The 108 units did not work and the tiger replacements were not ready for the market because of material breakdown issues. The QX was engineered to overcome the material breakdown and control issues.
Rossi used the Doral test to run a quality test on his reactor designs and that test failed. Rossi had to repair those low temperature reactors far too much for them to be used as a sucessful basis for a commercial product.
54 reactor units from the Doral plant gave problems right away because of the way they were grounded. These were fired up over the first 2.5 weeks of February but then closed down permanently before the 1 year test officially began.
The way to solve the reactor design problems Rossi had was to work on a series of single-reactor prototypes. This is what IH wanted. Rossi wanted the Doral facility with its 115 reactors running simultaneously. If nothing else he is dreadful at product development.
My memory is fading, but I thought there were 108 of the little units in the other 1MW shipping container? Fabiani said they were fired up the first day, shut down, and never used again. Also, it's always been a little confusing as to what IH built. They did put together the Lugano HT for sure though.
You have some quotes maybe? Hate for newcomers to the Rossi story, to walk away from LF thinking something that may not be correct. Especially so now, with heightened awareness due to that Press Release.
Penon's reports outline the original configuration of the Doral plant. For instance page 39 of document 207-55* on the court docket contains part of Penon's "Final Report". Right at the beginning he says ... "The MW1-USA plant under test ... consists of 115 power generation units grouped in modules." He then specifies that module BF1 (i.e., Big Frankie 1) contains 16 generators and that modules BF2 -BF4 contain 15 generators each. So there are 61 generators within the 4 Big Frankies. Thee are 54 more generators sitting in individual small containers in the rest of the plant.
The information about who put the fuel in the generators comes from somewhere else in the trial documents. I'll try and locate it. My understanding is that for the small units it was Tom Darden himself who mixed and loaded the fuel using Rossi's secret recipe and procedures. During at least part of the time when these generators were being loaded Rossi was not on scene. In contrast, Rossi made the fuel and loaded the generators in the Big Frankies. This difference has attracted my attention because it was the small IH-loaded generators that were shut down prior to the beginning of the 1-year test. I speculate that Rossi engineered this shutdown because he was worried that IH had inserted some "control" generators into the mix to see if they would work the same as the rest.
The information about the shutdown of the small units comes from a log that Fabiani kept. This is found at the beginning of the the court document mentioned above (207-55). In his report Penon says that his first official visit to the Doral facility lasted until 18 Feb 2015. Fabiani's log shows that as of 22:30 on 19 Feb 2015 all of the small, IH-charged, generators were turned off. The official first day of the 1-year test, according to Penon, was 23 Feb 2015. The small generators were never turned on again.
* Court documents in the Rossi -IH suit can be accessed at Abd Ul-Raman Lomax's site http://coldfusioncommunity.net…en-docket-and-case-files/
There were far more than 24 units but only the four new, larger ones were used.
This isn't correct. Inside each of the 4 "Big Frankies" were 15 or 16 "generator units" (as Penon called them). Each of these generator units was a metal tube loaded with Rossi's fuel. Each one could be shut down or turned on separately so these are the best candidates for a unit as you are using the term,
The units in the Big Frankies were old, not new. They were made in Italy and even, I gather loaded with Rossi's fuel there. In contrast, there were 51 generator units sitting in individual containers scattered throughout the non-Big-Frankie part of the Doral plant. These units were manufactured and fueled by IH personnel in North Carolina.
According to depositions and discovery material from the recent lawsuit, all the units, both old and new, were fired up and brought online for heat production in the first 2 weeks of February 2015. Once this happened, Penon spent 3 days inspecting the site and installing his certified measuring instruments. He then left. The day after he left the Doral site was brought offline and all of the newer generator units were permanently shut down and had their cabling removed. Only after this happened did the plant start generating the data that were sent to Penon and that formed the basis of his report. For the entire 1 year test, then, the plant ran on the old reactor units sitting in the Big Frankies ... the ones manufactured and fueled by Rossi.
To the contrary, I acknowledged your central argument up-front in quite a friendly way. You, on the other hand, dismiss (or don't even address) mine, which is that while you place an emphasis on disproving a positive statement, which of course is possible, my point is that the Rossi haters proclaim with glee that the e-Cat does not work no matter the problem space involved, and despite there being some evidence that it does. You are in a much more tenuous position--from a pure logic standpoint--than me.
