Posts by Bruce__H

    Ed Lewis


    I don't understand how you arrive at the 80 year periodicity for revolutions in physics. It appears contrived to me.


    Further back in this thread I outlined some challenges to your assertion but you never responded. Do you care to respond now?

    Ed Lewis

    To make this an interesting theory you must outline why you include some revolutions but not others in your timeline. Your choices appear arbitrary to me. For instance, why not include revolutions outside of physics?


    And if, for some reason, require these revolutions to be physical then why include Copernicus on your list? This was a revolution in astronomy and cosmology, as Kuhn describes in one of his books, but I don't see what physical principles are involved. And if the Copernican revolution is to appear on your list then why not the Wegenerian theory of Continental drift? I contend that the acceptance of continental drift meets every single criterion that Kuhn set out for a scientific revolution and is just as physical as heliocentric orbits.


    It seems to me that your revolutions are chosen not on an objective basis but because they produce the 80 year periodicity that you want.


    Finally, as to predictions. Your 2007 prediction of a financial crisis to happen in 2008 is not impressive. I recall lots of similar predictions in 2007 following the subprime mortgage collapse.

    Exactly. But I don't really care what you "think". Your are the one supposed to bring the evidence, not estimates or speculations. Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.


    The only way? Simply not true. Would you tell astronomers to stop estimating the angular velocity of asteroids and other interesting things in the solar system because the only way to estimate such things is to go there?


    I contend that the video does contain evidence of velocity. For instance, the steam emanating from the hose is clearly emerging very slowly ... at about 1 cm/s.

    Yes. As I said. You are simply speculating. You could be right, you could be wrong. We will never know, Ie. useless argument, unless the aim is to create an environment of uncertainty of course.


    You don't think that one can use the video to estimate the velocity of the steam emanating from the hose? You surprise me. There are always errors associated with such estimates, of course, but I don't think that this particular estimate has to be all that accurate in order to lead to some insight about what is going on here.


    For instance, do you think that entrained water droplets that we see emerging from the hose are initially travelling at more than 10 m/s when they come out?

    I'll give you one example. I can see there is a cut in the video at about 11:50. Maybe the two incidents are not connected. And what's behind the wall? If there was an explanation there I bet Krivit would not tell us (he went all in on the sell side, which at least makes him transparent... ) I dont know, do you? This is the reason I say I trust Mats Lewan orders of magnitude above you. First hand experience is all it is about.


    I am particularly interested in the steam emanating from the hose that Mr Rossi holds up at around 11:30 in the video. This is before the cut that worries you.


    Do you accept that the steam emanating from the hose at about 11:30 in the video is what Mr Rossi is saying comes out of his ecat?

    Many people here are concentrating on steam quality (i.e., the extent to which the steam emerging from the hose that Mr Rossi holds up is wet or dry). But this is difficult to assess visually except to say that if you see white clouds emerging from the hose that there must be some degree of moisture in the steam. I think this is Jed's point.


    In my opinion a more profitable way to look at the events in the video is to concentrate on the velocity of the vapourous mixture emanating from the hose rather than its quality. This approach makes use of the entrained water droplets as indicators of velocity but otherwise ignores steam quality. Given the dimensions of the hose and the observed exit velocity from it, one should be able to put an upper bound on the volume of water that is being vapourized per unit time that is needed to produce that flow. To a first approximation this amount will be the volume of the emerging gasses per second divided by the expansion factor of water from the liquid to the gas states (about 1700x). This will place an upper limit on the COP (because you can figure out the energy flux needed to vapourize that much water and compare it to energy in). There will be adjustments needed to this, of course, such as considerations of condensation within the hose itself and the pressure within the ecat (which will change the expansion factor), but I think that they will be minor.


    I have done some of these calculations already but would be interested to see someone else try them too and to hear opinions on whether calculations based on velocity are sufficient for putting bounds on the COP. I am particularly interested in understanding whether, contrary to TTHuxleyNew's position, there is enough information in the video to show that Rossi's device is not generating any extra heat at all.

    Alan Fletcher


    Some measurements. These are naive measurements that disregard issues of perspective, angle of view, etc:...


