Don't forget he had a pinball wizard / programmer on hand who could probably activate those flippers at speed.
They would want to be quite the wizard, there is nothing plugged into the external control terminals in the picture you recently uploaded!
I would also expect that any input signal would be still be limited so that you don't damage the pump...plenty of ideas here to keep the other Alan busy for a while though!
Malfunction!
Added the dye ... The flow is very frothy ... and the outlet from the pump seems to be SUCKING. The outlet tube collapsed.
I think the dye has clogged the discharge valve. Will revert to water and flush.
Ouch, could you just put the dye in the collection cylinder, thought it didn't feed back yet?
Display MoreAs usual Mr. Rothwell you demonstrate all your incompetence. The point is not if the circuit was airtight or not, the point is gravity.
Gravitational field is called conservative because the total mechanical energy of any body is constant.
That true even for water. In a circuit where you pump water at height H and then recycle the same water to pump it again pressure in the
input and output should be the same.
In case of Rossi the condenser was quite higher than the condensation point and this could add an over pressure factor.
If the water was taken from a reservoir tank than the water level of that tank should be taken into account.
Being insulted by you is a nice compliment.
Laws of Physics are always right your interpretation is not. Also you have not to use hydrodynamics in that case. Pressure relations considered here regard hydro statics and gravitation.
No sir, this is what you would like but is not true.
We have numbers taken in one run not done in the correct conditions.
Also the values obtained are similar to the minimum flux cited in the manual of the pump. So your affirmation regarding running above the maximum is the real FUD.
Your modus operandi is really showing up on this thread, you are fooling no-one.
Pumped systems are not conservative, there are frictional and hydrodynamic losses abound. Obviously there will be a pressure difference across a valved pump, no pressure difference no flow.
It's not easy to spread your disinformation on this simple system, maybe stick to some other aspect of Rossi's magic.
Also we have no guarantee that pulse rate and spacing you are using is the same as Rossi and also as very well specified by the Prominent white paper you should the correct accessories for piping.
Also your result contradicts the manual from Prominent.
http://allwatertreatment.co.uk…tGALadosingPumpManual.pdf
at page 64 you have that 32l/h is the minimum flow at max pressure while 36l/h is the minimum flow at medium back pressure.
It is running at max spacing and rate, do you expect a higher flow rate otherwise?
These pumps are not complicated, do you think changing some of the pipe fitting is going to substantially increase the flow rate? By how much and by what mechanism?
Looks pretty close to the manual to me, especially if running at 0.4 bar backpressure.
Display MoreA few more thoughts on the method :
1. I can do a timed run by filming the on/off switch, rather than hitting the switch and (cellphone) stopwatch simultaneously. The switch has an indicator light which probably takes less than a frame (1/30 sec) to change.
2. I'll film the start-up at various points in the tubing to see if we have a "bubble" problem (caused by dripping leaks).
3. In my case the head is the highest point in the tube, not the outlet. Water runs free down the tube from that point, so there is no suction.
4. I'm still wondering why the manometer is reading so high. There is one point where the tube is a bit kinked ... could this generate back-pressure? I'll cut the tube to eliminate the coils.
I think I'll order a couple more manometers with wider range(s). I think cheap ones are fine (range about $2 to $20, ISTR)
5. Filling the cylinder takes about 2 minutes. Is this enough? I could either use a larger container (as initially described WAY back) and measure between two calibrated points, or we could weigh the discharge tank. Do we need 0.01kg or 0.001kg resolution?
For point 4 you could do a quick back-of-envelope for other head losses (http://my.me.queensu.ca/People…ellens/LossesinPipes.html), but I would be surprised if they caused that kind of difference.
Display More
Smith stated that the maximum flow rate for each pump is 32 l/h, without using any qualifying language. He based a big portion of his "expert" report on this value.
Here is a link to the report, along with Rossi's annotations:
Thanks, having read the report I'm now more sympathetic to Smith, there was no indication of system back pressure so completely reasonable to go with the 2 bar in the pump as a first guess.
Then you might want to ask the manufacturer why their specs and manual state that it is a minimum flow rate.
It is a bit weird, 'minimum guaranteed' would be clearer phrasing but for this type of pump you don't expect the flow rate to be much above this value. In fact there is no physical way it can be.
I think Smith taking 32l/h off the faceplate as a max is reasonable if he states he is assuming 2 bar and didn't use the manual. Otherwise it is a strange mistake to make and could be seen as suspicious. As pump manuals go this one is pretty clear.
