Uh-Oh ..... something going on with ... something.
** ALL MY RESULTS ARE ON HOLD UNTIL I FIGURE OUT WHAT **
Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test
-
So HIS two declarations, before and after the demo, are in contrast each other.
Now if this had been MURRAY, IHFB would have been all over this like flies on sh*t. He would written pages of posts about how Murray was intentionally deceiving and that IH should immediately publish a retraction as they were DECIEVING! Why it would be ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. It would be absolute proof of the evil IH was conducting and how blatant they were.
However, IHFB, "only seeking truth" will certainly not question a Rossi supporter as anything pro-Rossi has already been deemed appropriate and accurate. IF there was any "deception" it was completely acceptable by the Rossi team because of the EVIL forces involved that are trying to steal ALL of Rossi's wonderful technology. But this was not deception, it must be a misunderstanding, a misprint, a language issue. No, there is nothing to pursue here! What is good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander in this case.
I am still waiting on an answer why he is not selling in Europe. Or selling to his new partner and new customer. (Oh wait.... those were lies)
When will supporters ever have actual support from Rossi himself, instead of having to defend him with conjecture?
P.S. Rossi himself stated that he had achieved "Sigma 4" capability. (Of course he does not publish how or what he certified) If he truly had Sigma 4 capability proven for the QuarkX, he could ask whatever he
wanted from any number of major companies. Hmmm.... none of this is happening.... wonder why? (turn blind eye here, ..... wink wink.... cough... cough)
-
Uh-Oh ..... something going on with ... something.
** ALL MY RESULTS ARE ON HOLD UNTIL I FIGURE OUT WHAT **
That's the story of my life.
History Quiz Question: What did Mitsuo Fuchida, Japan's leading pilot, say to Minoru Genda, the architect of naval strategy, immediately after the devastating attack at Midway that destroyed three of Japan's aircraft carriers?
"We goofed." (In Japanese: "Shimatta.")
Professionals do not lose their cool.
-
@Bob,
You are the one casting this as good versus evil. I've never done so. I view it more as IH was in serious damage control mode when they made some of their PR statements, and probably regret some of what they said, not knowing how much information we would eventually gain access to. I'm pretty sure Rossi regretted some of the things he said and did as well. That is the beauty of our (the Americans among us) third branch of government: it is very good at surfacing the truth.
-
@ IH Fanboy,
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.
You can hear the pump pace at the beginning of this video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
The frequency is lower than 1 stroke per second, ie < 60 stroke/min, while the max speed for that pump is 100 stroke/min. That's a big difference, that an ear can immediately catch. Having spent weeks in calibrating that pump, Levi could have easily recognized that the pump was running at a speed much lower than its maximum. So he knew that the real flow rate was much much lower than the value he wrote in his report. With the help of the above video, everyone who knew the pump model were aware that the pump was delivering a water flux much lower than the values, which circulated on the web since the first days, but nobody warned the readers about this crucial aspect.Quote
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.
Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem. My problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources. -
jedR wote "Shimatta"
The Japanese military were not professionals, but Bushido knights
consequently the 3 aircraft carrier flightdecks were wooden
http://www.historynet.com/ten-minutes-at-midway.htm
Safety was a minor concern.. but for longterm LENR research it should be major
Gambatte Alan
-
I thinks it's working with the dedicated camera .... times now reconcile.
Strokes at end of run :Results :
I'm calculating the flow for the camera. I can't get the time for the FIRST pulse (the way the green light works), so I add in one nominal stroke (0.333) secs
Camera time : 99.03 secs Pump-stroke-time: 99.33 -- close enough.
Flow 40.28 l/hr -
consequently the 3 aircraft carrier flightdecks were wooden
U.S. aircraft carrier decks were also wooden.
-
Flow 40.28 l/hr
It is hard to tell from your spreadsheet — at what pressure are you obtaining this? Is it 0.75 bar at the inlet side?
-
After multiple runs (dropped my cellphone,finally figured out my camera only did 5 minutes it hi-res,battery ran down,cellphone memory filled up,screwed up ....)
RUN-11H : about 6 minutes 4 litersTotal head is C25 0.07 bars
Flow is 39.57 l/h
Timing is from my KM A2 camera ....
