Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • This statement from Barry is confusing to me:


    "Everything came back into a smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger tank, which originally was going to be condensate return tank, and then we were going to pump the water back into the units."


    Looking at the photos re-posted by BL (thanks by the way), it looks to me like the external tank is situated higher than the internal tank, but the angle of the photographs makes it pretty hard to determine exactly how much higher. Barry suggested that the condensate water returns back into the smaller tank and the larger tank. But some here are guessing that the larger tank was only used to start the system up or to replace water that might have leaked. So which is it?

  • I'm sure you know that there is evidence for a phase change: the state inspector testified that there was steam leaking from one of the pipes.


    No: you get steam leaking if there is some steam (which there will be with any excess heat beyond that needed to deal with heat losses in the piping). That proves absolutely nothing, it is expected.

  • If we are to use Penon's report as more authoritative than Barry, then perhaps Barry misspoke, or the court reporter maybe messed up his sentence. It doesn't really make sense to be directing the condensate to both the internal and the external tanks, so Penon's schematic seems more believable than Barry's statement. Hence, I think we can probably rule out gravity providing a head of pressure to the BFs given that the internal tank is at the foot of the stack of BF units.


    The question remains whether a recirculator pump provides such inlet pressure. Dewey recently alluded to a round of emails between Rossi and Bass near the start of the test regarding the recirculator pump. Dewey suggested that the recirculator pump belongs in the same category as the heat exchanger. However, given that there are any emails at all discussing such a recirculator pump at the beginning (at least according to Dewey) suggests to me that it was a serious consideration, and probably put in place.

  • After a coupla false starts .... I have a full-tower-height run, where everything matches (camera and timer, stroke counts). I checked the stroke counts every minute : correct within 2 frames per minute.


    Off to hardware store, radio, poetry ... and perseids. Will try to get a full series tomorrow.

    21E


    Discharge : 196.25 in 0.49 bar Suction -27 in -0.07 bar = backpressure 0.56 bar

    Flow : 32.89 l/hr

    pgl_run21E_16-RESULTS.jpg



  • The question remains whether a recirculator pump provides such inlet pressure. Dewey recently alluded to a round of emails between Rossi and Bass near the start of the test regarding the recirculator pump. Dewey suggested that the recirculator pump belongs in the same category as the heat exchanger. However, given that there are any emails at all discussing such a recirculator pump at the beginning (at least according to Dewey) suggests to me that it was a serious consideration, and probably put in place.


    From the interview of Mats Lewan with Rossi :


    Rossi explained a couple of things with regard to the heat exchanger.

    1. A ‘circulator’ (positioned in connection to the heat exchanger) was used to stabilize the flow of steam and water through the whole system. Rossi wouldn’t comment on further data of the circulator since he said he was preparing a patent for this device.
    2. This circulator had nothing to do with a pump of the model ‘Grundfos’ that was brought up by the defense’s expert witness Rick Smith who suggested that the Grundfos pump was used to make hot water flow through the system and that no steam was produced. The real use for the Grundfos pump was instead to push the water through a by-pass with a filter about once a week to make it cleaner.

    So at the heat exchanger there was a pump for circulating the flow through the system

    In a comment from "engineer48" to Bruce on ECW he stated that Rossi had told him :


    Engineer48 Bruce__H • a year ago

    Hi Bruce,

    Rossi told me there are 2 parallel condensate circulating system.
    One which delivers 85% of the volume to ALL reactors and then for each reactor, separate topping up pumps that provide the other 15% and slightly vary their flow to maintain the desired water level in each reactor


    If those topping pumps where the Prominents, it means that they where on an average only providing 15% of the total flow. Well within the normal specs of the Prominents.


    Besides that Rossi also stated (As a part of Point 15 in his comments on the Smith report)


    There was not only the pump system to push the water but also the recirculator (I guess he meant the circulator at the heat exchanger)





  • @IH Fanboy LDM


    It is at this very point that we traverse from hard evidence, photographs, plans, and measurements to things that are unseen and perhaps unseeable. Although I understand the attraction of arguing over these phantoms, maybe it is more suitable to do so elsewhere. I suggest that it is more in the spirit of this particular thread to talk only of things that are tangible and can be measured or seen.

