliberately misrepresent the real data. Let's call it the Misrepresentation Propensity Factor (MPF). It's impossible to test the real MPF of a person, especially if he is aware of being under scrutiny. The only way to get a rough estimation of someone's MPF is deducing it from information released when there was a good confidence that nobody would have checked the reliability of his statements.


    That's the reason why the best opportunity to estimate the MPF of the people involved in the Ecat story is provided by the earliest tests, in particular by the January 2011 demo, the first diffused on the web, when the endorsement of a few academics seemed able to provide a sufficient protection against any questioning about the truthfulness of the data used to calculate the excess heat, so that it was not paid too much attention in publishing a lot of collateral information (pictures, videos, interviews, etc.).


    Speaking of pumps, we can for example estimate the MPF of the author of the calorimetric report of the January 2011 demo (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf). In this report, he wrote that the water flux was "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s", ie 17.6 L/h. But the information available on the web show that he knew that the max output of the pump (the yellow one) was only 12 L/h, and, moreover, he couldn't ignore that during the demo this pump was operated at a much lower speed than the maximum. So you can easily deduce that his MPF is indeed very high, ie he has (as regard the Ecat stuff) a high propensity to deliberately misrepresent the experimental data under his control. That's also the main reason why the Ferrara and Lugano reports, signed by him as lead author, have no merit at all.


    The same reasoning applies to the all the other persons who contributed to the writing of the January 2011 calorimetric report, and that were aware of the real characteristics of the pump. Several people. Not only Rossi!


    When the truth is based on sb'says, it's first necessary to calibrate the persons, not the instruments.

  • I agree, this test is interesting, but it is bound to be inconclusive.

    With this I agree. Andrea Rossi's e-Cat is a Schrödinger's cat and will be until it hits the market, which is the final and ultimate arbiter. One of the purposes of this test is to expose the faux certainty of Jed, Sig, Zorud, Shane, and others (and indeed most participants of lenr-forum).

  • @ IH Fanboy,

    One of the purposes of this test is to expose the faux certainty of Jed, Sig, Zorud, Shane, and others (and indeed most participants of lenr-forum).


    I don't know what the real purpose of this test is, but it is evident that it is going to repeat with the Prominent red pump, what has been already done in 2011 with the LMI yellow pump. The difference is that while the present test is affected by many uncertainties due to the unknown real configuration of the pump, in 2011 the pump was calibrated for 2 weeks by the testers themselves:


    Quote


    Excerpt from: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf


    The flow rate, Levi continued, was measured with a high precision scale. “The flow rate was 146 g in 30 seconds. Using a simple measurement gives a simple result. There was a pump putting in a constant flux and what I have done is – with the reactor completely off take measurements – we spent two weeks of the water that flowing through the system to be certain of our calibration. After this calibration period I have checked that the pump was not touched and when we brought it here for the experiment it was giving the same quantity of water during all the experiment. […]



    So there is no uncertainty here. The tester (*) knew which was the real output of the pump, but he issued a document, under the aegis of his university, reporting a much higher value. This is sufficient to consider all this story a farce since the beginning.

    Many other people, who contributed to write and revise the report, knew the performances of the yellow pump, including someone cited by you, but the report has been eventually issued without any reference to the discrepancy between the maximum output of the pump and the allegedly measured flow. This fact is sufficient to determine the lack of credibility of any successive development of the Ecat story and of its protagonists (*).



    (*) I'm not talking about Rossi, he is not a scientist, all the credibility in the Ecat performances comes exclusively from the academics who participated to this saga.


  • While I don't follow all of Ascoli65's logic here his identification of the flowrate issue in that early test is well documented and influenced me to view any such data introduced by Levi with great skepticism. And, indeed, it is consistent with the Lugano test, where again Levi makes a fundamental mistake that allows a COP=1 system to be measured as COP=3.


    IHFB is simply biassed, so he does not consider the positive nature of the errors in Rossi tests, but there is a consistent pattern.

  • Many other people, who contributed to write and revise the report, knew the performances of the yellow pump, including someone cited by you, but the report has been eventually issued without any reference to the discrepancy between the maximum output of the pump and the allegedly measured flow.

    Please source your accusations. You have provided no evidence.