The pump only need deliver ~56 l/h for Penon's numbers to be viable.
Not exactly, Penon's numbers range from 517 to 896 kW with a typical value of 846 according to your numbers above. These a bigger than Smiths calcs by factors of 1.48, 1.76 and 1.86 respectively and flow rates of 47, 56 , 59.5 l/h. If the pump used is the same as the one you guys have bought, it is a metering pump and any suction head should have little effect (would be nice to check for yourselves). This is very different to a centrifugal pump, which is much more common. These metered pumps have inlet and outlet one way valves that open at fixed intervals. Pushing extra flow through it completely defeats the purpose of a metering pump and is...not sensible.
Smith did screw up in the report, but only by a factor of up to 1.3 at very worst....still well below the numbers Penon needs.
Slight change in Phase 1 setup. I'll report on all the heights, but since the level in the input doesn't stay constant only the height above the pump matters.
Here's a candidate for the output tank ... http://www.ebay.com/itm/Storag…db97ff:g:aCUAAOSwjqVZNIOC $22 + $40 shipping! though it's maybe not quite transparent enough for reading the level. (Lab quality is $300 !!) Will scout local hardware stores.
You've probably got it, put make sure that the funnel tubing is sized so that it doesn't just fill up and overflow. It is probably better to not put the tubing from the funnel under the water level in the output tank. If you are worried about splashing but a small screen between the water entry point and camera. The inflow should probably have a small but positive head relative to the pump to avoid bubbles. This type of pump shouldn't be too sensitive to suction head. You could also use dyes or a small float in the outlet to help with recording.
Nice idea.
I haven't looked at pumps since college, but some thoughts for what they're worth...
This is a solenoid pump, they are designed for reproducible flow rates over large pressure ranges. I think Rossi is purposely making a big deal of the pressure dependence knowing full well it is mostly relevant for centrifugal pumps. The pump manual shows a capacity correction factor of 1.1 for 0.5 bar relative to 1 bar, with a very slow increase with reducing pressure. It is highly unlikely that it will increase above 1.2 for pressures of 0.1 or 0.2 bar (I haven't looked at the test system but these pressures seem quite low for any system involving work or losses) leading to an optimistic capacity of 43.2 l/h at max stroke and rate. Connecting other pumps etc shouldn't make a difference here, the flow is driven by a moving diaphragm in a fixed size container with inflow and outflow stopper valves, this is very different to a centrifugal pump. There is no chance in hell of reaching 75 l/h without using trickery to exceed the max stroke rate, as the container surrounding the diaphragm would need to be nearly twice the volume that it currently is for this to happen.
Regarding the 'minimum' capacity, this is more word-play. Minimum here is the manufacturer saying that they guarantee the capacity won't be below this for water at a certain temp etc. They show an expected range of -5 to+10%, so again being generous that is 1.15*43.2 = 50 l/h absolute tops. I think it is pretty fair to replace 'minimum capacity' with 'expected capacity' here.
Also I hope the poor pump didn't get too hot with all the excess heat, since its max operating internal and external temps are only about 50 degrees.
Display MoreThey received funds to clean-up the area and did not do it! There would not have been the need for a Order if they had done their job regularly, don't you think?
Those are not a false claim. Instead of accusing me of lying you might dedicate yourself to some research on the internet.
Here's how things are.
Cherokee-Zeneca had already started redevelopment in Northern Lot 1 before California's DTSC intervened with two orders: Order n.1 Docket n.04/05-006 date of issue February 8, 2005 (which I have already published) and Order n.2 Docket n. IS / E-RAO 06/07-005 date of issue September 15, 2006.
From the map attached to the first order of 2005, called "Exhibit D - Area to be fenced", we can see that in Northern Lot 1 there are three buildings:
As a further proof of the existence of the buildings built by Cherokee, you can also consult the written report from Erler & Kalinowski consultants dated July 2007, which on page 22 shows Lot 1 with the three built areas. This is the link to the report and below is an enlargement of that map:
http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/do…dArsenic7_23_2007_EKI.pdf
In 2009, Cherokee-Zeneca signed a settlement agreement with California DTSC, which obliged them to pay and clean up but did not release them from their responsibilities. The document is as follows:
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressR…enecaConsentAgreement.pdf
Although you read only the name of Zeneca Inc, you have to remember that Zeneca has sold the lots to Cherokee and therefore according to the CERCLA law, Cherokee is liable as Zeneca. About CERCLA:
"Also known as "Superfund", CERCLA is aimed at cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and prevent contamination of future sites by assigning liability to parties involved. The liability requires the parties to pay for the clean up of the sites. A part of Environmental Law.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)
§107(a) lays out the responsible parties and in doing so establishes expansive liability.
