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.
I see.
What you prefer Carbon or Petrol ? Have you a personal stake in this sectors ?
So you think that Darden's efforts to find a new energy source will come to nothing as usual in the Darden's way to do ?
Is he collecting money for nothing ?
13B : Suction +4 inches Discharge +12 inches Backpressure 0.02 bar Flow 47.67 +- 0.3%
START:
STOP :
WEIGHT:|
RESULTS:
13C : Suction -21.25 inches Discharge +12 inches Backpressure 0.08 bar Flow 39.15 +- 0.3 %
Just going to put links to the photos + results
START : http://lenr.qumbu.com/prominen…l_run13c_05-START+10F.jpg
STOP: http://lenr.qumbu.com/prominen…pgl_run13c_09-STOP+9F.jpg
WEIGHT: http://lenr.qumbu.com/prominen…3/pgl_run13c_12-3972g.jpg
(Anybody spot the minor experimental error?)
RESULTS:
So with the slightest of head pressure, we are at 47+ l/h. Seems like Rossi's 60 l/h is just a short skip and a hop from here. I don't want to minimize all of your efforts Alan F. by highlighting this fact, but it does appear to be the case.
Display MoreNext up : I think I should try to get a 0.5 bar run, (roughly suction -21 inches, discharge 15-20 feet?).
THAT will let me scale MY pump to Prominent's curves.
BUT I can't collect water from 20 feet. SO I'm going to redo my last trial by weighing the INLET tank (suction -21 inches -- on the floor). NOT keeping the level constant.
IF that's acceptable then I'll get 20 feet of hose and just eject water from the top of the hose. Still summer ... so refreshing!
Edit : also next-up : revise my spreadsheet to a) use GPS + frames for timing and b) set it up for fill-right so I can collect multiple results in ONE spreadsheet. c) see if I can reconcile Stroke Count and GPS timing, so I don't have to frame-step through videos.
All that will wrap it up for "Phase 0".
I'm having a hard time following your spreadsheet calculations, but I've done the flow calculations for your last 2 runs by hand and confirm your results.
Your next suggested moves sound right to me..
So with the slightest of head pressure, we are at 47+ l/h. Seems like Rossi's 60 l/h is just a short skip and a hop from here. I don't want to minimize all of your efforts Alan F. by highlighting this fact, but it does appear to be the case.
Mr. Rossi never suggested 60 L/h as far as I know. In his deposition as the representative for Leonardo he said he thought the rate was near 100 L/h. An anonymous contributor then popped up on Rossi's blog (as they do just when he needs them), and said that based on personal experience the figure was 90 L/h. Then in Mats Lewan's interview, Mr Rossi said 72 L/h.
I think that the 60 L/h figure comes from taking Penon's figure of 36,000 L/day and dividing by 24 hours and then again by 24 pumps. This gives 62.5 L/h as the per pump rate needed to achieve the reported daily flow if all 24 pumps on the Big Frankies are working. On some days, however, Penon reported the usual 36,000 L/day pumped even though only 3 Big Frankies were in operation (for instance on Oct 14, 2015). This leaves only 18 pumps, and so on days like this each remaining pump must achieve a pump rate of 83.3 L/h.
@BL,
I think you are right. The 60 l/h figure I thought came from Rossi, but it looks like an approximation of what is needed to meet the 36,000 l/day value. That said, you ought to appreciate by now that going from ~47 l/h to ~62 l/h seems well within the realm of possibility now, and we'll probably see it soon. This was anathema, impossible, no-way, totally outside of specs, just a few short weeks ago.
As for one of the Big Frankies allegedly being turned off while there being 36,000 l/day that same day, I've yet to see good evidence for this in terms of a direct time correlation. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm just saying that Jed has repeated this so often that I think people just believe it without doing any kind of diligence. I will also say this: Rossi often says things on this blog, and it is hard to draw firm conclusions as to the specific timing of those events. For example, he might say "one of the systems down," and you might assume he means at that moment, but that is not necessarily the case. He talks of robotized factories, and critics jump on that and howl that there are no such factories, even when if you look closely at Rossi's statements, it appears he is talking about a future time. And so forth.
