Posts by IH Fanboy

Quote from Bruce__H

No. Your assumptions are convoluted and specially adapted to come to the conclusions you desire. Mine aren't.

And yours are specially adapted to come to the conclusion you desire. For example, when I provide a remarkable observation such as the aggregate pump rate as measured by Alan NEARLY EXACTLY matches the pump rates of the BF3 and BF4, it's almost entirely lost on you and other hyper-skeptics. Yet the probability of this being a coincidence is astronomically low. I've knocked down so much BS on this forum over the years by simply highlighting the evidence on the record, it sometimes makes me wonder how incompetent (or perhaps deceitful) so many people here are. I don't know what motivates you and others. I actually respect you much more than some others here, but you are driven, and I don't really understand by what nature you are here, and for what reasons you devote such great time and effort to your cause.

Quote

It is always helpful to reduce assumptions though. Along these lines, I again request your view on the video of the hose emitting steam at just under 6 kg/hour. Would you not agree that Mr Rossi's hose in the Krivit video is emitting steam at a much lower velocity even though Rossi claims to be generating steam at a higher rate (7kg/h)? The nice thing about the 6 kg/h video is that this steam is also delivered through a hose that is several metres long ... like Rossi's. So, if Rossi's steam is a weak dribble because of internal condensation then that should be the case in the other video too. But it isn't. I sense thaqt you arfe resisting comparing the two videos but I wish you would go ahead and do so.

I told you my view. But I guess you continue to insist that I don't respond to your critiques, so I'll give you a bit more: you post a video and claim it is 6kg/hour, but we have no idea about who made that video, whether it is accurate, whether it was independently checked, who is behind it, etc. And to be honest, while it does appear to have a bit more oomph, it is in the ballpark of what we observe with Rossi's hose.

Quote from Bruce__H

I think that the marks made by the beams would have generally reflected the size and positioning of the heat exchanger.

I understand what you are saying -- that the beams could have acted like a pedestal upon which the heat exchanger would have sat and which it would have overhung on all sides -- but this is a weak argument. It is an argument designed to allow you to claim that almost any pattern of marks on the floor are evidence of a heat exchanger.

So no, the marks do not logically eliminate the possibility that a heat exchanger was there, they are not particularly consistent with it either. My main concern is that you then take this weak evidence and turn it into the assertion that "The mezzanine had all the markings for what used to be a heat exchanger." It didn't.

You make your assumptions. I make mine.

Quote from Bruce__H

The marks on the mezzanine floor are the wrong size for the heat exchanger described in the court documents.

And you think this eliminates the possibility that a heat exchanger was placed on beams?

Quote from Bruce__H

The mezzanine had marks on the floor, but they were inconsistent with the heat exchanger described in the Rossi v Darden case documents.

It is a problem that you now take inaccurate information and promote it as a fact.

If one were to construct a heat exchanger, one would do it on beams so that air would flow beneath it as well. There are clear 90 degree angled markings on the floor that would be consistent with such beams. The mezzanine room dimensions are sized sufficiently to accommodate a heat exchanger.

Quote from woodworker

I have a couple of questions for IHFB -- what is the evidence that the heat exchanger existed? As I recall, there were comments that there were no holes in the floor or walls that would show that a heat exchanger was installed. Please point out evidence to the contrary if I am wrong. I don't mean to rehash the issue, but is there any evidence, other than RossiSays, to support the existence of the heat exchanger? I know Wong's opinion is based solely on what RossiSays and that there were no pictures, drawings, schematics, etc. of the alleged heat exchanger, no invoices relating to the equipment to build one (neither material nor labor) and from what I recall there was no mention by anyone at any point about a heat exchanger until after the "test" was concluded. Buehler, any evidence at all to the

contrary?

Second, someone above posted that Rossi had allegedly claimed that he had invented another product for which he was filing a patent. Was any such patent filed?

Third, you opined that possibly the 36,000 number was just copied over and thus was not an accurate reflection of what was happening. In other words (my words) that means the number was made up, even if it was just assumed. Given that we conclusively know that the widgets seemed to working even when there was no power to them, and we know that the numbers/log was inaccurate on one/multiple occasions when the fourth widget was not in service, how can you give any credibility to the numbers / data provided? Garbage in garbage out is an often abused cliche, but it certainly seems to accurately (all irony intended) to describe this situation.

Display More

With all due respect, I'm not going to re-hash the heat exchange issue. Some of the best debates/evidence actually are in the comments section of e-catworld.com, from a couple of years ago. Every detail down to the markings on the floor, the one picture that showed the mezzanine doorway during operation of the test (but conveniently cut off the bottom part of the door so that you could not see whether pipes entered near the floor), the windows, the apparent previous holes in the floor, the markings on the wall, the words on the wall, and every tiny detail to its last iota was explored.

I've always thought (and have expressed) that the matter of the heat exchanger is probably the biggest unknown. Had the trial proceeded, we all would have known with certainty whether or not the heat exchanger ever existed. IH and Rossi made the conscious decision to settle the case before we got that far, thus throwing the matter into a state of Heisenberg uncertainty. If you ask ECW mainstays, they might be willing to go over the available evidence with you, but I doubt it. Most people have moved on at this point.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The mezzanine windows were always there, except the day that Wong showed up (a year after shut down).