    Tops of BF units to the ground

    BF1 = 78.7 inches (exactly 2m)

    BF2 = 57.4 inches

    BF3 = 36.8 inches

    BF4 = 18 inches


    BF unit height

    13.4 inches


    Top of a BF unit to centre of pump

    7.9 inches


    BF water level (estimated) to centre of pump (i.e., outlet pressure)

    4.6 inches


    Centre of pump to BF inlet

    -3.2 inches

    If there's a subthread that was moved here because it was off-topic in a different thread, just ask and it can probably be moved to a dedicated thread of its own.


    I think there is some juice still left in the 2012 Krivit video of Rossi demonstrating his ecat. I have attempted to ask Tony about it on the Clearance thread and IH_Fanboy about it on the Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion thread.

    Paradigmnoia


    Engineer48 says Rossi told him that most of the water flow through the Big Frankies was due to a single master pump and that the Prominent pumps were used as topping up pumps. I don't see any independent route for entry of this water into the Big Frankies so the water flow due to the master pump must be straight through the Prominent pumps and superimposed on the due to the pumps themselves.


    I think the relationship between water flow established by pressure on the inlet and flow due to the action of the Prominent pump itself is something we could determine empirically with Alan Fletcher's cooperation. It could very well be that the 83 L/hr required of each pump is not possible even with external pressure but then maybe it is possible. And even if 83 L/hr is possible I really do wonder about the 125 L/hr that seems to be needed from each pump when the plant is in the configuration it seems to be in on the last day of its operation (only 2 Big Frankies operating).

    Thanks for the link again. You might be correct, or you might not. There is simply no conclusions that can be made from a couple of seconds in a Krivit video. Many explanations are possible.


    I challenge your conclusion here. I think that the situation is well defined enough that we can reach some order-of-magnitude conclusions. It is certain that Mr Rossi thinks that he has given enough information to make calculations. He says so in the video.


    According to my calculations, the exit velocity of the steam actually emanating from the hose Mr. Rossi is holding is more than an order of magnitude smaller than it should be based on Mr Rossi's claims. Please point out why you think there is not enough information in the video to reach this sort of conclusion. Where do you think the uncertainty exists.


    By the way, my agenda is to figure out if Mr Rossi has something real or not.

    The suction height pressure is independent of the outlet side back pressure when the outlet pressure is higher than the inlet pressure.
    The suction side is sealed from the outlet pressure by the (multiple) ball valves, preventing the suction side from communicating with the outlet side when the pump is operated correctly.

    It can only be additive to the outlet pressure if the inlet (suction side) pressure exceeds the outlet line pressure.


    I think you are basically correct but I also think that Mr Rossi has been trying to suggest (indirectly, vaguely, and clumsily) that the inlet pressure does indeed exceed the outlet pressure. If this is so then from the diagram of the pump assembly it seems to me that the inlet pressure would unseat all of the 1-way ball valves and cause a steady state flow of water through the pump. I think this is something that Alan Fletcher might consider looking at in the future. In [particular, I would be very interested to know if there is a steady-state flow of water possible when the Prominent pump is not actually active (i.e., it is in manual/stop mode) and then I would like to compare that with the flow rate measure when the pump is put into action. From my assessment of the workings of this pump I think that there is the paradoxical possibility that starting up the pump might actually restrict the flow because the pressures generated by the solenoid inside the pump will dominate the external pressures and re-seat the valves at some parts of the pumping cycle. This would mean that far from being additive, the flows established by the pump itself and by a external inlet pressure would partly cancel each other.

    My message however was obviously not intended for you, since your bias is already set in stone and you are pushing it best you can, as good as anyone of those other anonymous Internet commentators with unclear agendas and financing.


    I have found that a very good way to avoid having presumptions and bias dominate a conversation is to look at facts and data and see how far they take you. That is why I invited you previously to look at the video, taken by Steven Krivit, of one of Mr Rossi's demonstrations from 2012. I think it is relevant because one can just look at the events going on, make some calculations, and then see if what Rossi says make sense.


    I urge you again to at least take a look at the video to see whether you think the amount of steam that should be emerging from the hose can be adequately estimated and compared with the steam actually seen emerging.