IH Fanboy, if the purpose of your participation in this exercise has been to help to discredit those who have been expressing strong views about the rate of the pump (and the reliability of their testimony more generally), even a run from Alan that gets close to 60 l/hr will do that only very slightly; at any rate, it will not tell those of us withholding an opinion much we did not already allow through an abundance of caution.
But what we have learned through the experiments is more interesting: that these metering pumps are pretty hard to game (so far), and that the numbers Rossi quotes, and even those in the Penon report, are going to be hard to get to add up. Alan and you have assisted in giving this vague suspicion a concrete basis in experiment, for which we can be grateful.
Caveat: we don't yet know how these things run when they're pushed to the limit for a long period of time.
Eric,
You should know me pretty well by now, and I you. I have little tolerance for fact-less assertions dolled up with pretended certainty. The pump FUD is but one example of many. Oldguy, for example, was completely put out by my suggestion that the pump rate might actually be significantly above 32 l/h under certain conditions, and suggested that I buy one and test it. I'm grateful that he poked me a little, because I basically told him okay maybe I will. I don't think he expected that answer. (Haven't heard much from oldguy lately.)
Alan F. was already going down a similar track and we were able to join forces on finding some pump answers. At the end of the day, claims need to be tested. I'm not saying that Rossi's pumps actually pumped 72 l/h, as he told Mats. What I'm saying is that it now appears to be within the realm of possibility. And therefore, we are back to a position of uncertainty. And I'm quite comfortable in that place. Because I think that is exactly where the e-Cat's mysteries will remain until (and if) it hits the market.
I'm having a hard time following your spreadsheet calculations
I confuse myself! I'm dealing in inches (and 16'ths), liters, grams, time as HH:MM:SS, frames, seconds, hours .... Pressure in feet, inches, mm, cm, m ... (water, mercury ain't allowed no more) bars, psi ... Volumes in gallons, quarts, pints, liters, ml,l ...
Not to mention I've been through currency metrification twice : guineas,pounds,crowns,half-crowns,florins,shillings,six-pence, thruppence (tickey),penny, ha'penny,farthing. I escaped to the US before general metrifcation.
[Un] Luckily I started physics with fps. Then we switched to cgs .. no, WAIT ... MKS ... forget that: SI with unpronounceable names for units. Are we THERE YET?
NOTE: try to find a ruler with TENTHS of an inch in the US!
I *promise* I'll make a very clear spreadsheet.
I digress :
Static stuff: (for series of runs)
E17,18 -- discharge height in inches and 16/ths (to match my rulers) --Result copied to C23
C21 : suction height in inches.decimal + above pump - below pump
C28 : Ambient in F (If ever we want to convert water g to l)
Dynamic stuff:
Volume : since I switched to weights,
C31 : Low-mark = 0
C32 : High mark (g = ml) <=== =from scale
Look up the Frame time in Avidemux HH:MM:SS.ddd (video) future : GPS HH:MM:SS PLUS Frame
C36,37 : START Min:sec.xxx
C38,39 : STOP Time
C:45-52 : results
E46-52 : error min/max from corners of time/volume
@BL,
I think you are right. The 60 l/h figure I thought came from Rossi, but it looks like an approximation of what is needed to meet the 36,000 l/day value. That said, you ought to appreciate by now that going from ~47 l/h to ~62 l/h seems well within the realm of possibility now, and we'll probably see it soon. This was anathema, impossible, no-way, totally outside of specs, just a few short weeks ago.
As for one of the Big Frankies allegedly being turned off while there being 36,000 l/day that same day, I've yet to see good evidence for this in terms of a direct time correlation. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm just saying that Jed has repeated this so often that I think people just believe it without doing any kind of diligence. I will also say this: Rossi often says things on this blog, and it is hard to draw firm conclusions as to the specific timing of those events. For example, he might say "one of the systems down," and you might assume he means at that moment, but that is not necessarily the case. He talks of robotized factories, and critics jump on that and howl that there are no such factories, even when if you look closely at Rossi's statements, it appears he is talking about a future time. And so forth.
Penon was in the Doral facility on Oct 12-14, 2015 and measured the flow of electrical current to 3 of the Big Frankies. He only measured 3 of the Big Frankies because, according to his deposition (207-10 page 193, lines 14-16) " ... they were working". About the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."
