Fabiano's daily power log.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.55_Exhibit_55.pdf
The last column is total power.
The log does show BF's being turned on and off in June, on p6
But he records a visit by Penon on 10/12 ... and on 10/13 it's running at full power (11.7kw) for two readings.
It keeps on in this mode until Dec 2, when output power is reduced to 700kW (without saying which BF was taken off-line).
The daily Penon log p 34 shows a drop in the input power and flow.
Alan Fletcher
Member
- Member since May 27th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Alan Fletcher
-
-
- 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 -
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) -
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.pdfQuoteThe alleged steam and condensate system was in fact a hot water flow system .....
(Transcribed by hand)
One little detail : how do you explain water, at 0 barg (atmospheric), reaching a temperature of104F104C ?
In my opinion,104F104C is by definition super-heated steam.
Edit : mistyped F for C -
As a non-engineer/scientist, let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying: There were four widgets, one, representing 25% of the total capacity of the widgets, was removed/deactivated, and the output from the three was essentially the same as the output from the four? Wow, what a marvelous, in fact I should say magnificent, demonstration of the widgets - take one away with no reduction in output.
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.) -
This meta-information?
No ... I have a very low opinion of Smith (see above).
He did show ONE graph of output when the output power persisted even when power was reportedly off.
However, here I'm ONLY considering the reported flow. I think Bruce_H gave links to two meta-documents by Penon and Barry West , but I haven't looked them up yet. -
A 100% improvement in COP over 6 months isn't shabby.
-
I updated my final results and added a chart, showing that the maximum output per pump of 72 l/hr is plausible.
Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test
I don't believe 18 pumps could deliver 36000 l/day.
And my analysis has no bearing on the meta-information in the court files. -
I went back to my Dec 18, 2017 results, scaled my output to Prominent's spec at 0.5 bar, and charted the results.
Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spread…2ctMIA7HRKTexFc5VHhnHnIg/
Screen capture of results (I could only find an X-Y scatter plot in google sheets).I'm not endorsing Rossi (or Penon) -- I personally would have run the pumps at about 80% of full capacity, to allow for fine adjustments.
This plot shows that Rossi's claim of 72 L/hr is plausible. -
Could you get the pump to display or somehow calibrate to a specific low head rate?
I mean, was it reliably flowing the same rate measured as the unit “thinks” it’s pumping? Can you lower the setting on the pump and get a proportionate drop in pumped water with the out-of-spec head? I recall that you were measuring the water. Can the pump be set up to 75 L/h , for example, then dialled down to 32 L/h and get 32 L/ hr?
Just curious.
The pump is controlled by pulse speed and stroke distance. I did my main tests at maximum.
You can input a callibration factor, to ask for a specific delivery, but I didn't use that.
Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test -
Even big shots can make mistakes. A good example is Focardi's inability to recognize that the steam being emitted by Rossi's Ecat was wet (i.e., containing large amounts of unevaporated water) and that the instrument being used to assess this was unsuited to the job (it could only measure evaporated moisture, not unevaporated water droplets) . That led to a huge overestimate of the amount of heat being generated.
My opinion here is that the old "tube boiler" would either deliver at least 75% steam quality, or would overflow. Focardi et al reported that it was NOT overflowing. 75% quality would be significantly over-unity.
The "fat cat" (presumably also the big frankies) is a kettle boiler, and would either produce 95% steam quality, or would overflow. The original 1MW test checked for overflow. Presumably IH's test did too.
Unfortunately one of Lewan's tests was overflowing, so the results are inconclusive, -
Alan. We disagree on the results of your experiments. It seems that in the final 4 months of the Doral test there were only 18 pumps left to handle the entire 36000 L per day. That is 83 L/hour and I don't recall you ever reaching that number.
I don't recall an "only 18 pumps" scenario. The only significant flows I recall are 36000 (4 big frankies) or 27000 (3 big frankies).
EDIT1 : each Big Frankie has 6 pumps ... so with 3 Big Frankies running that's 18 pumps.
EDIT2 : Penon reports some days at 36000 and some at 27000 -- is there a day when he reported 36000 when only three were running?
In any case, I think the banks of pumps are segregated by big frankie. My experiments show that each bank of pumps could provide the 9000. They have slightly different heads .. but only by a couple of feet. -
His pumps could not supply the circulation to meet his claimed heat
With the low pressure head (less than 2 bars) the pumps could do that. See my experiments. -
Quote
However from the very beginning of nuclear physics ”anomalies” to (1) and other type of change of cross sections were reported in a number of fields such as: muon catalyzed nuclear fusion, laser and environment assisted nuclear reactions, anomalous screening effect and the less well documented area of phenomena of the so called low energy nuclear reactions (LENR)
-
It was turned off in banks (per Big-Frankie). The output went down in proportion.
-
And totally silly that heat would be measured in 1000's of liters and recorded manually when the gauge is designed to send pulses every 100 L electronically, a part of a package literally designed to measure heat delivery. If that 100 L pulse generator cover were removed, then the dials are very easy to see and read: dials like that are read all over the world for water use and until recently (and still in many places) for reading electrical consumption meters.
