No. The output is calculated from the flow. When one Big Frankie was taken off-line Penon reported that the flow dropped from 36,000 to 27,000 ... 25% less.
(Again, just based on the main Penon report.)
But didn't you say it went back up to 36K? Did the fourth widget get resurrected?
OK ... I think this is my most serious complaint about Smith's report (Supplemental)
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf
One little detail : how do you explain water, at 0 barg (atmospheric), reaching a temperature of 104F ?
In my opinion, 104F is by definition super-heated steam.
104 degrees fahrenheit? Whirlpools are hotter than that.
104 degrees fahrenheit? Whirlpools are hotter than that.
Duh .... C of course!
OK ... I think this is my most serious complaint about Smith's report (Supplemental)
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf
One little detail : how do you explain water, at 0 barg (atmospheric), reaching a temperature of 104F ?
In my opinion, 104F is by definition super-heated steam.
Alan:
(NB - I think you mean 104C not 104F? US weird not using SI).
I have always respected your tech contributions to this debate because they make technically valid points.
IH's tech people were OK but not great. They largely failed. Predictably. Decoding why a Rossi demo is wrong is rather like trying to spot how a magician created his trick. Obvious when you know how, but baffling when you don't. And, let us face it, tech people are not used to finding such tricks. This system was so badly monitored and instrumented - with no idea what the system actually was because Rossi himself changed the instrumentation, that we will never know.
Rossi's genius - and he has in this taken in many people on this thread - is getting everyone to assume that a demo that cannot clearly be proved bogus is something that therefore represents positive evidence of his claims. Think about that a bit and you will be it cannot be right, unless said demos are properly conducted and set up to provide accurate data. They never have been.
Therefore what follows is pure guesswork. I'm a sucker for this: although it does not provide evidence one way or another I like to try to decode Rossi's stuff.
Your critique of the critique of the pumps is fair. No-one can prove the system is bogus because of the pump capacity, although like all Rossi's systems it is badly designed, bodging things beyond normal limits, etc. I'm inclined to think the pumps were more or less working as stated.
The critique of output when the system is shut down is powerful, and speaks to a strong Rossi desire to rig things. I don't think Penon rigged anything, but he accepted unquestioningly what Rossi told him to do. That is as bad as.
Penon's report was risible, in lots of ways. Those numbers look rigged, and probably were, since Rossi controlled the data and its analysis. But how they were rigged is not clear, see below.
Technical stuff
There are two obvious ways the system could be rigged: flow less than stated, or system pumps hot water.
Individually each way looks possible, but not proven.
To answer your question 104C on a Rossi instrument with Rossi placement means absolutely nothing. Rossi has shown himself really good at having over-reading instruments. The numbers are so close to 100C that it certainly looks like a system with steam in equilibrium with water, rather than dry steam. In fact it is pretty well proven it could not be dry steam - nowhere does Rossi have the extraordinarily fine regulation needed to keep temperatures stable at 100C without the circuit containing liquid phase water. If it does contain liquid phase water than how much is actually steam condensed externally who knows?
So the flow could have been hot water with that reading. Also, the flowmeter was inappropriate for the system, bad quantisation, could have been rigged since we do not have the raw data to detect such due to its low resolution and the fact that the raw data was handled by Rossi and friends. Penon could easily accept some excuse from Rossi for a correction of the data.
That opens up another possibility, which is that Rossi "made up" the flow readings with the temperature readings disabled or spoofed. We have that other pump that could recirculate water separate from the e-cats.
I'm not sure which of these is right: perhaps we all have enough perspective now o understand that not being sure which is right does not mean the Doral PR exercise constitutes even slight evidence in favour of Rossi's stuff working.
No Rossi demo, if you look at it the other way round, could prove Rossi's stuff does NOT work. So asking for more certainty than "no positive evidence here" is pretty difficult. We get it only when as in Lugano an experiment is well enough instrumented for the Rossi false positives (or at least one of them) to be discovered beyond doubt.
yes pressure rock steady at 0 absolute pressure in bars (the meter was claimed one that was absolute but the 0 could only be a gauge pressure) and that 0 held day after day even when low pressure storms went through Miami.
And if the pressure was truly 0 how could the steam be circulated with out that vacuum pump?
Oh yes, by contract Penon was to have the instruments recertified after the runs and he did not take the data, he just received the data from Rossi.
No. The output is calculated from the flow. When one Big Frankie was taken off-line Penon reported that the flow dropped from 36,000 to 27,000 ... 25% less.
(Again, just based on the main Penon report.)
And, based on Penon's reports, 36,000 L/day was flowing in the middle of October 2015 when 1 Big Frankie was described by Penon as offline.
This situation was maintained throughout most of Oct 2015 - Feb 2016. You can even see in the photos that the IH people took in their walkaround on the day that the trial ended, that the bottom Big Frankie has had its plumbing unhooked from the heating circuit.