    Here is my original request to you to look at the video. It contains a link to the video itself.

    Clearance Items

    I may be incorrect, but it was my understanding that the holding tank, between JMP and the "Big Frankies" was an open circuit, exposed to the atmosphere.


    You aren't mistaken. Smith describes the internal tank as "eventually vented to atmosphere" so that "the pressure in the condensate return tank is atmospheric, or 0 barg".



    . If that be the case, then a "recirculator" pump on the JMP side could not induce the water flow through the BF's. It would simply over flow the tank.


    I agree. But Mr Rossi is angling to hold that most of the water entering the Big Frankies was pumped in under pressure from some source other than the Prominent pumps.

    I agree with Shane D. that of all the players in the whole IH/Rossi saga the least likely to be lying about what went on is Barry West. And I am now finding it increasingly difficult to imagine how he could be mistaken or mixed up when he says that the pumps on the Big Frankies were operated only intermittently when it was perceived that water levels were low. There is such a huge gap between his description and the version that requires all pumps to be working full out all day that I would be very interested if anyone can suggest how Mr West could have simply been mistaken. So I think it is time to take him seriously and consider what it would mean.


    One of the concepts that Mr Rossi floated rather late in the lawsuit was that there is a "recirculator" pump that stabilized a pressure head of water from the JMP side of the Doral facility and it was mainly this (and not the Prominent pumps) that pushed water into the Big Frankies at the rate of 36,000 L/day rate. OK, maybe, but I see only 2 ways this could work -- either the water bypasses the Prominent pumps and goes into the Big Frankies by a separate route, or the water is pushed straight through the Prominent pumps at a high rate regardless of their settings. The problem with the first proposal is that there is no photographic evidence at all for a separate route into the Big Frankies and the problem with the second proposal is that it sounds insane. Why have the Prominent pumps there at all if you are just going to push water straight through them? Maybe that second proposal is possible though.


    So I'd like some help. If anyone can suggest evidence for a separate route into the Big Frankies then I'd be fascinated. On the other hand maybe using a pressure head on the input to push water through a Prominent pump is something Alan Fletcher could try. Maybe that is how one could reach the high pump rates (either 83 L/hr or even 125 L/hr) that is required to meet Penon's reported overall flow rate for the 5 final months of the 1-year test.

    It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo.


    Thanks for reminding me about the noise. Having 24 pumps clattering away must have made for an impressive wall of sound. I expect that anyone working nearby would be completely aware of whether the pumps were going or not. I have been wondering if Barry West was perhaps mistaken in his information that the pumps were only in occasional use each day but I think that this sort of pattern of use would be pretty plain just from the contrasting noise levels.

    Basically it's a question of whose lies you want to believe. :). It could (if one wished) be argued that the pumps were turned off to make it easier to talk with whoever took the photo. And to be honest, it is all water under the bridge, the key factor here is 'could the pumps possibly have....etc'. And that is still a test in progress. Interesting diversion though.


    So far the maximal pump rate is coming out at 60L/hr which is inadequate to account for the 36,000 L/day that was reported, for example, on every day of November 2015.

    Here are my results for the Dec 13 run.


    Based on images we have I think that the column of water on the outputs of the pumps is something like 25-30cm. So your pumping rates of about 60 L/hr seem the most relevant and, thanks to you, that figure seems pretty solid now.


    The image evidence also indicates that the suction lift required at the pump inputs varied vary from about 25cm to 180 cm or so. On this basis it would seem that 60 L/hr is a maximal pumping rate for any pump in the array. Mr Rossi seems to be indicating that the pump inputs were pressurized and I think this might increase the pump rates even more. If the inputs are pressurized I would assume that the valves would become unseated and you would have a flow of water whether the pumps were going or not. In fact I suspect that under those circumstances the flow would be restricted once the pumps begin to operate -- so what would be the purpose of the pumps? It all seems a little nuts and I should emphasize that there is no actual evidence, either photographic or from people on the scene (Rossi excepted), that this is true.

    Alan Fletcher

    Thank you pointing those pictures out. Are your eyes good enough to see of all those pumps are running btw? Sadly, mine are not.