1) Current Owners / Operator. Although this excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest, this will still include current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release.
2) Past Owner / Operator at time the pollution occurred."
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/we…_and_liability_act_cercla)
After the 2009 Consent Agreement, Cherokee-Zeneca demolished the buildings, and this is the reason why they are no longer on the Richmond landfill map or on Google images today. In fact, in this document (Assessor's map), which is today's cadastral map, buildings no longer exist.
From this photo taken by Google, however, you can see the clearer strips in the ground that most probably were the points where the foundations of the three buildings were:
So that's how it went: having started the redevelopment before cleaning up the area, Cherokee was subjected to an Order and the three buildings in Lot1 were demolished ..... so now there are no traces of the buildings!
This is a nice start, but I don't see evidence that 1) Cherokee built these buildings, 2) they were houses, 3) people lived in them, 4) people got sick. In case you accuse me of moving goalposts, look at my sentence you've just quoted, which clearly implies that these are the things you need to prove. So, sorry, but it is you who needs to do more internet sleuthing, you have set a high bar with your outlandish claims and I don't think you can find evidence for them. So want to take them back?
Anyway, it may be the case that Cherokee started construction there and had to tear the buildings down. That's not so important to me, and even that much isn't clear from your docs or your link to the Italian version of Google maps.
Well, please take a look to this document:
From the Order of California DTSC document it is clear that Cherokee Simeon Venture is responsible as much as Zeneca, from which they bought the lots. It is in fact evident from the beginning that Cherokee is one of the "Respondents". It is also state in the document that subsequent ownership changes will not release Respondents from their responsibilities (§6.25)
It was then the DTSC to stop the speculation of Cherokee. Dear Jimmy, is it pretty cheeky for you?
Yeah, the PDF has nothing that hasn't already been discussed here. Is it such a big surprise that they are liable for clean-up when they bought the site? I guess UC Berkeley are bad guys too right, since they are in the same situation?
You and ele must spend too much time together, your tricks of linking to long-winded documents with nothing in them and trying to add innuendo are transparent and boring. I'm just interested in the facts, which are very easy for anyone to find with Google. The fact is that there were never any houses built there leading to illness, which is what both you and ele claimed.
So, would you like to retract your false claim, or leave it hanging around here as a testament to your willingness to lie in your unquestioning support of Rossi?
We are not talking about wrong business or calculated risks. Here we talk about scam. Cherokee had to end the work begun by Zeneca and then build houses on the cleaned up ground. They raised public funds to complete the remediation. But the recovery has not been completed and there are people who have become ill. Do you really want to tell me that it is normal for VCs to behave this way??
Who cares who created the pollution? Cherokee was paid to remedy and instead they only built houses on a rotten ground. This is a criminal act!
Again with this house claim which ele already tried to BS through. Where is the evidence that they built houses?
It is clear that they bought an already polluted site with the intention of remediating it and the job was much bigger than planned. Do you think they just pocket the money they received? That would be even cheekier than Rossi.
Hello New IH TROLL. Welcome to the club.
About the location of Campus Bay. I have seen already that google satellite image but that is LOT3 not LOT1 nd LOT2.
Thank you for the warm welcome.
Maybe you were thinking I wouldn't bother with the additional 2 minutes of googling to see that all three lots are in the same empty industrial site I originally pointed to. But I had a spare 2 minutes.
In fact, there is lots and lots of information about this site, just a quick google away. Here: http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/pd…t%20Monitoring%20Plan.pdf someone has kindly labelled the whole Cherokee site in pink for you. Here someone shows you where the lots are: http://richmondconfidential.or…-legacy-of-contamination/.
I probably don't have another 2 minutes to deal with your next trick, but if you do manage to show me a picture of the houses I'll give you a thumbs up.
Interesting that you do not post the link to google maps. If the rules should be equal to everyone you should post the link AND demonstrate that you are pointing google maps on the right location. Note that I have posted a list of links about that trial.
