You are the man Alan! Before conceding with my guess did you prime the pump before doing your run?
- Member since Feb 7th 2017
- Last Activity:
Right now I can only test with a water head ... around 0.15 bar ... maybe 0.2 bar.
With the adjustable back-pressure valve I can go higher ... I only have a manometer up to 1 bar (But they are cheap online).
The next limiting factor will be how leaky the system is. Still a few drips at the connector between the Prominent tube and the 1/2 inch tube.
I'll be happy if we can reach 1 bar, which IS directly in the Prominent spec.
I'm running a bit late and have some webmaster stuff to do, so I'm not sure when I'll run the first test.
Wow! No bets (even quatloos) from a whole bunch of people I'd expect to be interested!
You might be able to use the psi out of your tap to get higher bar although this might be too much. It's a plumbing problem! These http://www.homedepot.com/p/Orbit-2-in-1-Pressure-Regulating-Drip-Filter-67798F/202541802?cm_mmc=Shopping%7cTHD%7cG%7c0%7cG-VF-PLA-D26P-Plumbing%7c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwh_bLBRDeARIsAH4ZYEOgsec5ZtVY_djO5QAT_CvtXFhYOsQh7a3jp5SKcPyi02mBh3XzYOgaAvfMEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CPiTpInAsdUCFQaAYgod7EcOgQ will get you down to 30 PSI which is pretty much 2bar. Or you can just wait for your pressure regulator from Ebay.
The technical specs say 32 l/h @ 2 bar and 2.96 ml stroke which gives 180 strokes per minute which might be the maximum number of strokes the pump allows. Not sure what stroke length for this would be but I'm guessing 100% (via the knob). The specs also say 36.2 l/h @ 1 bar with 3.35 ml/stroke which gives the same 180 strokes per minute.
So I'm guessing about 40 l/h @ .2 bar (39.56 precisely) assuming it's linear and that the pump enforces the 180 strokes/minute upper limit and that the other readings are for 100% stroke length.
Prior to testing at .2 bar I would check to see if 32 l/h @ 2 bar and 36.2 l/h @ 1 bar is achievable with this pump and your test setup. I am also curious how much the pump heats up or heats the water running at maximum rate at .2 bar.
All my quatloons are on this one. Good luck!
I'm working on a "Phase 0" experiment (discharging the pump directly into a 1-liter measuring cylinder (ordered).
At 60l/hr it will take a minute to fill. As before:
start the pump
start timing when the level crosses the lo-mark (eg 100ml).
stop timing when the level crosses the hi-mark (eg 900ml).
stop the pump
My biggest concern is that (particularly with the pulsed output) ripples/splashes will make it hard to read when the water level crosses a mark. Timing is at the frame rate of the camera, eg 1/30 sec : no problem.
If I can read the level to +- 0.1 inch then the flow-rate error will be +- 1.6% at 60l/hr
I think that's good enough.
Did you consider using trash cans and scales?
Peter - "Dosierleistung" is more or less the "required flow rate" = dosing capacity. In general these kind of pumps are designed to be able to deliver a specific constant flow rate (Dosierung) of the related liquids (water), depending on their application. The term or feature "Dosierleistung" is of course limited to a minimum and maximum flow rate depending on their design. You cannot simply change by some tricks their minimum or maximum flow rate by a factor of 2 (would mean to double their maximal allowed rpm, which is by design more or less impossible, unless you are wiling to destroy the toy).
SInce a couple of people here seem to argue that labels or manuals may be wrong ("go and figure if this is true at all, maybe the user manual is wrong"????) - this is rediculous. They have no clue about product design, verification, manufaturing, and selling. Liability and correct labeling is an essential part of the related product certification and approval, at least in our part of the world.