I see the logical asymmetry here as derived from the universal nature of physical laws ... not from whether they are phrased positively or negatively. A positive universal is just as hard to confirm as a negative universal whereas both can be strongly disconfirmed by a single observation. Personally, I am not proclaiming that the ECat can never work, I am just saying 'show me!'. I want the usual sort of evidence that would be required for any fundamental discovery. Meanwhile I think there are substantial problems with some of Rossi's previous demonstrations and because of the asymmetry of the logic of proof and disproof I think these are particularly telling. I would like you to look at that video I linked to and see what you think.
it is difficult (nigh impossible) to prove that "All swans are not white."
You have missed the central argument. Physical laws generally assert that under such and such conditions something always happens (e.g., water always boils at 100C under certain conditions). They wouldn't be called physical laws otherwise. The point is that it is just easier to disconfirm such a universal statement with empirical evidence than to confirm it. It is just due to the asymmetry of proof versus disproof for a universal. For instance, I assert that Rossi has a mountain of explanations to make following the events depicted in the video that Krivit released. Do you not agree that something is wrong there? I am asserting that just this one video is convincing that there are serious errors in Rossi's claims whereas a single video with no visible problems would be much less convincing that his claims are real.
I ask you to do some calculations regarding Rossi's claims in the video and then compare them with what you see. I have never had anyone I ask this of come back and tell me that what Rossi is claiming in the video is true. Some say that they see what I mean whereas most just stop replying ... I think because they realize that something is wrong.
It might come as a shock, this forum is named lenr-forum, it's supposed to discuss lenr, i.e. it somehow believes it's real.
It certainly comes as a shock to me. Shouldn't we be talking about LENR in the sense of trying to decide, on the evidence, whether it is real or not?
I hope Alan will bring back some evidence, even if the data available make me predict it will be hard.
Alan is facing a problem here that arises from a fundamental asymmetry in the structure of scientific research. It was Karl Popper's fundamental insight regarding empirical research that it is logically impossible to "prove" a statement about the reality of some natural principle but it is perfectly possible to disprove it. Thus, seeing many, many white swans cannot logically prove the truth of the statement "All swans are white" but seeing a single black swan can disprove it.
This has consequences for Rossi's upcoming demo. I can't imagine a circumstance in which any live demonstration extending over only a couple of hours would convincingly demonstrate the reality of excess heat in his system. A convincing demonstration would require a much more intensive examination of the system with the possibility of the examiners having repeated access to the system under completely known conditions. That could (and should!) take months. Since I don't anticipate Alan or any of the attendees having anything like this sort of access to the system, our expectations should be adjusted accordingly.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that Alan or someone else attending the demo might make an observation that could totally falsify Mr Rossi's claims. That would happen if Alan spots a black swan! An instance of the sort of thing I have in mind is seen in the videos (which I am sure many here have seen ) that Steven Krivit took when he visited Rossi's facility 5 years ago or so. At about 11:30 in the video linked to below one can see plainly that the amount of steam emerging from the hose is about an order of magnitude smaller than the 7 kg/hour that Rossi is claiming. I encourage everyone here to listen to Mr Rossi on the video, make their own calculations, and then compare them to their observations. The mismatch between what Rossi claims and what is seen is a black swan!
So we can't expect Alan to come back from the demo with anything that would convince a reasonable person about the reality of excess heat in the QX. But it is possible he may bring back evidence of its unreality. To assert all this isn't saying anything about Mr Rossi in particular ... it is just saying something about the nature of scientific enquiry.
The image shows that the remaining several rows of pipe (in the other photo, to the left of this image, and below the pipes connected to these in this image) were not connected to the red container. So 1MW must be dissipated in just four rows of pipe, which are insulated.
Rossi's story is that the 4 rows of insulated pipes were for treating samples of platinum sponge or industrial diamonds. The samples were sealed into metal tubes and inserted into the pipes then left there for long periods of time. The heat and pressure inside the tubes were supposed to do something or other after a long time. I don't think it ever worked.
The unused pipes are possibly the "mezzanine exchanger", which is not at all in the mezzanine, and serves no purpose in the black container, because it is not connected to anything. If only the left side photo was shown, it might appear to show a heat exchanger of significant size. This photo ruins that idea.