Wow, that is an amazing claim. So you have actual footage of the windows from start to finish during the Doral test?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

But first one has to remove the heat, in order to get condensate. Tough to do, if not impossible, while the 'steam' pipes are insulated, and inside an insulated box.

Don't forget the huge vacuum required to pull all the 'steam' out of the Plant, since it can't push itself out under pressure, since there is no relative pressure in the 'steam" piping.

And this brings us to the greatest mystery of all. Was there a heat exchanger? The mezzanine had all the markings for what used to be a heat exchanger. Dewey claims there was never one. And had the trial proceeded, maybe we would have gotten to the bottom of that one, since I'm sure much of the evidence had not yet surfaced in the briefings. But IH and Rossi decided to settle, thereby forever leaving this question in a state of limbo. That was their choice. I think it is a shame, at least for us.

Quote from Forty-Two

But it’s “interesting”.

I just learned from IHFB that steam circuits are designed to work under vacuum (“a slight vacuum on the outlet of the steam generator”). - And I was always scared of steam pipe leaks, because I thought invisible, high temperature (overheated) steam might leak out and kill me.

From now on, when I walk along a steam line I only have to worry that I might get sucked into it...

How did steam from Rossi’s plant leak out when the system was under vacuum?

And you learned well.

If you want an example, here is one:

https://federalpump.com/wp-con…enstate-Return-System.pdf

You can also go to Google and type in some key words and get all kinds of information on steam circuit systems with condensate pumps.

Quote from sigmoidal

1) It cannot easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side and simultaneously be a "working fluid circuit". You don't know what your talking about. If you took sophomore level engineering thermodynamics, you would understand why.

2) Using precision dosimetric pumps all set to 100% makes no sense.

3) The flow rate is unrealistic in that it varies very little. Thanks for admitting that "mindlessly copying" is a reasonable alternate explanation.

4) We know that it was a gravity return because of the open to the air tank return tank (see photos).

5) If the return pipe is not full, it WILL measure incorrectly - the manufacturer states this explicitly in their specs.

1) Yes it can. Perhaps you skipped out on your classes. This is how steam circuits are designed. There is a pump to pump the condensate. This can create a slight vacuum on the outlet of the steam generator.

2) Again, I could easily see Rossi setting it to max, and letting them run.

3) The flow rate jumps quite a bit in the data, with some long stretches of the same rounded values.

4) Show me a photo of the return pipe to the tank. As I recall, we never got access to that. It seems to me it was always on Jed's word. Here is your chance!

5) Touche. Now show me the evidence that the return pipe was not full, besides the waterline schtick, which could have been formed at any stage with standing water, and does not mean that the water level was always at the supposed water line mark. And I don't think we ever saw photos of this either.

Quote from sigmoidal

No, not in context. Because: 1) it's absurd to have zero back pressure in a working fluid circuit, 2) it's absurd to have all dosimetric pumps at 100%, and 3) it's absurd to think that the flow rate of 36000 would be as steady as reported given all the testimony of leaks, breakdowns, shutdowns, etc. 4) its absurd to think that the return pipe was full in a known gravity return, and 5) it has been demonstrated and is repeatable that flow rates of 5X to 10x will occur in partially filled pipes. There are more reasons than this, but that's a start.

1) No it isn't. You have a condensate return path with a pump that could easily create a slight vacuum on the outlet side.

2) No it isn't. I can easily see Rossi just setting them to max settings and letting them run.

3) The flow rate varies. Look at the tapestry of data. And they are clearly rounding. And in some cases, they are probably mindlessly copying the same value from one day to the next.

4) The return pipe doesn't need to be full. Jed makes this same mistake. How do you know whether it is purely a gravity return? That's not what the record indicates.

5) Murray had a setup of his own that didn't match the Doral setup. He even admitted this in his depo. The flow meter spec states the error bars in partially filled pipes. Rossi's attorney hit Murray over the head with it.

Quote from sigmoidal

Just for the record, you meant to write "I stand corrected Sig", right?

Freudian slip?

EDIT: I see now that you corrected yourself upthread. Thanks!

Ha ha, yes. For the record, I stood corrected. Nevertheless, my point remains, that Alan's measured values essentially match the ~27k l/d and ~36k l/d log values. Whether the 4th BF was taken offline for two days or months is up for question. We have witnesses stating it was offline for at least one day. There are always alternative explanations for just about everything. For example, whoever was writing down the flow rates might have just mind-numbingly copied 36,000 for the next few months, when it was actually 27,000.

Ask yourself this: what are the chances that Alan's measured numbers would NEAR EXACTLY match the 27k l/d and 36k l/d values. Don't you find that extremely interesting?

Quote from sigmoidal

What do you think "Red: Fletcher scaled to Prominent at .5 bar" refers to? I think you are the confused one here. Please check with Alan.