Thanks for your answer zorud. It seems to match my understanding and what I stated. The issue then is what is the effect of back pressure on the dosing capacity. The manual states 32 l/h at 2 bar back pressure. Rossi claims less (.2bar?) so the question is what is the dosing capacity at this claimed back pressure--I would think it's higher although I don't know how much higher. IH's expert witness however took the value off the nameplate and claimed it was the maximum flow rate period including the pressure that the 1MW purportedly operated. I imagine the manufacturer has more complete specifications for a range of back pressures and could save a lot of work (although not a fun).
We have some native German speakers here. What does 'DOSIERLEISTUNG' or 'DOSIER LEISTUNG' suggest? Minimum flow rate, maximum flow rate, or even 'minimum maximum' as some have suggested? 'DOSIERLEISTUNG' is what's on the nameplate of the the meter but the pump manual which is in English refers to it as 'Minimum pump capacity at maximum back pressure'. This and the fact that they use the word dose to me suggests it's a minimum pump rate for the maximum back pressure and as the back pressure goes down the pump rate goes up.
I appreciate the effort here but I'm wondering, has anybody (preferably a native speaker) contacted the manufacturer and asked what the operating range is for the pump in question? They usually are more than happy to provide the answer. Ask them what a reasonable maximum flow capacity can expected for this pump. If the manufacturer gives a value high enough then the experiment probably is not going to tell us much.
Also the flow rate is specified as 'dosing rate.' My guess is that certain applications require the injection of a certain rate of liquid in which case you want to make sure the pump provides at least that amount. Of course one also would be interested in the maximum rate but the dosing rate as a minimum rate makes sense to me.
If it's true that the settlement essentially reverted the situation back to the time before the suit, then to me it's as if both parties came to their senses and realized it would be better for them to determine their fate then 6-11 jurors and the competing legal teams. Wise move!
But it is also true that essentially Rossi dropped the suit (and IH the counter-suit) and Rossi and IH are back to the same poorly written Agreement and the same issues as before (was the IP transferred with the $11.5M payment, what the test the GPT, did this test meet the criteria, did IH give away the IP etc). The lawyers win here too!
I think it best to wait for statements for each side (if any) to determine what exactly is the situation and who might have won here.
Generally speaking, none of the details about a settlement become part of the public record. I've actually got a settlement filing open on another tab right now (related a writing project I'm working on). I'll quote it here; we'll see something similar filed in the near future in this case:
The settlement in that case actually involved things we know about - like Paramount issuing new fan film guidelines - but that's all entirely discretionary. If the parties want to make details public, they can. If they don't - and I suspect they don't - they won't.
Yes if IH or Rossi ever go public would they not have to disclose certain things about this agreement? Even if they remain private? Maybe they can handle this In Perpetuam with NDA's. I don't know but I imagine so.
I think Rossi will use this as an excuse to totally drop the E-cat and push only the Quark-x from now on.
That would imply IH still has rights. But IH's position has been that the QuarkX is E-Cat technology or part of it. All in all I believe Rossi will drop everything E-Cat and move on to the QuarkX. It's how he operates and no doubt there are those that will lap it up and/or invest in it. In other words, the name's changed but more of the same.
I would be interested in knowing the status of the IP. Do the IP rights return to Rossi? Does IH get a cut of future earnings derived from the IP? It seems to me that this would not be confidential only the details.
But I'm glad it's over. I'm sure there was some more 'dirt' to fly but I've seen enough. If Rossi has the goods we should see evidence of that very soon (don't hold your breath). For me, I am no longer interested in what Rossi does. I hope IH continues with their investments and support of LENR research and has learned their lessons.
Well said, and that is why this is so laughable. Logic would say that if Rossi has what he says, we would not be here arguing over a lawsuit.
There are some people who just like to argue or take the underdog role because of a slight they once suffered. Most likely they have some kind of investment, personal or financial in the matter.
Surely Rossi could have just sold a few hundred 1MW plants, establish his credibility, and then go after his $89M. (Evidently there are some over in ECW with PO's for hundreds as we speak, LOL). IH would have gladly paid I would think. It seems to me that Rossi has decided that if he is going down, he is going to take IH/Darden/Vaughn down with him. This blackmail doesn't seem to be working but I am looking forward to the evidence disclosed in the trial. This would be understandably a very difficult feat for Abd to write up given the subtlety of what is disclosed and no recordings or transcripts available, but if anyone can do this, it would be him.