Rossi's story about the the "serpentine piping" in the JMP black box is that it was sometimes hooked up and sometimes not depending on how he wanted to "balance" the system. It wasn't supposed to be the mezzanine heat exchanger. I think some of the pipes that were supposed to form the mezzanine heat exchanger can now be seen hanging from the wall and ceiling of the Doral facility. In photos taken after the 1-year test was over the is visible a double row of 6 inch diameter uninsulated piping attached to the wall near the JMP black box. The pipes go up to the top of the wall and then half-way across the ceiling. They appeared sometime after the 1 year test ended since they are not visible in the photos that Murray took inside the Doral facility when the ecats were still functioning. Rossi hasn't said yet but I think he is ready to claim that these pipes are the old mezzanine heat exchanger disassembled and repurposed. There aren't enough of them visible there to account for the entire heat exchange so there might be more of them now inside the black box. At the base of the pipes hanging from the wall (but not now connected) is a large wooden structure that I think Rossi might be prepared to claim is the wooden superstructure of the mezzanine heat exchanger now similarly repurposed for something or other.
The Grundfos was connected to clear plastic housing with a big filter in it. In the picture below, the filter is not stained, and the clear housing around the filter is not stained. I'll wager that the plastic housing itself would have had to have been replaced (in addition to the filter) before the photo was taken if the Grundfos was ever used to clean the water.
I agree with everything you say. This particular picture has an interesting history. IH obtained it in discovery from Rossi's lawyers (Dewey Weaver hinted that it was from Rossi's cell phone). But in one of his depositions, Rossi suddenly went off on a tangent and complained that the picture was taken by one of two people who were accompanying a Florida State safety inspector who showed up one day to check out a complaint about radiation contaminating the Doral workplace. Rossi claimed these were spies sent by IH and that the photo is the fruit of their spying. God knows how he thinks it got into the hands of his own lawyers. So there appears to be something about the photo (or a companion photo that was taken at the same time) that Rossi wants to distance himself from. I'm not sure what it is.
Whatever is going on, I don't see how the pump here could result in a pressure head at the inlet of the Prominent pumps. No pump on the JMP side could do that. This is because the pipe in the picture that is marked "Return from the black box to the E-cat" crosses over to the Leonardo side of the Doral plant and eventually dumps its load of "condensate" into a water tank with a waterline about 4 feet above floor level. The Prominent pumps have to suck up the water from that level to pump it into the Big Frankie reactors. That is their mission in life ... to suck up water form a holding tank and pump it into the reactor chambers. At least that is what is in Penon's diagram. And that is what previous iterations of Rossi's 1 MW plant in Italy did.
Along the same lines, if there was a working pressure gauge I am sure it did not show "0 bar" every day. Penon just made that up. I have heard there was a pressure gauge but they removed it and erased the numbers in the spreadsheets, because the numbers showed that the water in the pipes was liquid, not steam. The bogus pressure numbers plus the bogus flow meter numbers are enough to explain the excess heat. Put in a reasonable approximation of the real numbers and the heat goes away.
So you see Penon as a active agent in the deception and not just a pawn that Rossi was deceiving and pressuring ?
I believe the recirculatron was located in the black Pt drier/soaker serpentine pipe assembly.
To me, it looked like something installed to try and get some of the rust out of the water, by forcing flow through a filter that otherwise would flow around it. A less friendly interpretation is that it was (additionally) used to deliver high pressure, low volume water in order to spin the water meter impeller to get the reported daily water rates fixed to a desired level.
We could look at the exploded parts diagram to see how the inlet and outlet valves are designed on the Gamma pump. I assume that forced inlet flow would supply whatever the associated tubing and valve assemblies would flow against whatever pressure is in the outlet line (if any). As I have said before, the pump becomes a flow restrictor, (if it has any more restriction than the inlet and outlet hoses).
According to Matts Lewan's account of Rossi's statements, the recirculatron" (love the name!) is said by Rossi to be "positioned in connection to the heat exchanger" and was supposed to "stabilize the flow of steam and water throughout the whole system". So it could be almost anywhere on the JMP side of the Doral facility, We get to know no more because the design of the circulatron is so smart that it is SEKRET! Rossi also says that the circulator is not the Grundfos pump. That pump was supposed to go in the filter contraption and clean the water. So he means something different.
