Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

  • I had a friend that thought he was getting 1.2 COP with a flow system but it was that the pump monitor data catch was thinking it was a 50 Hz rate when it was really pumping at 60Hz.

  • Here are my results for the Dec 13 run.

    pgl-40-results-06.jpg


    Spreadsheet at : lenr-pgl-40-results

    The weakest link in my setup is the tiny little count-down timer I'm using : in the dark it's very easy to misread the numbers, so I recommend looking at the "Flow-from-N" using the time calculated from the Pump counter * 1/180 minutes.

    H+/B+ are the outlet heights/bars Htot/Btot add the suction height to get the total pressure across the pump.

  • Alan Fletcher

    Thank you pointing those pictures out. Are your eyes good enough to see of all those pumps are running btw? Sadly, mine are not.


    My eyes are not good enough to properly see the displays on the pumps either, but thankfully I don't need my eyes since this is a high-quality image which can be analyzed digitally.


    They key to the analysis is the realization that certain pieces of information don't appear just anywhere on these pump displays. They appear only in one position and are either on or off. This means that to decide what state a pump is in you often don't need to read what is written on the displays, you only need to see if the relevant part of the display is bright (the default background) or dark (i.e., displaying lettering).


    Here is a closeup image of a pump in manual/stop mode. In this mode the pump is not operating (u.e., it is stopped) but is ready to start pumping if the start/stop button on the front panel is pushed. You can see the words "Manual" and "Stop" on the display indicating that it is in this ready state but not actually going. I analyzed this image by creating 2 regions of interest (ROIs -- the 2 rectangles) on the photo and measuring average pixel intensity as a function of horizontal distance across the screen in each one. The results are shown at the bottom where the red trace shows the results for the top ROI and the blue trace shows the results for the bottom ROI.




    The presence of the word "Manual" is clearly shown as a reduction (in the blue trace ) of average pixel intensity over a circumscribed portion of the ROI. Likewise, the presence of the word "Stop" is shown by a drop in intensity in the red trace. Note that the amplitude of the intensity reductions is large when compared with the random noise at baseline and further note that the intensity drop corresponding to the word "Stop" (red) has a characteristic spacing relative to that for the word "Manual" (blue). In analyzing the images of the pumps sitting on the Doral setup I have used these observations to form a decision criterion for deciding whether or not the word "Stop" appears on their displays -- the word stop will only be deemed to appear if the red trace diminishes in intensity by more that 5 baseline standard deviations (sigma 5!), and if the leading and trailing edges of the drop in the red trace occur before and after, respectively, the leading edge of the blue "Manual" trace.


    Below is the image that Alhfors provided (slightly enhanced for clarity). Once opened you can zoom in on any pump in the photo and easily spot the dark smudge that corresponds to the word "Manual". So all 24 pump are in manual mode.





    But which pumps are stopped? You can see the smudge corresponding to the presence of the word "Stop" in some displays but not others. To say more I have extended the digital analysis outlined above to all pumps shown in the picture. Below I list the pumps where there is solid evidence, using the criteria I mentioned earlier, that the word "Stop" really does appear on the display. In making this list I have named the pumps according to what row they are in (numbered 1-4 from top to bottom) and what column they are in (lettered A-F from left to right).


    Pumps that are definitely in stop mode and so were not pumping at the time the picture was taken ...

    A1, B2, F1, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3, A4, B4


    So 15 out of the 24 pumps were stopped. I expect that some or all of the rest were also stopped but the image analysis could not confirm this because of reflections, shadows, and oblique angles that degraded the images. To give an idea of the sort of data that was used to generate these results, here is a zoomed-in image of pump F2 (rightmost pump 2nd row from the top) as well as the analysis. The arrows point to the smudges associated with the words "Stop" (red arrow) and "Manual" (blue arrow). The digital analysis of pixel intensities is shown at the bottom. The intendisty dip associated with the work "Stop" is clearly visible in the red trace although it is on the very edge of visibility in the actual photo.