    My eyes are not good enough to properly see the displays on the pumps either, but thankfully I don't need my eyes since this is a high-quality image which can be analyzed digitally.


    They key to the analysis is the realization that certain pieces of information don't appear just anywhere on these pump displays. They appear only in one position and are either on or off. This means that to decide what state a pump is in you often don't need to read what is written on the displays, you only need to see if the relevant part of the display is bright (the default background) or dark (i.e., displaying lettering).


    Here is a closeup image of a pump in manual/stop mode. In this mode the pump is not operating (u.e., it is stopped) but is ready to start pumping if the start/stop button on the front panel is pushed. You can see the words "Manual" and "Stop" on the display indicating that it is in this ready state but not actually going. I analyzed this image by creating 2 regions of interest (ROIs -- the 2 rectangles) on the photo and measuring average pixel intensity as a function of horizontal distance across the screen in each one. The results are shown at the bottom where the red trace shows the results for the top ROI and the blue trace shows the results for the bottom ROI.




    The presence of the word "Manual" is clearly shown as a reduction (in the blue trace ) of average pixel intensity over a circumscribed portion of the ROI. Likewise, the presence of the word "Stop" is shown by a drop in intensity in the red trace. Note that the amplitude of the intensity reductions is large when compared with the random noise at baseline and further note that the intensity drop corresponding to the word "Stop" (red) has a characteristic spacing relative to that for the word "Manual" (blue). In analyzing the images of the pumps sitting on the Doral setup I have used these observations to form a decision criterion for deciding whether or not the word "Stop" appears on their displays -- the word stop will only be deemed to appear if the red trace diminishes in intensity by more that 5 baseline standard deviations (sigma 5!), and if the leading and trailing edges of the drop in the red trace occur before and after, respectively, the leading edge of the blue "Manual" trace.


    Below is the image that Alhfors provided (slightly enhanced for clarity). Once opened you can zoom in on any pump in the photo and easily spot the dark smudge that corresponds to the word "Manual". So all 24 pump are in manual mode.


    Pumps after BF4 alteration Ahlfors_clarity adjusted.jpg



    But which pumps are stopped? You can see the smudge corresponding to the presence of the word "Stop" in some displays but not others. To say more I have extended the digital analysis outlined above to all pumps shown in the picture. Below I list the pumps where there is solid evidence, using the criteria I mentioned earlier, that the word "Stop" really does appear on the display. In making this list I have named the pumps according to what row they are in (numbered 1-4 from top to bottom) and what column they are in (lettered A-F from left to right).


    Pumps that are definitely in stop mode and so were not pumping at the time the picture was taken ...

    A1, B2, F1, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3, A4, B4


    So 15 out of the 24 pumps were stopped. I expect that some or all of the rest were also stopped but the image analysis could not confirm this because of reflections, shadows, and oblique angles that degraded the images. To give an idea of the sort of data that was used to generate these results, here is a zoomed-in image of pump F2 (rightmost pump 2nd row from the top) as well as the analysis. The arrows point to the smudges associated with the words "Stop" (red arrow) and "Manual" (blue arrow). The digital analysis of pixel intensities is shown at the bottom. The intendisty dip associated with the work "Stop" is clearly visible in the red trace although it is on the very edge of visibility in the actual photo.





    Based on all of this, and based on the green lights showing beside each and every pump, I conclude that none of the pumps in the photo were actually pumping when the photo was taken. Previously I had a mental image of the all the pumps working 24/7 all the time for almost the entire 1 year test at Doral. Given the new evidence and based on indications from Barry West, I am now thinking that the pumps were only turned on a couple of times each day. So what gives? How did 36,000 Litres of water circulate through the system?


    Edit: Here are a few details I left out of my original explanations. All image analysis was carried out using Image J which is freeware developed at the US National Institutes of Health. Although the photo showing of all the pumps at once has been processed for better visibility using this software, the actual digital analysis was carried out on the original file without processing other than a compression of the colour information down to an 8-bit greyscale. The red and blue traces showing averaged pixel values are actually offset in the raw data files. This is largely because the uppermost ROI is in the shadow of the overhanging top of each pump. A constant has been added to both traces so that their baselines are comparable. Finally, standard deviations at baseline were assessed by eye. To accomplish this, a Gaussian structure was assumed for the baseline noise and thus the peak-to-peak variability visible to the eye was approximated at 4 SD.