I believe the outlet pressures and the inlet pressures are independent of each other for this pump, rather than additive (subtracted in the spreadsheet).
Consider the operation of the diaphragm and the valve seats:
1) Diaphragm moves forward. Pressure in the outlet side increases, the inlet seal is forced shut by this pressure, the outlets seal is opened by this pressure, and so fluid moves out the outlet; the only way to release the pressure.
2) Diaphragm moves backward. Pressure drops on the outlet side, the outlet seal is forced shut by this pressure drop by existing outlet pressure, the inlet seal is opened by this pressure drop and fluid is drawn in to relieve the lower pressure by entering the diaphragm chamber.
Imagine the inlet and outlet seals are like reed valves. Both valves move in the same direction simultaneously, one opening, one closing (one valve is inside the diaphragm chamber [inlet], and one is outside [outlet]). The pressure inside the diaphragm chamber is relative to the pressure in the outlet or theI assume tht the inlet fluid lines, but there should be no communication between the inlet and outlet lines. Pressure in the outlet line keeps both valves closed. Pressure in the inlet line above that of the the outlet line pressure would force both valves open. There may some weak spring or fluid bypass assist to the valves, but very limited.
This suggests a minor change to the spreadsheet formula. The relative pressure should still be monitored.
Once the pump is operating at least 1 bar outlet pressure, the performance of the pump vs the specification can be evaluated. It seems that it may be under spec.
When acting at maximal stroke rate what is the duty cycle of this pump? I assume, but don't know, that when acting below its maximal pumping rate the diaphragm spends most of its time in the completely discharged position and that the pressure inside the pump is equilibrated with the outlet pressure. But a remark from Engineer48 has completely convinced me that the outlet pressure is very low for the pumps feeding the Big Frankie units (they seem acting on a fluid head only 6 inches high or so). In this state it wouldn't take much of a head on the inlet to displace the inlet ball valve and establish a flow straight through the pump whenever the diaphragm is not actually moving forward.
Meanwhile Rossi and his camp followers have been trying to establish a presumption that there is a large head of pressure on the inlet side. Rossi claims this comes from the "recirculator pump" that suddenly surfaced in his interview with Matts Lewan. I don't understand how such a pump, that is supposedly mounted near the second storey heat-exchanger, could transfer pressure to the Prominent pump inlets. According to Penon's diagrams, and the descriptions of eyewitnesses this should not be possible. However I can see that this is where Rossi is heading. As a consequence, one configuration that Alan should be testing is simultaneous low outlet pressure and higher inlet pressure.
Just in case, always slim odds, I would be thinking how to maintain the face in case of a positive demo.
I think this reveals a real deficit in understanding how to approach these things. I am a Rossi skeptic, but nonetheless if a convincing demonstration of the reality of Rossi's systems could be made then I would be tickled pink! There is no real question of saving face. It is more a question of having curiosity satisfied and wanting to know what is true and what isn't.
I don't see Alan's trip as decisive. It could take weeks of measurement and analysis with unimpeded access before arriving at an informed conclusion, and I don't think this is in the cards. Also, the person who accompanies Alan shouldn't be an academic heavyweight, it should be someone with experience in staging illusions. Scientists know all bout science but they intrinsically used to trusting other researchers to be honest. I don't think Mr Rossi can be extended that courtesy.
I am uncomfortable about the connections that Axil has making between different parts of physics and LENR.
Much of Axil's credibility in making these propositions arises from his obvious familiarity with deep and exotic concepts in theoretical physics. He explains it all so well! However I am made uncomfortable because I recently realized that much of what he writes is not his own work. It is copied off the internet and pasted, word for word, into his posts. Since he chooses high-quality sources for his copying activities it appears that he is extremely knowledgeable. He then includes some of his own original material (sometimes only a sentence or two) mentioning LENR. This activity is really a demand for our credibility. 'Look', Axil appears to say, 'I know what I am talking about in regards to all this esoteric physics stuff so my suggested link to LENR must be equally well informed!'.
As evidence of all this I note that two of his recent posts are 80% or more copied word-for-word from other sources. For instance Axil's post above, that begins ...