  • @ THHuxleynew,

    And, indeed, it is consistent with the Lugano test, where again Levi makes a fundamental mistake that allows a COP=1 system to be measured as COP=3.


    There is a major problem with the terminology here. If your "again" is with respect to what Levi, and others, did in January 2011, they are not "mistakes", unless in English this word applies also to deliberate misrepresentations of experimental data.


    Quote


    IHFB is simply biassed, so he does not consider the positive nature of the errors in Rossi tests, but there is a consistent pattern.


    I don't understand what "positive nature" means in this context. Anyway, I find also biased to speak about "Rossi tests", it gives the wrong impression that all the responsibilities lie on a single person. Actually, they were "Ecat tests", not necessarily designed by Rossi. For instance, the January 14, 2011 demo was an "Ecat UniBo test", and under this name it has been presented to the public:

    .

  • Ascoli: not being all knowing I'm slow to decide motivations of others, and always aware that cock-ups can look, from a distance, like conspiracies. I'm also not in a position to allocate responsibility between Levi and Rossi for the test designs. But the details of these experiments are factual and undeniable, which is why it would help some people here for you to go over the Levi pump flowrate issue from those early tests with links to source.

  • @ THHuxleynew,

    Ascoli: not being all knowing I'm slow to decide motivations of others, and always aware that cock-ups can look, from a distance, like conspiracies. I'm also not in a position to allocate responsibility between Levi and Rossi for the test designs.


    I fully agree. I have no intention to talk about "motivations", "conspiracies", or "responsibilities", apart, for these last, those which are strictly related to the duties of any academic member with respect to the public, and that can be directly derived from their declarations.


    Quote


    But the details of these experiments are factual and undeniable, which is why it would help some people here for you to go over the Levi pump flow rate issue from those early tests with links to source.


    I already did it. See, please, the above video, it has English subtitles. At about 9:40, Levi reveals the max output of the pump. Now compare it with what he declared in its interview to Macy, that I already quoted above, and think how they can fit.

    For those who wish to know more about the factual aspects of the January 2011 demo, I prefer to link here below a couple of my old posts:

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…s/?postID=24942#post24942

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25650#post25650

  • @ IH Fanboy,

    Please source your accusations. You have provided no evidence.

    Please, no accusations, we are here just to understand the facts, I'm bringing my contribution.

    The flow rate is the most important parameter in flow calorimetry. Even a journalist like Lewan understood this, and in fact he put the pump on the top of the list of instruments in all his reports on the Ecat tests: "Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar."

    Do you think that the many colleagues of Levi which were present at the January 2011 demo, all of them with a way longer academic experience, and many of them involved since the beginning in the CF/LENR field, were less aware than Lewan of this crucial parameter of the flow calorimetry?

    The Levi's colleagues were only part of the people who participated in writing and revising the calorimetric report, the others have been revealed by Krivit (1). Do you think that these people were less aware of the importance of the pump capacity?

    JR was in touch since the beginning with the "people in the project", typed up the first "brief report" on the test, and asked them to "add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments" (2). Can you really believe that he didn't ask to know the name and the model of the pump?

    (1) http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…6/3625rf-melichmacy.shtml
    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41364.html

  • @Ascoli65,


    I appreciate that you provided your source links because now it gives me an opportunity to pick them apart.


    Here is what Levi said in the "Ecat UniBo test" video:

    "Right now I think 12 l/h but after I give you the exact number."


    So he is not committing to a hard number in the video. He is giving an oral presentation off the cuff.


    In your image here, you state that Levi's calorimetric report recorded that the water flux was 17.6 l/h. Levi's report stated 146 g/30 sec. 146 g/30 seconds = 4.86 g/sec = 17.52 l/h, so yes, it is close to 17.6 l/h.

    http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg


    You then apparently make a guess as to what pump Levi used, and you go with the LMI J5 series, which has a stated max output of 7.6 l/h at 1.4 bar back pressure.

    http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg


    As Alan F. has shown, the flow rate can vary (i.e., increase) significantly (beyond the stated "maximum") when dropping down to effectively 0 bar back pressure.


    But wait, there's more. Why did you select the lower performing LMI J5 series pump when the LMI Series P Pump looks just like it, but has a higher performance. This particular pump can pump 7.6 l/h at 3.5 bar back pressure. Lower that to effectively 0 bar back pressure, and your pump rate could probably meet or exceed the measured ~17.6 l/h stated in Levi's report.