So why didn't Smith say something along those lines?
Instead of "This is undoubtedly the most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering." -
However, perhaps kevmol has in mind the Doral test, and by "third party report" he means the Penon report. I and many others concluded that report was invalid. For details, see the report itself and the reviews by Murray and Smith:
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.65_Exhibit_65.pdf
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/0194.01_Exhibit-1.pdf
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…7/01/252-05-Exhibit-E.pdf
I am pretty sure he meant the Penon report, from what he wrote here:
The contract did stipulate this, but the report was invalid, having fake data and physically impossible claims. Such a report cannot fulfil a contract.
Thank you for the "Rick Smith" trip down memory lane.
Of all the players. I rate him as least competent compared to expectations. (And the most irritating).
He's the one who mis-read the pump specification as "Maximum" where it's actually "Minimum'.
"Max Flow 32 l/hr".
Maybe he can be forgiven for not realizing that that specification is significantly exceeded at low head.QuoteIn the vast majority of the cases, this cell content was 36000, not 35837, or
36714, but 36000 exactly. 27000 and 29000 were well represented also. This is undoubtedly the
most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering.
There is no reason or need to round data to the nearest 1000 in a report like this. In fact, one
needs to use the “Round” function in a spreadsheet to get numbers to display like this. This
author has more comments on the water meter later in the report.That's because the main dial only reads out thousands. 36, 27 and 29.
(The other digits were available on hard-to-get-to internal dials)[ Quote isn't working right ... START ]
On 2. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request”. However, Mr.
Penon’s data indicates a produced energy value of 1,41E+07, which is engineering notation for
14,100,000 watts per day. Dividing this by 24 hours yields 587,500 watts or 587.5KW. There is a
112.5KW discrepancy between Mr. Fabiani’s data and Mr. Penon’s reported output. One could logically
ask who is correct, and why the discrepancy.
On 22. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “reactor 2 reboot and power generated taken back to 1MWh/h
upon client's request”. Similarly, Mr. Penon reports a produced energy value of 2,03E+07, or 20,300,000
watts per day. Dividing by 24 yields 845,833 watts, or 845.3 KW. There is a 154.2KW discrepancy here.
Because of these incidents, and likely many others, all of the data in the Penon report must be viewed
with extreme skepticism.[ END ]
The "Penon" readings were taken at a set time of day. If the “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request” took place at EXACTLY the same time as the meter was read, then the two figures might agree.
But they were most likely done at a different time ... lets say 6 hours. (I didn't do the revers-average math)
Penon = 18 hours at 1 MW + 6 hours at 700kw
Of course it will differ.
[QUOTE]
To use “COP” as a measure of the efficiency of a heat producing device (the E-Cat), as opposed to a work absorbing device (an air conditioner), is a misapplication of the term.
[END]
It's a perfectly fine term, is well defined, and is widely used in the LENR community.
On the irritating side ... why introduce a picture of a 1GW high-pressure COAL-fired power plant and compare it with a 1 MW low-pressure plant?
and "The astute reader will notice" .....
"To illustrate, if one boils water (212° F) to make sweet tea and leaves the hot tea sittingon the counter, what happens to it? Does it naturally get hotter or does it eventually cool down
to room temperature? We all know ...... "
Why Sweet tea? Does it matter if it's not sweet? -
Looks excellent but I don't think we can figure out the total power of the SK by integrating its spectrum because we don't know the solid angle that the spectrophotometer's aperture subtends.
The spectrophotometer's taking a small (angular) sample which is then presumed (in the spherical case) to be the same in all directions.Integrating over all angles is just a trivial (tho I've forgotten all my undergrad math) geometric problem. I don't think it matters much if one used a sphere, a cylinder or something else.
To me the question is whether black (or partly black) body applies : is the E-Cat plasma dense (in which case there's thermal equilibrium ), and does the exact spectrum matter?
Based on the dancing ballerina, I think it's dense. In which case emissivity is close to 1.
Rather than using Plank/Wien for the spectral formula, I think the spectrum can be integrated (as an approximation, just summed in narrow bands).
I suspect without proof that there will effectively be a T^4 term in the result.
This caltech astrophysics course paper covers some of the same ground -- Panck, Wien etc ....
https://courses.edx.org/c4x/Ca…set/Ay1001x_Chapter04.pdf
But I'm NOT an expert on this, so I'll bow out. -
All you need to know about plasmas is in
Plasma Physics and Engineering
By Alexander Fridman, Lawrence A. Kennedy 2004
Beyond my pay-grade, but something LIKE the Stefan-Bolzman calculation (6.260) will probably apply.
I think you'd have to integrate the observed spectrum, giving (effectively) a different value for the S-B coefficient and MOST LIKELY a T^4 term.
There's a table for the emissivity of air at various temperatures and pressures (fig 6.37) varying between 10^-6 and 1 ... so the value for the E-Cat plasma is a BIG unknown.
This book does have a section on handling spectral lines, but google's not showing enough for me to make sense of it.
EDIT : it has lots on glow discharges.
https://books.google.com/books…20body%20emission&f=false