  • @IH Fanboy LDM


    It is at this very point that we traverse from hard evidence, photographs, plans, and measurements to things that are unseen and perhaps unseeable. Although I understand the attraction of arguing over these phantoms, maybe it is more suitable to do so elsewhere. I suggest that it is more in the spirit of this particular thread to talk only of things that are tangible and can be measured.


    What you call "Hard evidence" has on this forum and elsewhere been interpreted in many different ways. So That evidence seems not to be so hard as you suggest but is only hard for those people who have fixed their opinion. That I brought up those quotes is that maybe, indeed through evidence, we can confirm or reject what is stated.

    As such I believe that it is suitable to do it in this thread, because we are trying to solve things related to the Prominents in this thread.

  • @BH,


    I see no problem with LDM tying the deposition evidence, Mat's interview, E48's statements, etc., into a coherent post about the recirculator pump as it might relate to the prominent pumps. Even Dewey has said that there are emails between Rossi and Bass at the beginning discussing the recirculator pump. The purpose of this thread is to test the prominent, yes, but nothing happens in a vacuum (edit: except for a bunch of quantum weirdness). The discussion about what is on the public record relating to the pumps involved at Doral provide context to the tests that Alan F. is performing.

  • That is why Rossi decided to build one himself. He is going to patent his "circulator", you know. He is an amazing guy.


    It would have a limited, but high value, market. Guys doing phase chnage calorimetry who want to obtain calculated higher power out values than normal methods would allow. A bit like Rossi.

  • I was thinking of a shortcut for the next trial (multi-height) ... Jerry Built AND Jury Rigged.

    But I've decided (mostly for safety reasons -- that pole KICKS if you hold it wrong) to go with a proper carpentry base. Don't have the right screws, washers, cleats ... so off to the (5-miles away) hardware store.

    Edit : I can't decide whether to call it a big, beautiful tower, or ... a magnificence.

  • Nearly ready for a run 0 ... 0.5 bar
    Have a spreadsheet set up with one run per column.

    Summary of yesterday :


    Built the base of the tower.

    Glitch : didn't get the pivot-screw exactly straight. (1/4 in 6" off = 4% error)

    Not fatal, but tower tends to twist with height.

    Glitch: couldn't drive 3" screws into hardwood without a countersink

    Glitch: drew blood while cutting off stuck screws (never put a hand down-cut of hacksaw!)

    Glitch: suspension cord not strong enough : 135-lb paracord stre....e..tched! (Have to raid sailing kit).

    Glitch: had to cut down some branches to lower the tower.


    Safety notes : don't stand under tower when suspended by cord

    Safety notes : thunderstorm in the distance. Lower pole for storms.

    Hmmm ... 20 foot tower with a water-filled hose to ground. What's the conductivity of tap water?

  • Well THAT was two hard days work!

    I did a full sequence.

    IMPORTANT : These are ALL into a 20-foot tube.


    Runs 22 B-G are normal runs


    Run 22 H has the outlet level with the center of the pump. So it is essentially seeing backpressure from the suction and the fluid resistance of the pipe


    Run 22I shows abnormal behavior : the output is below the pump, close to the suction level

    Note that the flow DROPS -- probably because the valves are not seating properly.

    Water runs down large sections of the pipe (it's not perfectly flat) There's probably suction at the discharge port, though bubbles aren't getting that far.


    pgl_run22-RESULTS_31.jpg

    NOTE : DO NOT PLOT RUN "I" ...


    (The spreadsheet is at https://docs.google.com/spread…AXm9p9eU/edit?usp=sharing

  • So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.

  • So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.


    Haven't received a back-pressure gauge (yet). It's adjustable, but you need a manometer to adjust it. My $5 manometer is WAY out of spec.

  • Visualizing all results so far. Some points are averages of multiple runs. All data are for runs where water is lifted into the pump from a bucket below and for discharge heights either at pump level or above. The backpressure is calculated as discharge pressure minus inlet pressure. The blue line shows Fletcher's results and the red line shows Prominent's data.