    Based on all of this, and based on the green lights showing beside each and every pump, I conclude that none of the pumps in the photo were actually pumping when the photo was taken. Previously I had a mental image of the all the pumps working 24/7 all the time for almost the entire 1 year test at Doral. Given the new evidence and based on indications from Barry West, I am now thinking that the pumps were only turned on a couple of times each day. So what gives? How did 36,000 Litres of water circulate through the system?


    Edit: Here are a few details I left out of my original explanations. All image analysis was carried out using Image J which is freeware developed at the US National Institutes of Health. Although the photo showing of all the pumps at once has been processed for better visibility using this software, the actual digital analysis was carried out on the original file without processing other than a compression of the colour information down to an 8-bit greyscale. The red and blue traces showing averaged pixel values are actually offset in the raw data files. This is largely because the uppermost ROI is in the shadow of the overhanging top of each pump. A constant has been added to both traces so that their baselines are comparable. Finally, standard deviations at baseline were assessed by eye. To accomplish this, a Gaussian structure was assumed for the baseline noise and thus the peak-to-peak variability visible to the eye was approximated at 4 SD.

  • Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe. :). It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo. And to be honest, it is all water under the bridge, the key factor here is 'could the pumps possibly have....etc'. And that is still a test in progress. Interesting diversion though.

  • Here are my results for the Dec 13 run.


    Based on images we have I think that the column of water on the outputs of the pumps is something like 25-30cm. So your pumping rates of about 60 L/hr seem the most relevant and, thanks to you, that figure seems pretty solid now.


    The image evidence also indicates that the suction lift required at the pump inputs varied vary from about 25cm to 180 cm or so. On this basis it would seem that 60 L/hr is a maximal pumping rate for any pump in the array. Mr Rossi seems to be indicating that the pump inputs were pressurized and I think this might increase the pump rates even more. If the inputs are pressurized I would assume that the valves would become unseated and you would have a flow of water whether the pumps were going or not. In fact I suspect that under those circumstances the flow would be restricted once the pumps begin to operate -- so what would be the purpose of the pumps? It all seems a little nuts and I should emphasize that there is no actual evidence, either photographic or from people on the scene (Rossi excepted), that this is true.

  • Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe. :). It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo. And to be honest, it is all water under the bridge, the key factor here is 'could the pumps possibly have....etc'. And that is still a test in progress. Interesting diversion though.


    So far the maximal pump rate is coming out at 60L/hr which is inadequate to account for the 36,000 L/day that was reported, for example, on every day of November 2015.

  • Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe. :). It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo. And to be honest, it is all water under the bridge, the key factor here is 'could the pumps possibly have....etc'. And that is still a test in progress. Interesting diversion though.

    Alan!

    "Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe"


    Why do you think and what evidence is there that Barry West is lying? That he ever lied in this story or that he had any reason to lie?


    on the other hand.....


    Rossi has been shown in sworn depositions, many of his own, to lie, lie often and lie about may topics.


    And most importantly, this device that he was attempting to collect $89 MILLION dollars for, has now been deemed by Rossi himself, to not be worth pursuing!


    I greatly question the first part of your statement... "Basically it's a question of whose lie " but there is no doubt about your second part of your statement ... "you want to believe"":thumbup: :)

  • It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo.


    Thanks for reminding me about the noise. Having 24 pumps clattering away must have made for an impressive wall of sound. I expect that anyone working nearby would be completely aware of whether the pumps were going or not. I have been wondering if Barry West was perhaps mistaken in his information that the pumps were only in occasional use each day but I think that this sort of pattern of use would be pretty plain just from the contrasting noise levels.

  • Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe. :). It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo. And to be honest, it is all water under the bridge, the key factor here is 'could the pumps possibly have....etc'. And that is still a test in progress. Interesting diversion though.


