Posts by Paradigmnoia

    What happened to the 'millions of data' per day?


    If Fabiani's giant data file essentially boils down to the numbers we have already seen, then that would be impressive.

    So if there were multiple measurements taken of the Plant parameters (temp, pressure, water),

    by several persons (ERV, Fabiani, Rossi, Customer),

    then how many of each measuring device (water meters, etc.), are there?

    The temperature reported is one of the few numbers that look like they were actually measured by something.


    Why would the PCE-830 only report daily Plant electrical consumption in 1000 Wh increments? (except inexplicably in seven instances, four consecutive times in November, and three in bunched together in May, when the ERV data shows 100 Wh increments).


    The water meter that only reports in 1000 kg increments is also sloppy. It could poor selection of instruments, but the meter generally comes with 100 L (kg) electric pulse configuration, and can be ordered with as low as 5 L increments. Ordering a meter that only reports 1000 kg increments on purpose seems very odd.

    Sorry JedRothwell, We don't need calorimetry.


    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2015 at 6:44 AM

    Alexvs:


    Yes, the Customer is measuring independently the energy that arrives to his plant, both with gauges and ( more important) with the operation of his manufacturing system, which needs our energy to work.


    The measurements give similar results, within the margin of error of the instrumentation, but, as I said, what counts more than all is the FACT that the energy we supply him makes his plant work as expected. Calorimetic measurements now are coupled with manufacturing efficiency measurements, which put in evidence the very result that really counts: is our Customer making money with our plant or not ? This is the most important issue. If the Customer does not make money with our plant, he will not get solace if we will present him good calorimetric results, however obtained…


    Data regarding the COP will be given after the completion of the tests and the final results can be either positive or negative.


    Warm Regards,


    A.R.

    Bob ,

    In my opinion, based on the limited info presently available, the cyclical peaks and valleys represent weekday and Saturday lights and mundane warehouse loads. The lights in the warehouse are old things, maybe HP sodium, metal halide, or similar, that use a substantial amount of electricity. Maybe Rossi manned the Plant on Sundays and did not use the warehouse lights.


    It can be supposed, although only a best guess, that the weekday lighting etc. loads can be subtracted from the FPL lumpy line to arrive at the base warehouse load, which includes the Plant consumption.


    The Plant carries on through Sundays at 3/4 or full nameplate capacity (or close), in theory, even though the warehouse seems to have no need for lights, etc. during that day. I am sure many excuses/explanations will be made for the Sunday production of steam for the Customer while the employees are absent or don't require lights etc. on Sundays.


    But why the plant was able to consume more electricity than was supplied for the two week period in November has fewer excuses/explanations. The idea that FPL had a separate meter for the Plant I am sure was looked into by IH when they got a subpoena to look at the warehouse consumption data. Remember also that Matts had an electrical bill for JMP, which was once used as "proof" that the Plant was making substantial excess heat.


    (10 x 400W Metal Halide bulbs would explain most of the electrical consumption lumps, of they were on all day, or almost all day, on weekdays + Saturdays)


    Conveniently, Rossi supplied monthly data for the (more or less) unoccupied Doral warehouse suite in the Exhibit in Document 128-02, showing about 15 kWh per day average when empty.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ll-for-1mw-test-customer/

    Date __________ERV kWh in _______FPL kWh in to whole warehouse unit (approximate)

    Nov 14 2015 .......... 272 ............................. 303.2
    Nov 15 .................... 272 ............................. 218.7
    Nov 16 .................... 273 ............................. 280.5
    Nov 17 .................... 266 ............................. 274.0
    Nov 18 .................... 273.7 .......................... 265.0
    Nov 19 .................... 272.6 .......................... 274.0
    Nov 20 .................... 270.4 .......................... 205.7
    Nov 21 .................... 270.3 .......................... 205.7
    Nov 22 .................... 272 ............................. 248.0
    Nov 23 .................... 271 ............................. 264.3

    Nov 24 .................... 271 ............................. 254.5
    Nov 25 .................... 268 ............................. 264.3
    Nov 26 .................... 266 ............................. 251.3
    Nov 27 .................... 267 ............................. 257.8
    Nov 28 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
    Nov 29 .................... 266 ............................. 205.8
    Nov 30 2015 .......... 268 .............................. 332.6

    Shane D. ,

    It doesn't seems suspicious to you that for about two weeks straight, the Plant used more power than was actually supplied to the building warehouse unit by FPL? (the green line goes below the red line).