Step 1. Search for the address in the documents YOU provided with google maps. Step 2 look for the a large, empty industrial site. Step 3 confirm address with a 5 second Google search.
https://goo.gl/maps/hEeVZrFeuPH2
http://www.berkeleycitizen.org/community/community9.htm.
While we are playing the game of let's waste each others time, can you provide evidence that houses were built on the site please? I think you will find it more difficult.
Display MoreInteresting comment on the Rossi Blog :
Leanne
June 10, 2017 at 9:50 AMDr Andrea Rossi,
I discovered that Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, the company that owns Industrial Heat and is owned principally by Tom Darden and John Mazzarino, is liable for the catastrophic environmental disaster happened during the remediation and re-vitalization of a brownfield named “ZENECA SYTE- CAMPUS BAY”, in Richmond, California.
What happened is that they got financing for enormous amounts of money of the Taxpayer and after getting this big money they remediated nothing, re-vitalized nothing, but built houses upon the poisoned terrains of the brownfield.
In that field, upon which they built houses, the Department of Toxic Substances Control has found cancerogenic substatces, hidden under the houses. I knew this from a person of a Citizens Committee, made after cases of cancer appeared with anomalous statistics in the area. This person informed me that Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, after the Department of Toxics Substances Control has published a report with the results of the discovery of the risk of cancer for the population, has filed for bankrupcy in the State of Delaware of their “front company”, named Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC, that they used for the “job”. Obviously the money collected from the Taxpayer is disappeared.
Now: I wonder how Cherokee Investment Partners LLC can still be qualified to receive public funding by means of their their society ” Brownfield Revitalization LLC”.
Cheers,
Joanne
----------------------------------------------
Interesting......
Googling I have found also some interesting links with millions dollars of public money about that Brownfield Revitalization LLC:
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=07NMA002372 Cherokee is also cited here 2007
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=12NMA002372 2012
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=13NMA002372 2013
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=15NMA002372 2016
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=10NMA002372 2010
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=11NMA002372 2011
If I understand well the average amount of public money given to that compeny was about 50M$/year for 6 years this sum up to about 300M$ !
WOW !
more documents can be found:
https://www.google.com/search?…kee+Simeon+Venture+I+LLC+
So the content of the comment in the Rossi Blog seems real !
Display MoreInteresting comment on the Rossi Blog :
Leanne
June 10, 2017 at 9:50 AMDr Andrea Rossi,
I discovered that Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, the company that owns Industrial Heat and is owned principally by Tom Darden and John Mazzarino, is liable for the catastrophic environmental disaster happened during the remediation and re-vitalization of a brownfield named “ZENECA SYTE- CAMPUS BAY”, in Richmond, California.
What happened is that they got financing for enormous amounts of money of the Taxpayer and after getting this big money they remediated nothing, re-vitalized nothing, but built houses upon the poisoned terrains of the brownfield.
In that field, upon which they built houses, the Department of Toxic Substances Control has found cancerogenic substatces, hidden under the houses. I knew this from a person of a Citizens Committee, made after cases of cancer appeared with anomalous statistics in the area. This person informed me that Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, after the Department of Toxics Substances Control has published a report with the results of the discovery of the risk of cancer for the population, has filed for bankrupcy in the State of Delaware of their “front company”, named Cherokee Simeon Venture I LLC, that they used for the “job”. Obviously the money collected from the Taxpayer is disappeared.
Now: I wonder how Cherokee Investment Partners LLC can still be qualified to receive public funding by means of their their society ” Brownfield Revitalization LLC”.
Cheers,
Joanne
----------------------------------------------
Interesting......
Googling I have found also some interesting links with millions dollars of public money about that Brownfield Revitalization LLC:
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=07NMA002372 Cherokee is also cited here 2007
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=12NMA002372 2012
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=13NMA002372 2013
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=15NMA002372 2016
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=10NMA002372 2010
https://www.cdfifund.gov/award…controlNumber=11NMA002372 2011
If I understand well the average amount of public money given to that compeny was about 50M$/year for 6 years this sum up to about 300M$ !
WOW !
more documents can be found:
https://www.google.com/search?…kee+Simeon+Venture+I+LLC+
So the content of the comment in the Rossi Blog seems real !
It takes two minutes on Google/Maps to see that this is complete BS. The site is empty, no houses. Looks like they bought it after the pollution happened and grossly underestimated the cleanup costs (sounds familiar). Nice try though.
