Analyzing E-Cat Plant Pump Photos Indicate COP>1 (Engineer48)

There are a couple of new posts from Engineer48 that provide a new way of looking at possible COP from the Doral E-Cat Plant that I thought were worthy of a new post.

To further show the COP = 1 claim is not correct, we can see the 24 computer controlled pumps that are set to 18kg/h flow (well 22 are set to max and 2 are set to 50%). That gives a total flow from those 24 pumps (6 pumps per each Tiger slab reactor) of (24 x 18) – 18 = 414kg/hr. Assuming the total flow into the reactors was 1,500kg/hr, that leaves 1,086kg/hr to be provided by the main pump.

Even if the only pumps operational were the 24 x 18kg/hr pumps, the COP would be 414kg/hr / 30kg/hr (COP 1) = 13.8.

Who needs a flow meter when we can read the flow volume manually programmed into the 24 x 18kg/hr pumps?

BTW at 30kg/hr total flow at COP = 1, 5 of the 6 pumps in each row would need to be turned off and the remaining pump set to maintain a flow of 7.5kg/hr. But as you can clearly see all of the 24 pumps have a GREEN light on that indicates the pump is operating as programmed at 18kg/hr.

Would seem the COP = 1 claim is “BUSTED”

e482

 

==============================================================

20kWh/h is still a significant amount of heat to dissipate. As I’m not a thermal engineer and have no coal face experience with 20kW heat dissipators I’ll let other give their opinion.

What I do know is the flow for COP = 1 would need to be 30kg/hr of water into the 4 x Tiger/slab reactors (7.5kg/hr into each Tiger/slab reactor).

From photographic evidence it is clear that there were 6 x 18kg/hr pumps on each Tiger for a total of 24 pumps. That same photographic evidence shows the 24 pumps all in Green status and delivering 18kg/hr of flow except for 2 that were set to 50% or 9kg/hr. If the computer controlled pumps were not delivering the programmed flow, Yellow and Red warning lights would be flashing to indicate a flow error. But all we see are Green lights showing the pumps are working OK and delivering the flow they are set to deliver.

This is then a total flow of 414kg/hr or a COP of 13.8. The rest of the 1,086kg/hr flow needed to deliver a COP = 50 was delivered by a master pump.

This photo would suggest the claimed COP = 1 is false and that the ECat reactor delivered at least 276kWh/h just from the flow of the topping up pumps.

Have attached a plant schematic I created from the photographic evidence that shows how the master pump and the individual reactor topping up pumps were arranged and operated. This schematic is not conjecture as it is based on the released photographs.

If there was no customer, the heat dissipators in the JMP area would need to discharge at least 276kWh/h of heat or around 1/2 of the 500kWh/h that the heat dissipators in the October 2011 1MW ECat reactor test.

It would be very noisy in the whole warehouse, due to the concrete walls and floor. Yet it was not and the topping up pump lights stayed Green as they delivered 414kg/hr to the reactors.

e481

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    This is what i would call a really good job. Just exactly the opposite of IH claims when we hear from them a lot of things that later are proven as false. Like the one with the vents in the ceiling.
    No more to say.
    Good job again.

  • Hi all

    In reply to Engineer48

    Excellent detective work sir. Who was the source of the photograph?

    Kind Regards walker

  • Ged

    I second Ian and Julio that that is great detective work on the pumps. Thank you, Engineer!

    I must still reiterate that I don’t think one would really hear the roof fan being that it is outside the building proper and on the top of the roof. It seems to me the supposed noise thing (for which we have no proof nor data) is just a red herring to kill thoughts of mechanical work. If the fan(s) were ground level, you would certainly hear them depending on RPM and size (like the two big fans near the loading doors), but when placed above the roof I don’t think those inside would hear much. I haven’t worked in a space exactly like that with uninsulated concrete and all, though.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Ged,

      It is Jed who claims the only thing in the JMP production area was heat dissipators and fans. But he doesn’t address why no one heard the fans running.

      As the 24 topping up pumps were apparently delivering 414kg/hr to the 4 Tiger/slab reactors, that is then 276kWh/hr of heat they would need to dissipate. No way would the noisy from those fans not be noticed as the noise would bounce off the concrete floor and walls.
      .

      • Ged

        Well, he also tried to make claims of an air compressor, despite that being more noisy than any fans could be here, so you know… gotta just take it all with a shrug and grain of salt in the absense of data.

        The pumps give us a direct piece of evidence, which is fantastic.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I don’t know about the size of the compressors Jed thinks were used, but you can get some pretty quiet scroll compressors these days. A project I worked on recently switched from a cheap piston compressor (we ran out of air) to a rented scroll compressor at 10X the capacity. It was very quiet.

          • Ged

            So far the quietest I’ve heard, not even that big of one, was still so loud it had to be put in a sound proofed closet specially built for it (yet it could still be heard). Not sure what type that one is though, but it is only a few years old.