So when Penon was there in October 2015 only 3 of the Big Frankie units was working. I think it was BF4 (the bottom of the Big Frankies standing in the rack in Doral) that was shut down. Judging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted. And I think its pumps never rerouted to the other Big Frankies. Certainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units .
By the way. It may have just gone past me, but have you calibrated your weighing scales over the entire range of weights your are using? Should be easy with a 1L graduated cylinder on hand.
Penon was in the Doral facility on Oct 12-14, 2015 and measured the flow of electrical current to 3 of the Big Frankies. He only measured 3 of the Big Frankies because, according to his deposition (207-10 page 193, lines 14-16) " ... they were working". About the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."
So when Penon was there in October 2015 only 3 of the Big Frankie units was working. I think it was BF4 (the bottom of the Big Frankies standing in the rack in Doral) that was shut down. Judging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted. And I think its pumps never rerouted to the other Big Frankies. Certainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units .
Now we're talking. Thanks for backing up your assertions with some actual citations to evidence. That is a skill that is sorely lacking on this forum.
Unfortunately, I think you have made some unwarranted assumptions, and I'd have to take issue with nearly every one of your conclusions.
QuoteJudging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted.
I think you are making an unsupported assumption here. Google translate gave the following for Fabiani's note for Aug. 18, 2015: "Isolated reactive 4 power delivered to 750kWh / h (Short-circuit heating plates)." That is a far cry from "this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks and never restarted." I have no idea how you get from one (Fabiani's language) to the other (your assumption). And the total measured flow actually increased from there going forward.
QuoteCertainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units.
Again, I'm not so sure such certainty is called for. If you look at the bottom row of pumps, they are all on. And it is hard to tell whether the sight glass is empty or has water in it--at best inconclusive. The tubes are all rusty indicating flow. I don't know what you mean by the plumbing is rearranged--maybe you could expound on that for me.
QuoteAbout the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."
I'll concede that is pretty good evidence that the 4th BF unit might not have been working on the day of Penon's visit. But even then we can't be certain. He doesn't outright say "the 4th BF unit was not working." It is a much less direct statement... like, I don't know, I just ignored whatever was not working and took the measurements that you see here.
IH's attorney makes a leading question (that is objected to) of "So at the plant you do not recall there being four units of this type, only three?." Penon answers that he does not know. The IH rephrases his question: "There were three of these collections of E-Cats working?" Penon then begins to respond: "We verified the function of . . . " and then wouldn't you know, the deposition is cut off at that page (an unfortunate and frequent occurrence just as we were about to get some additional clarification). My guess is that he was going to confirm that he verified the measurement of three BF units, and did not have knowledge of the status (whether working or not) of any of the other units. So, there seems to be at least some uncertainty whether the fourth BF was working or not when Penon was there.
It is quite obvious, that the "believers" in Rossis ECAT "success" at Doral are looking for every little detail (pipes and pumps and windows and fans...) that they can argue on to help them to continue believing in the masters claims that some day his robotic factories will drown the markets with CATs and Quarks, while they do not see the forest for the trees and ignore all the overwhelming facts that have been discussed here all over the place...
IHFB - why don't you ask the question to your hero about who are his many customers and post the answer so everybody here on this forum who is sceptic can (if he want) reach out to them? Do you see any reason why these customers want (??) to stay in the dark if they are part of world changing energy revolution? Why do you still believe in all what your master says - without questioning anything he claims?? You claim all day long you are not biased and a critical and neutral person - no way!
I plan to reach out to ProMinent GmbH in Heidelberg to hopefully get in contact with their Product Management / R&D, just to get some professional feedback and statements regarding this entire GAMMA /L pump mess. I hope they will be cooperative. All what Alan Fletcher did so far (AF - go on, please!) is in my eyes more or less proof that his results match the specs of the pump, within a certain tolerance. I do not see he is going to come close to the required flow rates for Rossis claims. You think the longer he tries he will reach one day 85L/h?? Do not forget that all pumps were running for an entire year. It is out of question that a pump manufacturer sells equipment and publishes technical specs that are off more than 100%. This would be typical for Rossi only. He did his plumbing and at the end he realized that the equipment would not fit to his results so - like his invisible heat exchanger - he suddenly starts to claim there are other hidden pumps or pressure conditions just to stay tuned to his story....