  • Here we go again : Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] The LMI J56D is also a diaphragm pump: the manufacturer also warns about maintaining sufficient back-pressure.

    So, as in the case of the Prominent Gamma L, an actual physical pump serial # 12345 COULD deliver MORE than the rated specification. Levi correctly calibrated the ACTUAL performance, and therefore has no need to downgrade his results to the nominal specification value (In the case of the Gamma L, the minimum guaranteed flow, implicitly at maximum settings and at a specified backpressure).

  • As always with Rossi/Levi experiments, running equipment out of spec, truth is difficult to be sure about. However 7.6 -> 17.6 is a very large difference.

    The specs do not give "maximum" flow rate parameters for effectively 0 bar back pressure. So what Rossi/Levi experiments do is NOT running the pumps "out of spec." There is literally no spec to violate under these test conditions. They are simply measuring the actual flow under their particular test conditions.


    And at least in the case of the Prominent pump, the manufacturer actually states that the flow rate will be higher, possible even several times higher.

  • Starting work on planning the 0.01 to 0.5 bar test.

    Location :

    20170806_123422.jpg

    (Note:anyone complaining about my yardwork is invited to come trim the roses).

    That pole's made up of 1/2 x 2 inch wood, and is very wobbly.

    Here are my current thoughts on options :

    Scan_20170806_123843.jpg

    All versions (A,B,C) : I can't maintain constant suction height except by collecting the output and weighing that.

    A: Non-destructive. Below the maximum height (roughly 20 feet 0.5 bar) the tubes will have to be coiled. I had trouble doing this even at 6 feet. This has two problems : a) it's hard to eliminate bubbles b) the backpressure is a combination of head height and flow-resistance in the hoses. The low-down tests will have a small head, but still have the full resistance.

    B: destructive. Start at 20 feet and then CUT the hose for 15, 10 .... (Hose is $0.79/foot). To re-test (eg after replacing the pump valves) we'd have to buy a new pipe.

    D: (not shown) non-destructive: similar to B, but build the pole with a separate hose for each height.

    C: switchable. Using plastic pipes (supply or drain?) and 3-way valves we can easily retest. Probably beyond my competence to do it right.

    I'm leaning towards D -- multiple hoses. Will need a substantial pole .. 2x4 inch?

    I'll address the suction/measurement in a separate post.

  • I have two options for weighing :


    1. Collect the OUTPUT and weigh it. That pole's too high to move the collector to the top, so I need a return mechanism. With this I can get constant suction height by setting a garden hose so it keeps overflowing.

    2. Weigh the INPUT tank. But the suction height will change as water's pumped out. I can minimise this by using a very wide tank. Also, I can collect the water up to about 10 feet ... and compare the results to see if there's a difference. (My opinion: no difference).


    Plan D : it's not easy to change the connection between the prominent hose and the head-hose, so I'll go look for some 2-way (ie on/off) valves.

    Anyway ... give it some thought.

    Meanwhile, I'm heading out to test the scale.

  • Speaking of pumps, we can for example estimate the MPF of the author of the calorimetric report of the January 2011 demo (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf). In this report, he wrote that the water flux was "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s", ie 17.6 L/h. But the information available on the web show that he knew that the max output of the pump (the yellow one) was only 12 L/h, and, moreover, he couldn't ignore that during the demo this pump was operated at a much lower speed than the maximum.

    What you call MPF has no scientific ground and is your own personal invention just to insult Rossi and Levi as usual.

    What you want to say and try to masquerade behind a pseudo scientific maquillage is that Levi has falsified the report.


    Regarding the pump that is exactly the lay man point of view.

    When testing any apparatus a Scientist must rely on the measures he made first.

    During the test of 2011 the flux was measured by Levi he obtained that figures. In irrelevant which type of label was on the pump or what info is present in the web regarding that label, what was important for Levi was the actual flux that the particular pump present in the experiment was delivering.

    Rossi could had put any label on any instrument or eventually temper that instrument and relying on the label would be equivalent to use an information not coming from the experimental data.

  • Alan Fletcher


    I vote for plan A. I don't think that coils in the output tube matter and I don't think that bubbles in the output tube matter as long as they are stable and don't move.