    I don't mind the jiggles in the plot at all. This is what real data look like. And ... by god! ... is this pump asymptoting to 32 L/h at higher backpressures? What is going on?!


    Edit: Fixed a small error in the plot. The overall result is unchanged.

  • Alan Fletcher


    Alan - Do you see obvious reason why the pump is under performing? Could there be deposits inside the liquid end from this pump's previous life?


    There are maintenance steps in the Prominent manual that you might consider at some point. Not now though I think.

    Do you see obvious reason why the pump is under performing? No.

    Could there be deposits inside the liquid end from this pump's previous life? Maybe, dunno.

  • I updated the spreadsheet to include an error analysis:


    pgl_run22-RESULTS_32.jpg


    Weight : manufacturer's +- 0.2 oz = +- 6g


    Time: I get the time from the camera :

    a) Find the frame where the pump light turns on/off ... read the Timer MM:SS

    Error: +- 1 frame for getting the exact moment of the change

    b) Step backwards until MM:SS changes to SS+1 (count-down timer, not clock).

    This gives the frame number * frame interval , so we know have MM:SS:FF

    Error +- 1 frame for getting the exact moment of the change

    Time is read twice, so we have a total error of +- 4 frames at 30 FPS = +- 0.13 seconds


    Height : (translates to bars).

    For the pump setup heights are good to 1/4 inch

    But for the outlet, I have two errors:


    a) My yard is not flat. I set the error to +- 1 inch, but it's probably worse than that.

    I can move the whole setup to my front yard (Though I'm not sure how to rig the guy rope)

    I *do* have a laser level somewhere ...

    OR I could lay a 2x4  guide-line across the yard, so I have a fixed height.


    b) When the tower is high I can't get an exact reading for the top of the pipe.

    The tape measure isn't at the optimal point either ... I have a fudge factor, and then

    add +-1 inch error

    I need to re-design the head.


    c) When the tower is low I can read the height exactly, so we only have the ground error.


    NOTE: getting the time off the camera is the longest job for the run (and error-prone).


    In the series 22 runs the Stroke count matched my prediction by volume, so for future runs I'll do the time calculation as strokes at 180 strokes/minute. I'll record the runs but not look at them unless needed.


    Anyway, that's pretty much it for now. I have to catch up with some other stuff and then decide whether/where to watch the eclipse.

  • Revised Discharge Head design.
    Scan_20170815_181537.jpg
    (My version 1 tried to do this, but I didn't have the right wood handy).

    Should give height +- 1/2 inch when the tower is high, +- 1/4 inch when the tower is low.
    NOTE: this design ONLY works properly until the beam is level. Maybe I'll extend the curved section a but so it has a specific "discharge" point even when angled down.


    Edit : I may as well make the head plate a bit taller, so I can reach 0.5 bar (203 inches) discharge pressure.

  • Thinking aloud here.

    There's actually something funny with the vinyl tube I'm using (1/2 inch inner) : there's a huge surface tension effect (sort of like a meniscus, but at any angle).

    It only matters at the discharge head. Upstream of the meniscus the tube is filled with water. Then at the bottom of the meniscus water breaks free and runs (well, trickles) along the lower surface of the tube.

    I think I'm going to give up on the "arc" idea, and just add an extension to the pole (angled a bit so it doesn't pee down its own leg)

    Scan_20170815_200625.jpg


    When the pole is high it will pour out of the end of the tube, so the tape measure gives the exact height. When it is low I will measure the actual height at the miniscus point.

  • Tried a series, but the results look funny (mass and strokes didn't change between a couple of steps) . Repeatability?


    Have to RE-redesign the head to get a guaranteed overflow point ... who would'a thunk that the biggest variable would be surface tension !!??


    I think I'll have to keep the pipe running straight with an extension along the pole, change the piping for the last couple of feet, and put up with the dribble down the pole when it's vertical.


    Anyway, I've decided to watch the eclipse in Nebraska .. hard drive there, slow trip back via (??) Grand Tetons and Yellowstone. I'll be gone about a week.