Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Nope. Not a stretch at all. They then started keeping track of events, started finding real experts, and eventually sent stuff off to Boeing for more precise testing. And they gave Rossi all the rope he asked for, to see this story through to the end, one way or another.


    I like the idea, it is destructively creative. But real...?



    If there is pressure data that shows fluctuations around times that things were changed in the Plant (disabling reactors, fixing leaks, etc.), then the pressure data might indicate that it is connected in communication with steam pressure.

    It is an amazing engineering feat to stick the pressure sender exactly where the condenser vacuum and steam pressure balance to exactly nominal standard atmospheric pressure (even if the reported value bounces around either side of that value by some digital increment).

    Three days of pressure data is unfortunately enough data to inform ourselves of whether the pressure sender was working properly or not.

    However, near perfect nominal atmospheric pressure continuously for three days is unusual.

    There is a good agreement apart some points around 99. For being conservative I would consider always the lower of the two.

    When the two lines disagree by more than just a little, it is because the L water used for calculations is very different. (The small differences between lines are accounted for by tank temperature differences.)

    How or why would two people read the water meter thousands of L different for the same day?

    If anything, it looks like JMP was under-charging. And again, it is obvious that the .75 and 1 values are rough values. Do you really think IH or JMP or anyone else who would look at this would say: "Oh interesting JMP received exactly .75 MW for exactly 15 days and exactly 1 MW for exactly 15 days"?


    JMP grossly over-"measured" power in each of those months. Very grossly. They recieved far more energy than the Plant was supposedly making.

    27000 L represents a nominal 0.75 MW day. 36000 L represents a nominal 1 MW day.

    Rossi dictated those invoice requests.

    Rossi was simultaneously recording the water meter values for the ERV.

    JMP (Rossisays) reported receiving 1 MWday for many days when the Plant reported nominally 3/4 MWdays. IH did not invoice JMP for any heat. Rossi (as JMP) must have been concerned with that detail at least by the end of the second month, for sure by the third.

    So now Rossi has an overunity steam pipe that multiplies the energy that the Plant supposedly made?

    More likely the person responsible for the JMP measurements and calculations is incompetent.

    September, for example, had nothing but nominal 0.75 MWdays, and somehow JMP reports that they managed to receive 15 X 1 MWdays.

    @IH Fanboy ,

    JMP reported over a month's worth of 0.25 MWdays higher than the ERV reports that the Plant made on the same day. Sometimes over a week's worth of these wrong extra heat days on one invoice request. That is an error of about 6 MWh for each day that they messed up.

    As for the COP of 9, simply under measure power in by 1/3 then over measure power by the Lugano emissivity method and voila, a COP of 9. I could probably make a pure Lugano emissivity error type COP of 9 error, but with difficulty.

    I don't know anyone else here (besides you) that has ever accused me of not tackling the central issues head-on. If my analysis is cutting and makes you feel uncomfortable, even to the point of you sometimes behaving in a childish manner, then I suppose it must be accomplishing something.

    How about tackling why Rossi as JMP dictated and sent IH invoice requests with energy amounts that hugely vary from the ERV energy for the same month?

    Or how JMP could measure the energy recieved at all? Bass said they had no way to measure the energy sent from the plant, while Rossi claimed JMP had their own meters and temperature probes.

    Rossi as JMP doesn't agree with Rossi as supplier of water meter data to the ERV, which doesn't agree with Fabiani as third source of water meter data.

    So the water meter data is useless.

    And all the COP reports are directly tied to the water meter data.

    Just from that, the suggestion of 'guaranteed performance' is a farce, upon which the wobbly tower of simultaneous additional farces are stacked.

    The IH lawyers were there on the 17th of Feb, 2016 and the water meter was involved in some sort of dispute on that day and finally photographed.

    The Plant was padlocked shut.

    So I am sure that Rossi knew there was trouble brewing long before the ERV report was finalized.

    The energy supplied in the ERV report seems to be equal to the two combined 12 hour segments from Fabiani data for one day, in all the cases that I checked so far...

    So that means the Fabiani kg/L water are in disagreement with the ERV report values, since the steam superheating energy is almost insignificant compared to the total COP, and the heating water to boil energy has a small effect, not the large ones (higher) that I see so far.

    Although much of the total heating COP reported by Fabiani is similar to the ERV for the same day, there are large inconsistencies also.

    The beginning of August is particularly different from that calculated from ERV report, while the latter half is similar.

    After some discussion on ECW regarding the Fabiani data found in 236-43, I looked at my "heat water from tank T to boil + boil water" column in my ERV data examination spreadsheet and it is extremely close in most cases to the COP that Fabiani reported (however he has two amounts, one for each half day). My spreadsheet uses the full water flow amount, not the 10% discounted amount.

    Therefore the L flowed that Fabiani used can be calculated from his data, and compared to the ERV amount before discounting 10% of the water reported flowed.

    That printout is so crappy that I shudder at the idea of manually stuffing it all into a spreadsheet, though.

    Right, P. I did not comment because too little info, and I'd not rely on it, but that was what I thought. Think about the failure mechanisms. If seals break it does not pump. If seals still sort of work, you would expect all the errors to stay proportional to pressure change and we know the change from 2 bar to 3 bar (about 10%). Maybe there is some strange mechanism we don't know, which is why I'm not confident here. But most likely the error at 1 bar is about 20%. The manufacturer comment is a vague getout and does not provide any specific informat

    I suspect that the increase in pump rate is caused by lower piston displacement resistance, and therefore more strokes per minute. The pump is already hot at >50°C, and extra strokes means more seal heat from friction. I would have to find the reference in the manual, but I believe the strokes/minute are to be reduced when hot fluids are pumped to allow sufficient time for seal cooling. (The pump is de-rated for hot fluids).