... is mainly from an article by theoretical physicist Carl Bender (see https://www.europhysicsnews.or…2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf, particularly the section called "Upside-down potential"). I don't know where Axil got the illustration in his post.
Likewise, much of the post that begins in the following way ...
Why is the tachyon a critical keystone in particle theory?
... is actually from a report by physicist Matthew Headrick of Harvard University (see the Headrick's report "Tachyons Today" available at http://people.brandeis.edu/~headrick/highlight.pdf)
In both cases most of Axil's original contribution to the posts is to insert a sentence saying something about LENR. It takes little real insight to do this.
It is a shame that this is happening. I see people accepting Axil's speculations as astute and skillful extrapolations when in reality they may be anything but. This could all be fixed up if Axil would properly cite the words and thoughts of others when he uses them. Then we could all proceed on a more transparent basis.
Yes ... BUT in my latest full-height run (timed from my TIMER) I got a discrepancy between actual strokes and expected strokes (at 180/minute).
Is the "Yes..." a response to my suggestion about the repair kit? Or are you just continuing another thought here?
Visualizing all results so far. Some points are averages of multiple runs. All data are for runs where water is lifted into the pump from a bucket below and for discharge heights either at pump level or above. The backpressure is calculated as discharge pressure minus inlet pressure. The blue line shows Fletcher's results and the red line shows Prominent's data.
I don't mind the jiggles in the plot at all. This is what real data look like. And ... by god! ... is this pump asymptoting to 32 L/h at higher backpressures? What is going on?!
Edit: Fixed a small error in the plot. The overall result is unchanged.
... we have found math errors, some unintentional self-deception, some see what you want to see and / or orders of magnitude measurement issues in the projects we have parked. The remaining projects have survived that level of scrutiny and we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio.
Your group's strategy seems to me to be among the sanest things I have heard on this site. But you are travelling the same road as the medical R&D community went down near the turn of the century. Large companies trying to industrialize scientific findings found out there was a big problem reproducing research published in even top-flight journals. The first time I heard of this was on the academic grapevine regarding a large drug company who decided that in order to push ahead in a particular field they wanted to establish the capability to reproduce 16 basic findings in-house. They tried, but in the end failed to replicate 15 of the 16 (I don't think I ever learned the name of the company). Since then, failure to replicate has become widely acknowledged and has been the subject of a series of editorials in Science and Nature. Current figures seem to be that 25-70% of peer-reviewed published findings cannot be replicated. The 25% figure comes from the physical sciences and the higher figures comes from biology and psychology. Reasons for failure to replicate are about the same as you outlined (analysis mistakes, self-delusion, etc), but if you ask the authors of the non-replicated works what is happening they say that the experimental conditions were not copied exactly. Sound familiar? .
What percentage of projects do you end up setting aside in your validation process?
Here is an example of a venture capitalist's experience in biology
If you have a photograph of the recirculator, or a schematic diagram provided by someone who saw it, or have obtained it from Mr Rossi and are making measurements with it, then that would be welcome.
@IH Fanboy LDM
It is at this very point that we traverse from hard evidence, photographs, plans, and measurements to things that are unseen and perhaps unseeable. Although I understand the attraction of arguing over these phantoms, maybe it is more suitable to do so elsewhere. I suggest that it is more in the spirit of this particular thread to talk only of things that are tangible and can be measured or seen.
Is this the repair kit you had in mind? It has order number 1023124 and the following specifications ...
"Spare Parts Kits for Solenoid-Driven Metering Pump Beta® a and gamma/ L
Spare parts kits for Beta® a und gamma/ L, consisting of:
- 1 diaphragm
- 1 suction valve assembly
- 1 discharge valve assembly
- 2 valve balls
- 1 connector kit"
If you and IH Fanboy would like, I can look into ordering this at my expense and and having it shipped to you.
Alan - Do you see obvious reason why the pump is under performing? Could there be deposits inside the liquid end from this pump's previous life?
There are maintenance steps in the Prominent manual that you might consider at some point. Not now though I think.
Does anyone recall whether we have access to a picture showing the height of the return condensate reservoir tank relative to the height of the pumps?
Here (left) is a picture looking down the inside of the E-Cat plant from the east end (i.e., from the end that does not contain the Big Frankies). You can see the internal reservoir (arrow) sitting on the floor with the back end of the Big Frankies rack looming above it.