    Thanks for taking the trouble to do this Alan.


    If you look at the picture that Ahlfors supplied of the banks of pumps sitting on the big Frankies, and if you zoom in on the pump displays, you will see on most of them a prominent black smudge just above and to the left of the large numbers reading either 100 or 180. Although you cannot read the lettering, these smudges are in exactly the space where the word "Manual" appears when the pumps are in that mode. It is my understanding that this is the only word that can appear there.


    So the pumps are in manual mode (all of them I think), and it is my understanding that when in this mode they cannot be pulsed from an external signal but can only be controlled from the from panel. A final indication that the pumps are being controlled from the front panel rather than an external synch signal is that the red printing on the Stop/Run buttons on the front of every pump is nearly worn away. That must take a lot of use (as you could test for yourself). Rather than working away continuously 24/7 as I had supposed at one point, these pumps must have been turned on and off many many times during the test at Doral. This fits with the indication of Barry West that the pumps were turned on to top put the Big Frankies whenever the internal water levels were perceived as low. It doesn't fit at all with these pumps supplying 36,000 L/day.


    Finally, although I am sure that there is photographic evidence that the pumps are in manual mode it is not yet a certainty that they are stopped. By tomorrow or the day after I hope to have clarified this by quantifying the greyscale levels in the regions above and to the left of the "Manual" smudge areas. These regions contain smudges too and because of their positioning these smudges, where they exist, must be blurred versions of the word "Stop". This would be positive proof that the pumps involved are in manual/stop mode at the time of the photograph and so not pumping. Preliminary results are that half or more of the pumps are definitely in this state.

    I'll try and do that tomorrow///// later today (Wednesday).

    I have movies and will give you the on/off ratios at a setting 180 pulses.
    (Right now I can't remember if the green light comes on steady when it's not actually pumping).


    Much appreciated.


    Also -- and I know I am all requests these days so I apologize ahead of time -- but would it be possible to get a "mug shot" of the front of the pump when it is in the following state: manual mode, 180 strokes per minute, the stop button pressed? In this state the word Stop should appear near the top of the display screen and this is what i am after. I will use this to find the exact position of that word on the display so that I can analyze other images.

    Thanks Alan. Or the shutter speed of the camera was very slow in that gloomy looking container and it caught all the lights as they winked on....?


    It occurs to me that we can do better than just trade opinions on this matter ... we can ask Alan Fletcher to try it out!


    Alan Fletcher . Alan, if you are agreeable, would you please use you phone to take some pictures of the pump in operation? Specifically, pictures of the front of the pump when it is pumping water in manual mode at maximal stroke rate and stroke length. Of interest is whether your phone camera at normal settings and light levels is capable of capturing distinct eras of the green ready light blinking on and off, or whether it just always appears on. I would think that 3 or 4 successive pictures all at the same settings would tell the story.

    Thanks Alan. Or the shutter speed of the camera was very slow in that gloomy looking container and it caught all the lights as they winked on....?


    Possible. On the other hand, do you really think this is probable?


    It doesn't seem all that gloomy to me. There are banks of fluorescent lighting down both sides of the red Ecat container. And I expect that much of the light for the pictures comes from the general lighting in the Doral facility (the pumps on the BF units are at the end of the container where it opens on to the room, the pictures must have been taken by someone standing outside the red Ecat container with their backs to the wall enclosing the JMP facility). Every photo I have seen taken in the general lighting of the facility has always seemed non-gloomy to me.


    Overall I think these are pretty ordinary indoor lighting levels. The sort of levels where I occasionally catch my friends in mid blink with my smartphone.

    There is more information to be derived from the digital displays of the pumps than I had previously realized. Briefly stated, you don't have to actually read some of the words being displayed because simply their position on the display screen tells you what they are.