    Alan,


    Very unfair of you to imply Barry West lied. Of all the people deposed, he came across as the most honest. Just a "good ole boy" caught up in a real mess, who got along with everyone. The one time he ventured his opinion was when talking about the rust. Rust, according to him, made the test invalid. Not quite in those words.

  • I agree with Shane D. that of all the players in the whole IH/Rossi saga the least likely to be lying about what went on is Barry West. And I am now finding it increasingly difficult to imagine how he could be mistaken or mixed up when he says that the pumps on the Big Frankies were operated only intermittently when it was perceived that water levels were low. There is such a huge gap between his description and the version that requires all pumps to be working full out all day that I would be very interested if anyone can suggest how Mr West could have simply been mistaken. So I think it is time to take him seriously and consider what it would mean.


    One of the concepts that Mr Rossi floated rather late in the lawsuit was that there is a "recirculator" pump that stabilized a pressure head of water from the JMP side of the Doral facility and it was mainly this (and not the Prominent pumps) that pushed water into the Big Frankies at the rate of 36,000 L/day rate. OK, maybe, but I see only 2 ways this could work -- either the water bypasses the Prominent pumps and goes into the Big Frankies by a separate route, or the water is pushed straight through the Prominent pumps at a high rate regardless of their settings. The problem with the first proposal is that there is no photographic evidence at all for a separate route into the Big Frankies and the problem with the second proposal is that it sounds insane. Why have the Prominent pumps there at all if you are just going to push water straight through them? Maybe that second proposal is possible though.


    So I'd like some help. If anyone can suggest evidence for a separate route into the Big Frankies then I'd be fascinated. On the other hand maybe using a pressure head on the input to push water through a Prominent pump is something Alan Fletcher could try. Maybe that is how one could reach the high pump rates (either 83 L/hr or even 125 L/hr) that is required to meet Penon's reported overall flow rate for the 5 final months of the 1-year test.

  • I agree with Shane D. that of all the players in the whole IH/Rossi saga the least likely to be lying about what went on is Barry West. And I am now finding it increasingly difficult to imagine how he could be mistaken or mixed up when he says that the pumps on the Big Frankies were operated only intermittently when it was perceived that water levels were low. There is such a huge gap between his description and the version that requires all pumps to be working full out all day that I would be very interested if anyone can suggest how Mr West could have simply been mistaken. So I think it is time to take him seriously and consider what it would mean.


    One of the concepts that Mr Rossi floated rather late in the lawsuit was that there is a "recirculator" pump that stabilized a pressure head of water from the JMP side of the Doral facility and it was mainly this (and not the Prominent pumps) that pushed water into the Big Frankies at the rate of 36,000 L/day rate. OK, maybe, but I see only 2 ways this could work -- either the water bypasses the Prominent pumps and goes into the Big Frankies by a separate route, or the water is pushed straight through the Prominent pumps at a high rate regardless of their settings. The problem with the first proposal is that there is no photographic evidence at all for a separate route into the Big Frankies and the problem with the second proposal is that it sounds insane. Why have the Prominent pumps there at all if you are just going to push water straight through them? Maybe that second proposal is possible though.


    So I'd like some help. If anyone can suggest evidence for a separate route into the Big Frankies then I'd be fascinated. On the other hand maybe using a pressure head on the input to push water through a Prominent pump is something Alan Fletcher could try. Maybe that is how one could reach the high pump rates (either 83 L/hr or even 125 L/hr) that is required to meet Penon's reported overall flow rate for the 5 final months of the 1-year test.


    I may be incorrect, but it was my understanding that the holding tank, between JMP and the "Big Frankies" was an open circuit, exposed to the atmosphere. If that be the case, then a "recirculator" pump on the JMP side could not induce the water flow through the BF's. It would simply over flow the tank.