    If you think about the actual layout of the pumps and plumbing at Doral you will see the output piping of the Prominent pumps is virtually coiled as it wends its way into the Big Frankies. That piping first goes up to an overhead section, then down below the level of the pumps themselves. then over into a Big Frankie container, and then is continuous with the water inside the Big Frankie which has a level just about equal with the pumps. "Friend of Rossi's" near the beginning of this thread did a good job of explaining this and had a good picture and diagram to boot. I believe that under most circumstances there would have been a big bubble in this loop that you would have seen if the piping was clear.


    I also like option 1 for weighing.


    Maybe you can get from a siphon with hose out lower than pump?


    I agree with this. You should be able to get the hose resistance off the manometer when the outlet of the hose is just level with the pump. Alternatively, you could find out how much you have to lower the outlet of the hose below the pump itself to establish a siphon. That distance should be exactly equal to the back pressure associated with hose resistance.

  • @ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,

    First of all, I'd clarify the pump model issue.


    You then apparently make a guess as to what pump Levi used, and you go with the LMI J5 series, which has a stated max output of 7.6 l/h at 1.4 bar back pressure.

    But wait, there's more. Why did you select the lower performing LMI J5 series pump when the LMI Series P Pump looks just like it, but has a higher performance. This particular pump can pump 7.6 l/h at 3.5 bar back pressure.

    Here we go again : Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] The LMI J56D is also a diaphragm pump:

    The following jpeg, featuring the J5 series of the LMI pumps, was prepared in English in order to be submitted to Brian Josephson.


    vu0bW93.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg


    This jpeg was first posted on physicsforum on March 30, 2011 (1). At that time, no Ecat tester had released any specific information about the model and performances of the yellow pump. The J5 model was chose on the basis of a couple of hints, about maker and maximum flow rate, appeared on the web (2-3), and because its aspect resulted nearly identical to the pump used in the Bologna test.

    The next month, in April 2011, Mats Lewan witnessed and described two more Ecat tests, and in both his reports he listed the data of the pump, reporting for the first time the max output of 12.0 L/h. So, at that point, the J5 model was no more a good candidate for the pump, and the best choice resulted to be the P18 model.

    As a consequence, the first jpeg in English was updated and, being the thread on physicsforum been closed immediately after the cited previous comment, I translated it in Italian and posted on an Italian forum around the end of April 2011. This is the new version:

    2GanyYO.jpg


    This model, LMI P18, resulted to be absolutely identical to the Bologna pump. It has 2 knobs which allow to regulate the speed (up to 100 strokes/min), and the volume (up to 2 cm3/stroke).

    The P18 capacity is larger than the J5 one (12.0 vs 7.6 L/h), but considering that it was operated at less than 60% of its max speed, the expected outflow was only 7.2 L/h, even less than the value indicated in the first (in English) jpeg. It should also be considered that the 7.2 L/h value requires the max volume per stroke, but we have no information about the actual position of the volume knob, so the real flow could have been much lower, even close to zero for a while.

    (1) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83
    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg41482.html
    (3) http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/…p=34361830&postcount=1233



    I'll answer later on the other issues.


  • The P18 capacity is larger than the J5 one (12.0 vs 7.6 L/h), but considering that it was operated at less than 60% of its max speed, the expected outflow was only 7.2 L/h, even less than the value indicated in the first (in English) jpeg. It should also be considered that the 7.2 L/h value requires the max volume per stroke, but we have no information about the actual position of the volume knob, so the real flow could have been much lower, even close to zero for a while.

    Okay, so it looks like we have converged on the LMI P series pump as a possible candidate. I don't know where your evidence is that the pump was operated at less than 60% of its "max" speed. We don't know its maximum speed at zero bar back pressure. Let's be careful about the term "max" given that we know the stated "maximums" in the spec very likely do not correspond to the actual maximum pump rates, particularly when the back pressure is effectively zero. You presume that the real flow could have been "much lower, even close to zero," while I postulate that the real flow was probably much higher, since the stated maximum of 7.2 l/h requires a 3.5 bar back pressure.