    The mode of operation is a good example. There are 4 such modes -- Analog, Manual, Contact, and Batch -- and they are displayed in exactly that order across the display screen of a Prominent Gamma L pump. Only one is active at any moment and so only one displays. Moreover, the display is such that each mode has a unique position on the screen. This is because, first of all, these labels always show somewhere just above the area on the display reserved for the large numbers that one can see most easily. That sets the vertical position of the mode information. But then next, each mode also has its own characteristic horizontal position on the screen. If you first imagine all 4 of the labels displayed simultaneously and then, in your mind, make 3 of those labels disappear without any compensation adjustment in position from the remaining one, you will see why this is so. Importantly for the present situation, the Manual mode indication always shows just above and slightly to the left of the large numbers (which seem to be showing stroke rate per minute in the Doral photos). And this is what I see in many of the pumps showing in Ahlfors' photo -- there always seems to be a smudge just above and to the left of the large numbers that appear most prominently in the displays. I am therefore assuming that all the pumps are in manual mode.


    And now here is the real game! There is another line of indicator messages visible on the Gamma L display that lie above the mode line and are tucked up against the top edge of the screen. I'm unclear exactly what the full extent of these messages is but they seem to have unique positions horizontally and there is one that gets my attention. That is the word Stop! This indicator shows whenever the pump is stopped. Depressing the stop/go button on the front of the unit then makes the Stop message disappear. There is no "On" message that replaces or turns on elsewhere, the way you know that the pump is in operational mode is when there is no Stop message shown. In the photos of the Doral setup the resolution is not great enough to show the Stop indication on the screen but because it has a unique position even a dark smudge showing in there is evidence that the unit is in stop mode.


    Applying this result to Ahlfor's image gives surprising results. The photographic quality of the displays for the bottom row of pumps appears to degraded even to discern the presence or absence of Stop indications (Unless someone can sharpen the image? Please!), but I do think I see such smudges in the displays of some of the pumps for the units in the top 3 rows!


    What! How can that be?


    Well I'll tell you what. There are 2 indications to me that most of the pumps at Doral were off most of the time. Here they are ...


    1) First is all those green lights that you see on the pumps. Those lights are ready lights. They are on when the pump is powered but the solenoid that does the actual pumping is in its docked position, it turns off briefly as the solenoid goes back and forth to complete a pumping stroke. You can see this for instance, at 6:15 in the video linked to below. Since I think that most of the pumps in the photos are set at 3 strokes per second (i.e., 180 strokes/min), these green light should be spending a fair amount of their time unlit. But in the photos every single one is lit up. Why? I don't think it is because the pumps are synchronized, as far as I understand they would be difficult to synchronize if they are all in manual mode. Instead, I think all the green light are on in the photos because none of them are in operation.


    2) Here is a passage from a memo that Joe Murray wrote (docket 235-11 page 30) summarizing what Doral test technician Barry West told him about plant operations in July 2015. It is point 5 in the memo....


    "The plant does not include the ability to continuously monitor or automatically control the water level in the E-CAT heater tank. From time to time an operator must enable the level indicator on the E-CAT heater tank. When this task is executed the operator determines if additional water is needed in the tank. If the tank needs water the operator will turn on pumps to move water from the the feedwater tank to the E-CAT heater tank. The time that the pumps are run is measured and an estimate of how much water is pushed into the E-CAT heater tank is estimated. The interval for checking the level in the E-CAT heater tank was not clearly known. Further, the need to fill the tank when there is no operator on site was not addressed."


    It seems nuts to say that the pumps were not used continuously, but this is in line with the evidence of the green lights and perhaps the evidence of the screen Stop indications. Engineer48 used to say that Rossi told him that most of the water pumped into the Big Frankies was not through the Prominent pumps, which were only for topping up, but via a single large pump somewhere. This new evidence is consistent with that although there is absolutely no photographic evidence anywhere of a single large feed that bypasses the Prominent pumps. Also, Rossi seems to have cooled on the idea and now puts a lot of weight on the over spec capacity of the Prominent pumps.


    Below is a good video to watch for the properties of the Prominent Gamma L display and the operation of its green light. Look at 6:15 for what seems to have been the operating configuration at Doral.