I stand correct Sig. BUT, looking at Alan's measured values, you see ~62 l/h at 0 bar. Let's take that value without the scaling factor. You still end up with ~27k l/d for 3BFs and ~36k l/d for 4 BFs.

Quote from sigmoidal

Sorry, I won and have all your Quatloos.

The reason is that the orange dots are not from an actual pump. You don't know that those points are accurate. They are mathematical extrapolations assuming linear up-rating based on manufacturer specs. You realize that, right?

Or are you now asserting that you empirically tested a new pump? If so, you better check with Alan on that - I highly doubt he'll back you up on that.

But if you need to negotiate a Quatloo loan, I'm willing to help you out. The deal was that your empirical tests would not show that there was adequate flow. Your EMPERICAL tests did NOT show that there was adequate capacity.

Display More

Whoa, I think you have a major misunderstanding here. Alan measured the Prominent pump to 0 bar. Alan can clarify if needed.

Edit: Sig is right I was wrong. BUT see below. Measured flow rate values still support the stated flow rates in Doral.

@Sig,

The orange curve is the Prominent pump. Edit: I just realized that you think Alan didn't measure the Prominent pump numbers all the way to 0 bar. He did. The red dots occlude the orange dots. Edit2: Sig is right I was wrong. BUT see below. Measured flow rate values still support the stated flow rates in Doral.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/prominent/run40/PROM-171218-02.png

With outlet pressure of 0 bar, you are just above 72 L/hr. This is significantly higher than what is needed to support the Doral numbers.

18 pumps (3BFs) = 72 l/hr * 18 * 24 = 31104 l/d, which is > 27,000 l/d.

24 pumps (4Bfs) = 72 l/hr * 24 * 24 = 41,472 l/d, which is > 36,000 l/d.

Despite what ya'll would love otherwise, the Prominent pumps are well capable of pumping the stated flow rates in Doral.

And you might not want to bring up Quatloos, as you know I'm very far ahead in those measurements!

Quote from sigmoidal

But dismissing that for the moment, what about:

- absurd assumption of near zero or negative outlet pressure in a working fluid circuit?

- absurd assumption that dosimetric pumps were all set to max (though there is no evidence showing what they were actually set to)?

- actual empirical results from Alan F. still don't meet stated flow rate unless up-rated to presumed performance of a new pump using a linear assumption applied to performance outside the manufacturer's specifications to extrapolate the estimated performance of a new pump?

Dang Sig. Not sure why these need to be re-hashed SO MANY TIMES.

- There was a pump on the other side of the wall to send the condensate back to the e-Cat side. You could very well have some negative pressure at the outlet of the e-Cats. There was some professional steam guy on the forums a couple of years ago that vouched for this--and that it was a common setup.

- The dosimetric pumps would probably be set to max settings--why wouldn't they? And they don't have to run at Alan's measured max flow rates to hit the Doral pump numbers.

- Alan measured what the pumps actually pump. IH's experts misread the manual on rated pump flow rates. That is a rich history in and of itself.

It is remarkable how many straw men have been knocked down here over the years.

Quote from sigmoidal

What those results show is that is that there is no reasonable scenario where these pumps could have met the reported flow rate with 18 pumps.

You and Bruce keep hanging your hat on this one. Seems kind of tenuous to me. The flow rates measured by Alan are consistent with 3 BF @ 27k l/d, and 4 BF @ 36k l/d. And that is mostly what we see in the logs. Yeah, you guys pin-pointed a time period in the log that doesn't match up. Okay, well done. But most of the data comports.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wong did his calculations based on information supplied by Rossi. Wong saw nothing of a heat exchanger.

Rossi got the gist of the heat exchanger specs from reading ECW explanations, then explained the feasible-on-Rossi’s-paper results to Wong.

We only saw portions of most depos. Wong might have been told by Rossi to do a calculation based just on the piping as a worst-case calculation, ignoring any fins. We have no idea what else might be involved that never made it into the snippets of the record that we have. Either side might have this kind of information and withheld it from the initial briefing, with plans to introduce more evidence during trial.

Quote from THHuxleynew

IHFB - he described the heat exchanger in detail to his expert, and stated how he got the tune it was made of - it had no fins.

Bad luck.

Wong did his own calculations based on information that he had. Nobody ever asked Rossi about whether fins were used--at least not in the depos we have access to. It is well-known that Rossi uses this method to dissipate heat. I suspect if the heat exchanger existed, it used fins. It would have all come out during the trial, which is why I was somewhat disappointed when it settled.

Quote from Bruce__H

If you think "spare pumps" were used, then how are they hooked up into the system? I don't see how. If you think that a data point in the Penon report is mistaken, then which one?

The BFs were not the only e-Cats at Doral. And as for the specific data point that might be mistaken for that day, it would be the 36,000 l/d number.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What is NOT arguable is that such a heat exchanger could not work without ginormous fans that would be noticed because they take more power than the whole e-cat system. That comes from crucnhing the well known and solid heat exchnager equations which I did (though the IH experts did not do). It was all discussed here (with spreadsheets) ages ago.

Au contraire! Finned radiators as Rossi was known to use would have put a serious damper on your calculations!