    Although, again, sooooo many dreamed up solutions by Rossi Fans to attempt to justify his conflicting posts, stories, photos etc. I have begin to lose what was factual and what was fanciful dreams. (Not that you are doing this here! I realize you are trying to look at actual evidence) Just like the whole heat exchanger story.... a big, big, big problem came to light and so a whole new apparatus was inserted into the story. Never seen, never before mentioned, no real evidence to support it. Only "missing" window panes that only one poster and an eight year old could see. Scratches on the floor and imaginary pipes.


    So now a recirculator pump will have to be magically summoned to over come the evidence based information about the Prominent pumps lack of capacity to meet the test's reported flow and even the possibility that they were not even running!


    Yes, indeed...... whose lies are we going to believe? :/ There are SO MANY to choose from! =O Although, in my opinion, from only one party in the drama.:rolleyes:


    Signed.....

    A "former believer" whose has been burned way, way to many times by Rossi's own words, actions and proven lies.

  • I may be incorrect, but it was my understanding that the holding tank, between JMP and the "Big Frankies" was an open circuit, exposed to the atmosphere.


    You aren't mistaken. Smith describes the internal tank as "eventually vented to atmosphere" so that "the pressure in the condensate return tank is atmospheric, or 0 barg".



    . If that be the case, then a "recirculator" pump on the JMP side could not induce the water flow through the BF's. It would simply over flow the tank.


    I agree. But Mr Rossi is angling to hold that most of the water entering the Big Frankies was pumped in under pressure from some source other than the Prominent pumps.

  • Great work on the manual/stop!


    Right now the flow/pressure chart is way below Prominent's data at 0.5 bar -- but they are most likely creating the back pressure with a regulator valve.

    In the present setup the back pressure across the pump is made up of:


    a) suction height

    b) outlet height

    c) fluid resistance in the pipe (about 25 feet ... I'll measure it exactly).


    I think we can get some information on c) by progressively shortening the output pipe and running the curves as before. (say height 20,15,10,5 feet pipe length 25,20,15,10) and then a final measurement with 1 foot of pipe. (I could do all this with the pipe horizontal, but I think the curve will show the quality of the readings).

    I'll scout for a better clock (going to San Francisco over Christmas).

  • The suction height pressure is independent of the outlet side back pressure when the outlet pressure is higher than the inlet pressure.
    The suction side is sealed from the outlet pressure by the (multiple) ball valves, preventing the suction side from communicating with the outlet side when the pump is operated correctly.

    It can only be additive to the outlet pressure if the inlet (suction side) pressure exceeds the outlet line pressure.

  • The suction height pressure is independent of the outlet side back pressure when the outlet pressure is higher than the inlet pressure.
    The suction side is sealed from the outlet pressure by the (multiple) ball valves, preventing the suction side from communicating with the outlet side when the pump is operated correctly.

    It can only be additive to the outlet pressure if the inlet (suction side) pressure exceeds the outlet line pressure.


    I think you are basically correct but I also think that Mr Rossi has been trying to suggest (indirectly, vaguely, and clumsily) that the inlet pressure does indeed exceed the outlet pressure. If this is so then from the diagram of the pump assembly it seems to me that the inlet pressure would unseat all of the 1-way ball valves and cause a steady state flow of water through the pump. I think this is something that Alan Fletcher might consider looking at in the future. In [particular, I would be very interested to know if there is a steady-state flow of water possible when the Prominent pump is not actually active (i.e., it is in manual/stop mode) and then I would like to compare that with the flow rate measure when the pump is put into action. From my assessment of the workings of this pump I think that there is the paradoxical possibility that starting up the pump might actually restrict the flow because the pressures generated by the solenoid inside the pump will dominate the external pressures and re-seat the valves at some parts of the pumping cycle. This would mean that far from being additive, the flows established by the pump itself and by a external inlet pressure would partly cancel each other.

  • Bruce__H ,

    I don't doubt for an instant that Rossi would stoop so low as to push water through metering pumps if it suited his agenda.

    There is past evidence for water in his devices performing "unconventional" feats.


    But since the pump test is science, let's not add things together when they are not additive.