The area of the internal reservoir is shown in a blown up (right) so you can see detail. The reservoir is a white insulated box with a black pipe running in to it on a bit of an angle. That is the pipe coming from the external reservoir sitting outside the south side of the shipping container.
In case the internal tanks have a pressure on it, then that pressure can feed the Prominents with a positive inlet pressure while at the same time due to the hight difference between the external tank and the external tank can feed the internal one. The water pressure is possibly provided by the additional pump on the JM side which AR describes in his notes about the Smith report.
There isn't really a height difference between the internal and external reservoirs. Not much of one anyway. Don't forget that the floor of the E-Cat plant is 3 feet of the ground.
The external reservoir is there so that water can be added to the E-Cat system during startup and to replace water lost through leaks. If there was a head of pressure equal to at least the height of the topmost Big Frankie on the internal reservoir, then water would flow backwards from it to the external reservoir and come spurting out.
So it sounds like the head of pressure to the pump inlets was due to gravity.
No. That head of pressure is tiny. The external tank West is describing is the one you can see sitting in its wooden cradle outside the red E-Cat shipping container in the photo I have attached. It is max 3 feet or so above the floor of the shipping container. No higher than the internal reservoir actually. The water surface in both tanks is supposed to be the same as far as I can figure out.
The bottom yellow arrow in the image is a bit misleading. I think the person who drew it is trying to show exactly what you are showing with the corresponding arrow you have drawn near the top of the setup.
In fact you both have it just slightly wrong. What really happens is that after coming out of the pumps the water heads up, to the left, and then down, just as you have it, but then it heads directly backwards (away from the viewer) for a short stretch and connects to the bottom of the sight glass. At that point it turns right and enters its Big Frankie.
People keep bringing up this idea that the internal reservoir for the E-Cat plant is sealed and has a head of pressure on it. But in this case I don't understand how the external reservoir sitting outside the E-Cat plant, feeds the internal reservoir by gravity as described by Penon and Barry West.
Not sure who posted the original with the yellow lines added, but I think they are either mistaken or purposely misleading. In light of Alan F.'s findings so far, I decided to inspect this image more closely. I believe the correct flow is shown in blue. If right, this means that the pumps have at least inches in head inlet pressure and in some cases multiple feet.
The image and its yellow lines comes from someone who is an tireless defender of Rossi and who says that he has in the past discussed some of this with Rossi directly.
The small blue arrows you have drawn in are wrong way around. The water for the Big Frankies comes from the internal reservoir sitting on the floor of the E-Cat plant. It makes its way to the pumps in the insulated piping you see running along beside the units on the floor to the right. The incoming water then turns 90 degrees and enters the white insulated pipe you see right at the foot of the Big Frankies. The plastic tubing you have spotted connects to this pipe and others like it that lie just behind it. The water rises up the tubing and into the pumps which means that your small blue arrows should be turned around.
So the flow pattern shown in yellow is correct (although the bottom yellow arrow is a bit misleading and should be shown as going into one of the Big Frankie tanks). The horizontal yellow lines in the image are at the level of the meniscus for the two middle Big Frankies. The meniscus shows the water level in the Big Frankie container and that water level is manifestly at the outlet of the pumps. So, net, there is 0 bar backpressure on the pumps.
The person who originally posted the image believes that the internal reservoir inside the E-Cat plant has a head of pressure on it. I view this as unlikely because this contradicts the descriptions of Penon, Barry West, and Rick Smith who have all viewed the system directly. But if the reservoir has a head of pressure on it then this would be transferred to the pump inlets.
Update including run 20C (arrow) and reference values from Prominent manual (red).
I predict 36.5 L/h
Could you please digitize the Gamma L curve (0.5 bar to 2 bar) for reference. (In the gamma L manual ... fig 45 or thereabouts).
And be ready to show both my "raw" curve (as here) and a "scaled" curve (to bring my 0.5 bar result equal to theirs).
Good idea! I'll get it ready to go.
Are you JUST accounting for the discharge height/bars ... or the "backpressure" (discharge-suction) ?
I am NOT accounting for anything going on at the inlet right now. All pressures in the table and in the plot are at the discharge of the pump.
Edit: If you want to take inlet pressure into account then just mentally slide the data points and the straight line in the plot horizontally to the right by 0.05 bar.