The Gamma stroke timing is a little off.The timing derived from this run is +1.33 secs in 363 minutes or 0.37%
This works out at 180.66 strokes per minute.
I'll go on using the camera .. I still need to get a reference clock.
Presuming timing error is zero, flow error is +- 0.28 %
Edit : I redid the spreadsheet with android as the clock.
KM : 363.333 AND: 354.293 (a bit closer to the Gamma ... 180.19 strokes/min)
Edit 2 : Plans for tomorrow (Tues) ... I'll use the current setup, but keep the suction tank topped up. I don't expect to see any difference. -
Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem.
You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure. But I guess we can leave that hanging, since it is still somewhat of an unknown as to how large the effect would be with that particular pump. It certainly takes the air out of your argument though, in my opinion. And I may not be able to convince you of that, but that is your problem.
QuoteMy problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources.
Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.
-
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.
I don't understand what it means to say that the condenser was higher than the condensation point. Can you explain a bit more please?
-
Summarizing Alan Fletcher's results so far (all runs with inlet suction lift of 18.5") ....
Run Date Back pressure (bar) Flow (l/h) 06C Aug 02 0.00 42.3 10A Aug 07 0.00 39.6 11A Aug 07 0.00 40.3 11H Aug 07 0.03 39.6 01 Jul 31 0.15 36.1 05E Aug 02 0.15 33.7 -
@ IH Fanboy,
You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure.
I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered. The sense of my answer was that I don't care of every possible misfunctioning of the pump. They can be put forward for the Doral test, but not for the Bologna demo, because in this case the pump was calibrated by Levi himself, who said in front of the public that the flow rate was 12 L/h (ie the max output of the pump), but then he wrote in his report that the same flow rate was 17.6 L/h, and in the meanwhile he claimed in an interview that the flow rate remained constant since the end of his calibration up to the end of the test. This is an internal inconsistency.
If you want to know more about this incongruity, I suggest you to ask JR, because he was in contact with the "people in the project", asked them the model and the data of the instruments, and he strenuously defended the competence of the testers and of their results. JR was following the CF since many years, he already knew about flow calorimetry, so I imagine he asked Levi how it was possible that a dosimetric pump delivered nearly 50% more than its capacity, while running at only 60% of its maximum speed.Quote
Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.
This is the usual rhetoric scheme used to explain the failing of CF/LENR, but it doesn't apply to me. And it's not even true (1).
Instead, in this case, I partly agree with you: CF(LENR) is safer than HF, because even if their final results will be the same (no excess heat from CF and no exploitable energy from HF) the research on HF is much more energy and material consuming, and generates a lot of contaminated stuff.
But the millions/billions of public money wasted in these two mirages are not the real problem, there are many other economic sectors in which much larger amounts of taxpayer money are wasted in no-way activities. The real problem is that these chimeras are used to influence the public about the possibility of finding viable alternatives to the already known energy sources. This involves the highest levels of the decision chain, the Parliaments, and the Ministries (Departments), even here in Italy. The misrepresentation of the validity of these technologies risks to mislead the decision makers in taking the wiser decisions in such a delicate issue as the managing of the residual energy sources, with serious consequences for everyone.
(1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=190#comment-1253897 -
Thanks (but maybe sort by date/run number) ?
I've sorted by back pressure to make it easier for everyone to see how flow rate depends on this factor.
-
I'm thinking about a new variable-discharge-height design.
How about a design where you just run the discharge tubing up and down the flagpole you created?
-
I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered.
Ascoli I see that here you are making a copy and paste of very old blah blah blah against a test dated 2011.
I think that already Randombit0 had answered you. Reading the technical report from Levi is clear that he has done a measurement of the flux.
A measure done in the same setup of the experiment is much more valuable that any paranoid consideration done by people who was not there.
Note also that the pump was on the same table where the ecat was so 0 or very little back pressure. So ?
You were not there, as all of us.
Nobody of us can know if eventually the pump was tempered and in fact we don't know even the precise model.
Even presuming the model you indicated and also presuming no tempering of the pump the max value you presented has nothing to do with the actual working conditions.
So ? There is only two conclusions.
That you, as many others here, have an agenda or are simply a mythomaniac .
