Posts by Bruce__H

    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 ...

    Upside-down potential

    ... 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

    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.

    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…-failures/#0_undefined,0_

    @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.

    Alan Fletcher

    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.

    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.

    @IH Fanboy

    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.

    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.

    Updating Alan Fletcher's results to Aug 10. "Post #" is the number of the post (this thread) that contains the raw data. All runs have a small negative pressure at the inlet, i.e., water is drawn up into the pump by suction

    Run Date Post # Outlet pressure (bar) Flow (L/h)
    06C Aug 02 331 0.00 42.3
    10A Aug 07 478 0.00 39.6
    11A Aug 07 490 0.00 40.3
    11H Aug 07 493 0.03 39.6
    13C Aug 10 507 0.03 39.2
    13F Aug 10 529 0.03 39.4
    13G Aug 10 529 0.03 39.2
    01 Jul 31 206 0.15 36.1
    05E Aug 02 329 0.15 33.7

    I am also including a visualization of the data. The straight line is decorative only. I expect the relationship to be revealed as curved when more data come in.

    What are the discharge heights and initial inlet heights for these 2 runs?

    Zorud - I have the product manager's name and contract information for the pump if you'd like it. He's pretty cool and was very helpful. As previously stated, a metering pump is a metering pump and the diaphragm design inherently cannot overachieve by much.

    Send me an email at [email protected] and I'll provide details.

    Mr Weaver. Are you free to reveal details of the evidence IH gathered for the trial? The affidavit from Prominent for instance?

    To my understanding the settlement agreement signed by the parties to the case only restricts release of material obtained in discovery. Evidence developed by IH and not through discovery, on the other hand, is potentially open.


    I think you are right. The 60 l/h figure I thought came from Rossi, but it looks like an approximation of what is needed to meet the 36,000 l/day value. That said, you ought to appreciate by now that going from ~47 l/h to ~62 l/h seems well within the realm of possibility now, and we'll probably see it soon. This was anathema, impossible, no-way, totally outside of specs, just a few short weeks ago.

    As for one of the Big Frankies allegedly being turned off while there being 36,000 l/day that same day, I've yet to see good evidence for this in terms of a direct time correlation. I'm not saying this didn't happen, I'm just saying that Jed has repeated this so often that I think people just believe it without doing any kind of diligence. I will also say this: Rossi often says things on this blog, and it is hard to draw firm conclusions as to the specific timing of those events. For example, he might say "one of the systems down," and you might assume he means at that moment, but that is not necessarily the case. He talks of robotized factories, and critics jump on that and howl that there are no such factories, even when if you look closely at Rossi's statements, it appears he is talking about a future time. And so forth.

    Penon was in the Doral facility on Oct 12-14, 2015 and measured the flow of electrical current to 3 of the Big Frankies. He only measured 3 of the Big Frankies because, according to his deposition (207-10 page 193, lines 14-16) " ... they were working". About the existence of a functioning 4th Big Frankie he continues ... "I ignore how many other units were not working. It was not of my interest, so I didn't need it."

    So when Penon was there in October 2015 only 3 of the Big Frankie units was working. I think it was BF4 (the bottom of the Big Frankies standing in the rack in Doral) that was shut down. Judging from the entries in the daily log kept by Fabiani (beginning of 207-55), this unit was permanently shut down because of water leaks, on Aug 18 2015 and never restarted. And I think its pumps never rerouted to the other Big Frankies. Certainly in the photo below taken at the Doral plant one can see that the bottom Big Frankie is dry (the sight glass is empty) and its plumbing had been rearranged such that the output of the pumps could not enter any of the other BF units .

    So with the slightest of head pressure, we are at 47+ l/h. Seems like Rossi's 60 l/h is just a short skip and a hop from here. I don't want to minimize all of your efforts Alan F. by highlighting this fact, but it does appear to be the case.

    Mr. Rossi never suggested 60 L/h as far as I know. In his deposition as the representative for Leonardo he said he thought the rate was near 100 L/h. An anonymous contributor then popped up on Rossi's blog (as they do just when he needs them), and said that based on personal experience the figure was 90 L/h. Then in Mats Lewan's interview, Mr Rossi said 72 L/h.

    I think that the 60 L/h figure comes from taking Penon's figure of 36,000 L/day and dividing by 24 hours and then again by 24 pumps. This gives 62.5 L/h as the per pump rate needed to achieve the reported daily flow if all 24 pumps on the Big Frankies are working. On some days, however, Penon reported the usual 36,000 L/day pumped even though only 3 Big Frankies were in operation (for instance on Oct 14, 2015). This leaves only 18 pumps, and so on days like this each remaining pump must achieve a pump rate of 83.3 L/h.

    I'm having a hard time following your spreadsheet calculations, but I've done the flow calculations for your last 2 runs by hand and confirm your results.

    Your next suggested moves sound right to me..

    Summarizing Alan Fletcher's results so far (all runs with inlet suction lift of 18.5") ....

    Run Date Back pressure (bar) Flow (l/h)
    06C Aug 02 0.00 42.3                                                                                            
    10A Aug 07 0.00 39.6
    11A Aug 07 0.00 40.3
    11H Aug 07 0.03 39.6
    01 Jul 31 0.15 36.1
    05E Aug 02 0.15 33.7