I don't understand why Rossi fans are so bent out of shape with IH and this trial. Worse immediate case for Rossi is he loses the suit and doesn't collect however many millions (at least $89M and maybe up to $300M if all damages are awarded) but he will still make an absolute fortune with his E-Cat and QuarkX (maybe the same thing) technology. This would be true even if he has to share with IH since I believe they own the rights of E-CatX related technology over certain areas. And Rossi's reputation will be easily restored. He should have no trouble financing this fantastic technology even after a failed lawsuit. On the other hand if he doesn't have the commercially viable revolutionary technology then he is doomed and forever branded a fraud and failure--but for Rossi fans, this should not be a concern, as Rossi should have the last laugh.
moreover jury will not look at ECW, and there are many other sources, of various bias that were free...
While I agree with your comments in general, I have to point out that jurors, unless sequestered, can and do look up things on the Internet or discuss the case with others. Jurors are also liars when it comes to their claims of experience or bias. As a US citizen for longer than I care to admit, this has been my experience. It's more human nature than anything else. Let's hope for open-minded and responsible jurors, competent legal teams, an experienced and wise judge, and justice.
A QuarkX powered smart phone would not be relevant to the issues of this case and as such would not be admissible. As to his binders and binders (shades of Romney), he better have turned them over to JD in discovery or they will be ruled inadmissible. Real trials are not like Perry Mason or even Law and Order, they have rules you have to follow: no surprise witnesses (with a very few exceptions), no surprise documents (ditto), you have to disclose your experts, their opinions and what they base their opinions on, you don't get to ask leading questions on direct (you do to a certain degree on cross) and stuff that is not relevant isn't going to be admitted, period. I look forward to daily reports from any boots on the ground, but I live in NorCal and have no interest in traveling, unless I am being paid to.
We don't know all the evidence Rossi has turned over during discovery. There may be some things that Rossi chose not to disclose in the case files during the pre-trial phase. Given what we've seen so far, I'm not expecting much.
And as to real trials, jurors despite the best intentions of the attorneys and the criminal justice system, do not always follow the rules. (Again based on my personal experience only). I can't speak for the attorneys. Still I think Rossi's chances are daunting especially since he needs a unanimous decision. I think Rossi's thinking is that if he's going down so is Darden/Vaughn.
IMHO, Rossi is fucked.
I concur. Jurors may hold "facts" however they wish. They can completely ignore them or base the entire case on a single fact. They are instructed to rely on their gut to evaluate the facts of the case (based on my personal experience on a jury). Rossi has no credibility given his JMC ruse and his long history of specious business practices. If Jones Day executes correctly they will annihilate Rossi's credibility. Add to that Rossi's revolutionary claims of commerical performance of a revolutionary new energy source--we'll it's just too much. Short of a miracle disclosure, like a QuarkX powered smart phone, Rossi does not have a chance.
Still strange things can happen in a jury trial. Rossi supposedly has binders and binders of data backing up his case--maybe we'll see something from them but so far we've seen only an amateur attempt to defraud.
As usual I want to add that I am not a lawyer and have no personal or financial interest in this trial. My original interest was in the E-Cat as a new source of energy and my interest now is in seeing that justice is served.
Discovery is now over, the motions to dismiss and for sanctions were denied and the case will go to trial later in the year. Nothing has been added to the docket in a while.
My understanding is that the trial starts June 26th, 2017 (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). That's less than three weeks away!
When you are in a hole, stop digging. Sure it's disappointing that MFMP did not test a testable device but at this point everyone is a little bit wiser. Would have, could have, should have doesn't matter. We are where we are and the main parties appear to be committed to the original plan. (I donated to the first effort and will be glad to do so again should the opportunity arise but I don't think money is the issue.) Onward!