My previous calculations are at : Flow meter used in 1-MW test
-- Constant 36,000 kg/day? The pump array will (If unchanged) vary by about 0.4% .. or 36000 +- 144 kg/day.
(Each pump has 2% repeatability, divide by sqrt(24)).
My previous calculations are at : Flow meter used in 1-MW test
-- Constant 36,000 kg/day? The pump array will (If unchanged) vary by about 0.4% .. or 36000 +- 144 kg/day.
(Each pump has 2% repeatability, divide by sqrt(24)).
For example, see p13 Aug 2015 -- flows of 26K, 29K, 36K.
Pressure is gauge, so it could be constant. Havn't put the results through my steam calculator yet.
I skimmed the results I note that the water flow did change ... but in increments of 1,000 Kg/day
I know that we have the model number of the flowmeter, but not the exact configuration of the dials.
If all the water was supplied by the array of metered pumps (giving +- 0.4% ISTR ... have to track down my posts on that subject), then 36,000 day-in and day-out is possible.
That was paranormal, not spoon-bending or calorimetry : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller
It's hardly a scientific paper.
It doesn't claim to be a scientific paper. It's an interim progress report on an engineering contract.
QuoteWho even knows who wrote it
Prepared by: Francis Tanzella, Principal Investigator,Manager
Here, let me google him for you : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis_Tanzella
Quoteand why?
It's part of SRI International Project P21429
That's how SRI works.
** Warning : I AM NOT A LAWYER **
The recent responses are full of "demand strict proof thereof" and "the documents speak for themselves".
This Illinois blog says that those are not permitted responses, and that they may constitute an admission.
http://www.shawfishman.com/dem…f-an-unwitting-admission/
QuoteFed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) provides that a party must answer a complaint by admitting, denying, or stating that it lacks sufficient information to form a reasonable belief about an allegation. Improper denials are deemed admissions. Judges have grown increasingly hostile towards attorneys that disregard Rule 8. ... the chief judge for the Northern District struck a significant portion of the answer because “demands for ‘strict proof’ are improper and meaningless…” Indeed, the concept of demanding proof in a pleading “is unknown to the federal practice or to any other system of modern pleading.”
Quote... ‘this Court has been attempting to listen to [documents that speak for themselves] for years (in the forlorn hope that one will indeed give voice) – but until some such writing does break its silence, this Court will continue to require pleaders to employ one of the three alternatives that are permitted by Rule 8(b)…
I wonder how Rossi would know that Dameron was given such instructions by Darden.
Discovery? .. they asked for all emails. (But then why not include it as an exhibit?)
Affirmative Defense 2
QuoteFinally, Counter-Defendants at all times had the opportunity to, and did if fact participate in, the establishment of test protocols, the selection of independent third party evaluators, as well as the selection of the location for the Guaranteed Performance Test. Counter-Defendants at all times knew that the Guaranteed Performance Test would take approximately one year to perform at a substantial commitment of time, expense and effort on the part of many persons, including Plaintiff Rossi. Further, despite having their own subject matter expert, engineer T. Barker Dameron, review the testing protocols, measurements and results during the course of the yearlong test, Mr. Dameron was instructed by Defendant Darden not to discuss any perceived problems or deficiencies with Dr. Rossi.
This implies Darden wanted the test to fail ... they would complain only at the end of the test, when it was too late to correct anything.
That is absurd. If the thing works, there has to be a way to confirm that on the ground, here on earth, without going into space. It should be basic Newtonian physics. Hanging it on a swing made of fishing line should do it. Going into space might actually confuse the issue. It would also increase the cost by millions of dollars.
If the experiment as presently performed is not adequate for some reason, it should be improved, not made millions of dollars more expensive.
http://today.uconn.edu/2016/12…-fact-or-science-fiction/
Q. Everyone seems to be excited about the EM Drive being tested in space as the next step. What advantages are there to testing the device in space versus here on Earth?
Cassenti A. If the EM drive is tested in space, then the acceleration could be directly measured, which would eliminate all of the confusion associated with force measurements. Space would provide an ideal vacuum, so the device would not have to be placed in a vacuum chamber, and it would provide a weightless environment, eliminating any need for a support (current tests rely on a balance arm so any resulting forces can be measured). But space missions are expensive – at a cost of $10,000 to launch one pound of material into orbit. It may be better to first try to experimentally find the cause for the thrust measurement, and only when the cost on the ground begins to approach the cost for an orbital mission should an experiment in space be performed.
Billionaire behind Loveland project - BizWest
<http://bizwest.com/billionaire-behind-loveland-project/>
It’s not easy to keep a low profile once you’ve made your first billion, but Brad M. Kelley has been better at avoiding the limelight than most billionaires.