  • OK: initial scale tests. Dymo M25 RUN10A and RUN10B
    The LCD displays 3 places, with a resolution of 2g

    The specified accuracy (up to half capacity) is +-0.2 oz = +- 5.67g

    WARNING : the accuracy presumes a STATIC weight (a ready light comes on when its happy).
    RUN10B is a callibration :

    Set (tare) to ZERO

    pgl_run10b_49.jpg


    Out-of-focus level reading : as close to 1000g as I could get

    pgl_run10b_50.jpg


    Scale : 996g
    pgl_run10b_51.jpg

  • RUN10A --- dynamic. Empty tank, reset scale. Start pump.
    Record crossing times at 100g and 900g. I'm using the FIRST frame where the LCD starts changing.

    100-crossing
    pgl_run10a_55.jpg

    START-TIME
    pgl_run10a_56.jpg

    pgl_run10a_57.jpg

    900g crossing
    pgl_run10a_76.jpg

    STOP-TIME :
    pgl_run10a_77.jpg
    pgl_run10a_78.jpg

    Results spreadsheet

    pgl_run10a_83.jpg

    Gives 39.6 L/hr ... (+-2% ?)

    Error +- 1.4 %

  • @ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,


    once established that the P18 (not J5) was the model of the yellow LMI pump used in all the tests carried on in 2011, let's answer your other questions.

    Here is what Levi said in the "Ecat UniBo test" video:


    "Right now I think 12 l/h but after I give you the exact number."


    So he is not committing to a hard number in the video. He is giving an oral presentation off the cuff.


    The first video of the Bologna demo shows that he was answering to a question from the public. He was just describing the scene on the monitor, addressing the yellow pump on the lower left corner, and he said that its flow was already measured. At that point someone from the public asked him which was the measured value, and he gave him the value of the max possible output of the pump: 12 L/h.


    He had spent the last two weeks calibrating the pump in the actual test condition, so he was well aware of the performances of that pump. Moreover, he seemed embarrassed, as if someone caught him off the guard. If you hear the original Italian speech you can better notice his uncertain tone. Then he immediately dropped the pump argument, starting to talk about the nuclear instrumentation. Why?


    A possible answer, is that he was aware that the max output of the P18 pump was not sufficient to reach the target already established for that test. Which target? Well, we could ask JR, but it's better asking the web. In his mail to Vortex (1), sent the day before the demo, he informed the vortician that "Focardi is holding a press conference to show a 15 kilowatt heating module". He made reference to an article on an Italian newspaper, but the article didn't mention the output power, so we don't know how he got that number, and I doubt that he will tell us. (Edit: JR just forwarded a message of Brian Ahern. I apologize.)


    Anyway the 15 kW target was a big problem for the tester because, even letting the people believe the dry steam condition at the outlet, the max power for unit flow was about 0,722 kW per L/h (*). So having a pump with a capacity of 12 L/h, it was possible to demostrate at most a total power of 8.7 kW, nearly the half of their target.



    As Alan F. has shown, the flow rate can vary (i.e., increase) significantly (beyond the stated "maximum") when dropping down to effectively 0 bar back pressure.

    Lower that to effectively 0 bar back pressure, and your pump rate could probably meet or exceed the measured ~17.6 l/h stated in Levi's report.

    the manufacturer also warns about maintaining sufficient back-pressure.

    an actual physical pump serial # 12345 COULD deliver MORE than the rated specification. Levi correctly calibrated the ACTUAL performance, and therefore has no need to downgrade his results to the nominal specification value


    People is free to imagine whatever flow rate they like for the Prominent pump used in the Doral test, because the actual condition are unknown. But for the January 2011 demo the calibration of the LMI pump has been done by the testers themselves, and the one responsible for the calorimetry said: "I think 12 L/h".

    This public declaration is not reconcilable with what is reported in his interview to Macy, where he said that he calibrated the pump for two weeks, than he left the pump setting untouched, and that this flow rate remained constant throughout the demo. If he really had set the output at a value greater than 17 L/h during his calibration, he should have answered instead: "I think around 17-18 L/h"!

    So HIS two declarations, before and after the demo, are in contrast each other.

    This only fact speaks loud about the MPF of the people involved in that demo, and raises many other questions about those facts.

    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg41235.html


    (*) Can be easily deduced by the Levi's report by dividing the alleged values of the heat output and of the flow rate.