    If you consider that the FPL power includes lights, A/C (or heat), computers, bathroom fans, coffee pots, refrigerators and whatever else is plugged in, when the Plant uses more power than was sent by the utility, even by a little bit (according to the line), it is using far more than possible. That means that the ERV Plant input energy data is flawed. Unreliable.

    Peter Metz ,

    I just had a look, and Malcolm's data looks pretty good, and has skipped the extra first day, so it should map correctly to the ERV data.

    My first 4 ERV days of FPL kWh values are:

    372.4
    401.6
    427.7
    528.5

    with a 483 occurring on the additional first day (that Malcolm did not add).


    So I will look closer and see why my weekdays don't seem to behave vs kWh dips. The weekdays do match up to the dates, so I will double-check my X axis for any funny business.

    Peter Metz ,

    I did my own FPL conversion, and haven't opened Malcolm's V14 to look at it yet.

    The ERV start day, I think, is undisputed, and is probably the only good metric for deciding the days of the week relative to all of the data.

    The IH FPL data starts even before the "extra day" indicated on the IH 129-01 Exhibit, based on the angle of the line entering from the LH margin.


    It is possible that IH could have accidentally shifted something by a day, also. They have the original data for FPL and Fabiani's data, so I can only guess that they have plotted it correctly.

    Fabiani's kWh input log "falls behind" enough at the first not-recorded day to get into sync (mostly) with the ERV data (or maybe the ERV data speeds up to catch up with Fabiani's data).

    PeterMetz ,

    I had to add an additional day to the very beginning of the ERV data file (a day 0) in order to get the ERV kWh trace to match the one on the IH Exhibit 129-01, which bumped my low kWh days to Saturday.

    (I had to correct my x axis to include the added new first day).


    Did you test that with your data? (Just so we are all on the same page with our data files).

    There is something screwy there anyways, since Fabiani's data is a day off, also.

    If we presume that the weekly up-down cycles are some sort of mundane human comfort usage, then the two week FPL supply drop falling below the Plant consumption is by a significant amount.


    Then explaining why humans want no comfort in the warehouse on Saturdays is a minor detail.

    rb0 ,

    Perhaps a more interesting question is: if it is not reflectivity that reduces the integrated total emissivity of alumina to around 0.45 at high temperatures (say > 800 C), then what property of alumina is the cause for such a low total emissivity? For alumina thicker than a mm, it is not the transparency.

    rb0 ,

    Page 70 shows a reflective metal can. The emissivity sticker in this case is primarily used to prevent reflection of the cooler surroundings towards the camera.

    Reflectivity of IR wavelengths is not a strong property of alumina cement.


    If one were to wrap the reflective can entirely in a non-reflective sticker of 0.45 emissivity, and have a constant internal heat source before and after wrapping, would the can be cooler or hotter with the 0.45 emissivity wrapping? With a 0.95 emissivity wrapping?

    Ah, good old XRD. Very handy for identifying crystaline phases. Not an elemental analysis at all.

    A good XRF analysis might have been a good idea.

    Perhaps we should have a closer look at those XRD results?


    What are the three blank (non)identifications?

    Only (from memory) a 75 score for alumina, and a 54 score for corundum? What is the rest?

    THHuxleynew ,

    It does sound counter-intuitive, and it does make a difference whether a 0.95 ε sticker (or whatever) is within or outside a user-selected measurement area (which causes the camera to re-calculate the temperature for that area if the emissivity is adjusted, and modify the display area accordingly).


    The important thing is that the camera image default is ε=1.0 for every pixel until told otherwise (by selecting a specific measurement area)

    I tried a few things out with the MFMP RAVI file. One thing I should have noticed before is that the IR background for the Optris images is default at ε of 1.0

    That means if things within measurement areas with altered emissivity are to glow more than the immediately adjacent background , then the only alteration possible is lower emissivity.


    Which means that if the 0.95 ε sticker ("dot") is glowing on the reactor more brightly than the rod, the 0.95 emissivity is actually lower than the rod emissivity in the camera spectral sensitivity range.

    Otherwise, a dot of an ε of 0.95 that has a higher emissivity than the rod would appear more brown than the rod in the camera view, as would any measurement areas with an ε set higher than the background at an ε of 1.0


    The image below, Duplicate fig 7 was cut from one made by me from MFMP Optris camera images, in the IP Connect software. The measurement areas are changed to about 0.7 ε, background standard.

    The second one is viewed with the background forced to an ε of 0.45 , so that the reactor appears at that emissivity. The measurement area circle is forced to 0.95 ε. (Note how the computer fill is offset upwards in the circle.)

    Edit: Original Figure 7 added.