Kelley is the moneyman behind Cumberland & Western Resources, the Kentucky company that won (and paid $5 million for) the rights to redevelop Loveland’s former Agilent Technologies plant, which is now being called the Rocky Mountain Center for Innovation and Technology.
Unlike most of his billionaire brethren, Kelley has taken anonymity to a near art form. Cumberland & Western has no website touting its successes. Not only did company vice president Bill Murphree turn down the Business Report’s request for an interview with Kelley, but he strongly suggested that writing about Kelley might have negative consequences for Cumberland & Western’s interest in doing business in Northern Colorado.
...
Now, perhaps the photo was saw was misleading. Perhaps the reactor was actually white-hot, and they simply did not tell us. However, this critique has been around, as I recall, since 2014. Nobody who was there has claimed "white-hot." It would be obvious, probably painfully bright to look at.
A photograph on a digital camera, which is not set to a specific ISO and a specific white balance, and not calibrated with a white/grey/color calibration card ($10) is meaningless.
MFMP persists in doing this too.
kWh/h DOES appear to be widely used in Europe ... particularly in the power generation field.
eg https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWh/h (ggogle-translated)
kWh / h , or more commonly MWh / h , can be perceived as an anomaly , but is a term used by power producers to describe produced electric energy per hour, or "time effect". Similarly kilowatt (kW) expressing the energy produced per second, or "second impact" .
A graphic representation of the effect (instant production) to a power plant will have very rapid variations and will be hard to read. In a similar graph of MWh / h will be more able to see that the power requirement increases sharply in the morning hours and then fall slightly out of date forward to a new peak towards the afternoon.
My post on natural aspiration is at Rossi on the Challenges of Developing E-Cat Plants
My very rough calculation indicated that natural aspiration would only vent about 12,000 CFM of the required 27,000 CFM
My calculation on the fan needed to disperse 1MW was about 30,000 CFM ... and I identified a fan of that rating which matched the size of the fan on the roof. (I don't have time to search my posts on the subject .. here and on vortex.)
Edit :
Rossi on the Challenges of Developing E-Cat Plants
Plus a few following posts .. where I found that natural ventilation wouldn't quite make it.
Still doesn't understand that "Hot fusion is not cold fusion". Free-space coulomb barrier and all that. Thinks that IH didn't notice the "mis-wiring". etc etc
Two more (same firm as Chaiken):
35. NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by D. Porpoise Evans on behalf of Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Attorney D. Porpoise Evans added to party Leonardo Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney D. Porpoise Evans added to party Andrea Rossi(pty:pla). (Evans, D.)
http://pbyalaw.com/attorney/porpoise-evans/
34 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Paul Dewey Turner on behalf of Leonardo Corporation, Andrea Rossi. Attorney Paul Dewey Turner added to party Leonardo Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Paul Dewey Turner added to party Andrea Rossi(pty:pla). (Turner, Paul)
"In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible?"
My experience of large machines (eg ocean liners) is that they settle into a "groove" where everything is in balance (I recall one occasion when, after 5 days, there was a slight change of engine speed and all the passengers looked up in alarm). With an array of pumps delivering 36,000 Kg/day +- 0.4% (probably better) the flowmeter will most likely also stabilize.
The "customer invoice" for the period does not exclude 30 days straight at 1MW.
I think the actual flow rate was 3 to 6 times lower than this, but I expect the meter showed something in this ballpark.
Jed ... why do you think the flow meter was SO far off? (Re-read my recent posts). Running only a few percent under the minimum. The error chart for this flowmeter shows that it UNDER estimates the flow.
[ Since you have so much insider information, how about asking IH about the flow meter THEY "purportedly" installed? ]
But lets take Murray's numbers, presumably from the ERV's report, and YOUR estimate of 6 times less flow.
Steam calculator says .... 155 kW COP around 8.
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=1&enm=Rossi+1MW+Per+ERV%2FMurray+data&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=233&eip=20&ecp=0.06&eop=155&eoxr=1&et0=20&ep0=1&et1=68.7&ep2=1&er2=2
Edit 3 ... 154.9 kW COP around 8.7
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plot&ever=d&efzx0=0&efzy0=0&efzx9=9&efzy9=9&esl=1&epbr=1&enm=Rossi+1MW+Per+ERV%2FMurray+data&edh=1&edm=0&eds=0&eif=233&eip=20&ecp=0.06&eop=154.9&eoxr=1&et0=20&ep0=1&et1=68.7&ep2=1&er2=2
What pump? There is no pressure.
These :
http://www.prominentxtranet.com/pdf/GammaL2.pdf
Repeatability : 2% := 0.4% for the array.