I still need to follow up on this
And, based on Penon's reports, 36,000 L/day was flowing in the middle of October 2015 when 1 Big Frankie was described by Penon as offline.
This situation was maintained throughout most of Oct 2015 - Feb 2016. You can even see in the photos that the IH people took in their walkaround on the day that the trial ended, that the bottom Big Frankie has had its plumbing unhooked from the heating circuit.
btw : The flow was not rock-solid 36000 or 27000 (36 or 27K) : I noted some irregularities such as
4/7 35 28 38 36 37
5/9 36 32 34 35 36 34
5/15 29 38
Since the pumps were most likely set at full stroke and rate I don't think different values would have been set.
Lower values (other than turning off a BF) could be explained by leakage: the pumps are delivering (eg) 36 but not that much is reaching the flowmeter.
I have no (instrumental) explanation for the very rare higher values (37,38)
Never thought I'd see the day. Good on ya.
I'm not inclined to think that the pumps were working as stated. The reason is that in order to work as stated 18 or them would have had to pump 36,000 L/day, which is 83.3 L/hour. The experiments you sponsored never rose past 62 L/hour. On the supposition that the pump being examined was old and not working optimally an extrapolation was used that estimated max 72 L/hour.
How does this indicate that the pumps were working as stated.
- Penon's Oct 2015 report showing only 3 BF's functional on pages 10-12 of document 207-58
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.58_Exhibit_58.pdf
Page 10-14 is for BF1,2,3 on 10/13 and p17 is for 10/14
Bruce_H : this proves BF4 was off-line.
But the size of the diagram suggests there isn't room for BF4 on one page.
An alternative explanation is that they forgot to include the page for BF4.
An alternative-alternative explanation is that those sheets were accidentally included.
The daily log shows the average power was 11.470kW and the flow was 36K ... the total power was similar on the surrounding days.
I hadn't noticed that each BF has 16 amp-meters -- and many were off. I'm GUESSING that each fed a fat-cat-like wafer with fins, as photographed by Lewan, all in a common bath. So Rossi had lots of spares (or some weren't working)
Hmmm ... someone with lots of spare time could sum the amps for BF1-3, multiply by the voltage (???) to get watts ... and see if there's a BF4-sized gap in the data. I don't think 10/13 was a day highlighted for a difference with the utilities numbers?
Voltage : diagram on p39 indicates they're single-phase, so 110V
In my opinion, 104F 104C is by definition super-heated steam.
Nope. That would be somewhat dry steam, not superheated. You can make it much hotter than 104 deg C in a pressure cooker, and that's not superheated. It would not work for sterilization if it were. Probably not cooking, either.
In any kind of closed tank or pot, the pressure will go slightly above 1 atm, and the temperature will rise above 100 deg C.
The rust line in the flowmeter that the R'ster was trying to sneak out of the building on the morning of inspection day in Doral showed something less than 50% capacity where it formed. They had drained the system (eliminating any chance for measuring system coolant mass), boxed and sealed the flowmeter. Rossi ordered Fulvio to physically prevent Joe Murray from opening the box after the scammers were surprised at 6:30am (rather than the 9am agreed upon start). Joe opened it after IH lawyers arrived and got the pictures of the rust line.
Nope. That would be somewhat dry steam, not superheated. You can make it much hotter than 104 deg C in a pressure cooker, and that's not superheated. It would not work for sterilization if it were. Probably not cooking, either.
In any kind of closed tank or pot, the pressure will go slightly above 1 atm, and the temperature will rise above 100 deg C.
A pressure cooker is ... ummm ... PRESSURIZED. The ecat was consistently ZERO barg.
A pressure cooker is ... ummm ... PRESSURIZED. The ecat was consistently ZERO barg.
There would be some back pressure from the plumbing. Enough to raise the temperature above 100 deg C if it were steam. But I doubt it was. I expect the temperature reading was off several degrees, and it was hot water.
The Penon report does not show 0 barG. It say 0 bar -- a vacuum. Perhaps the pressure gauge was broken, or missing, or they just wrote down 0 through the entire report.
The sensor specs, as specified by Penon, are for Bar A
Here is a snippet of Fabiani data. I seem to have cut off the file location, unfortunately.
Notice that the pressure floats around 1, not zero.
Here is a snippet of Fabiani data. I seem to have cut off the file location, unfortunately.
Notice that the pressure floats around 1, not zero.
Which file was that? (Index at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…en-docket-and-case-files/).
Could you please show the data for Oct 13?
Which file was that? (Index at http://coldfusioncommunity.net…en-docket-and-case-files/).
Could you please show the data for Oct 13?
I’ll see if I can figure out what file it was. Rossi supplied the document, but it is Fabiani’s data.
If I recall correctly, there is only this bit for April, and the rest is blank of data.
Here it is: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0194.16_Exhibit_16.pdf
Here is a snippet of Fabiani data.
I can barely read that, but I think it is different from the Penon report. The Penon report says 0 bar throughout.