            Injecting air would just flush out the water from the upper parts of the system (like the reactors) anyways, as well as make a ruckus in the pipes, so there are a lot more holes with that idea than just noisy compressors.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I agree that there would be a lot of other noise and other issues if air was being forced through the pipes. I think the “air” was invented to spin the flow sensor. Bogus concept in my opinion.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    I am convinced.l Of course IH could say that all of the pumps but one turned off right after the picture was taken….

    • Engineer48

      Hi Thomas,

      There are 4 Tigers/slab active or the electrical input would be less than 20kWh/hr. So 1 pump per Tiger would deliver 72kg/hr for a COP = 2.4.

      As the IH “experts” have not talked about these “Smoking Gun” jumps, I doubt they realise what they represent.
      .

  • Thomas Kaminski

    I am convinced. l Of course IH could say that all of the pumps but one turned off right after the picture was taken….

    It has always been beyond belief that COP=1 or less was possible. This shows a convincing argument why it is definitely not true.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Thomas,

      There are 4 Tigers/slab active or the electrical input would be less than 20kWh/hr. So 1 pump per Tiger would deliver 72kg/hr for a COP = 2.4.

      As the IH “experts” have not talked about these “Smoking Gun” jumps, I doubt they realise what they represent.
      .

  • blanco69

    These pictures show great evidence of flow rates through those pumps but without any actual temperature evidence I’m not sure what claim these pictures are intending to bust. However, it’s good work Mr R …err I mean Engineer48.

    • Warthog

      What it “busts” is the meme started by Jed Rothwell that the COP is wrong because of flowmeter error. I pointed out long ago that the flowmeter was largely a backup to the precision/accuracy of the pumps. This type of pump is VERY good at delivering consistently precise and accurate flows over long periods of time.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Blanco,

      The only flow measured is the flow into the reactors.

      IH have claimed output superheated steam temp of ~103C and pressure of ~0.0 barG. From Mats electricity account we know the the reactor used ~22kWh/h of energy. Assuming the pumps and other control systems used ~2kWh/h, that is ~20kWh/h into the heaters.

      From those numbers the needed flow for COP = 1 is ~30kg/hr.

      So assuming the electrical heater input is ~20kWh/h, the superheated steam temp is ~103C and the pressure is ~0.0 barG, ~414kg/hr of flow from those pumps would representante a COP of ~13.8.
      .

      • GiveADogABone

        There is something else of interest in that photo and it is right at the bottom. It’s the drain arrangements. Fit a small bore drain on the centre of a bigger pipe and what do you get when you use it? A water level in the bigger pipe at the lowest point in the bore of the drain. That sort of arrangement does not empty the horizontal pipe properly and where is the flowmeter that supposedly runs half-full?

        • Engineer48

          Hi GiveADogABone,

          You can see the reactor drain system in my plant schematic. Remember the floor of the reactor container is ~18in above the slab. But yes that drain will leave some water in the lowest drain pipe from the lowest Tiger reactor.

          I assume the flow meter is outside and near the concentrate condenser tank, as in the schematic, but that is just a guess. If that circuit had a similar drain then yes it could leave the flow meter half filled after the reactor shutdown drain and as that water slowly evaporated, it might leave a residue stain inside the flow meter.
          .

  • blanco69

    These pictures show great evidence of flow rates through those pumps but without any actual temperature evidence I’m not sure what claim these pictures are intending to bust. However, it’s good work Mr R …err I mean Engineer48.

    • Warthog

      What it “busts” is the meme started by Jed Rothwell that the COP is wrong because of flowmeter error. I pointed out long ago that the flowmeter was largely a backup to the precision/accuracy of the pumps. This type of pump is VERY good at delivering consistently precise and accurate flows over long periods of time.

      • So where does that lead us? Back to my original contention, that IH paid to have a yearlong demo and to have the reactor given over to them. But to their chagrin, they don’t know how to operate the reactor, they need Rossi to do it.

        IH thought they were buying a $Trillion technology for $100M, but they instead are paying $100M for a demo of that technology and an independent ERV report. It’s like it’s 1904, they bought the Wright brothers’ airplane, had it demo’d, and maybe even a patent or 2. But the Wright brothers are the only people flying.

        They showed a strong preference for working with others, and when Rossi wins the court case he’ll have a strong preference for working with others as well.

        • Warthog

          “:Where does that leave us???”

          I’d say in pretty much the same morass of pathological skepticisim that has hampered LENR since 1989.

          • If Rossi has $100M in his pocket and has proven in court that his box generated a COP of >6 + an independent report, there’s some progress made.
            Using my analogy, someone could make something out of knowing the Wright brothers flew and they now have the Wrights’ box of airplane parts.

          • Warthog

            “…there’s some progress made.”

            Concur. A court victory for Rossi would provide a strong indicator of the reality of his tech…….but the skeptopaths will fall back to the “but it’s not scientific proof” meme.

            Rossi was right…..multiple working commercial devices are the only thing that “might” convince them. But even then I have my doubts.

          • There was a stage the Wright brothers went through after their first set of flights. They were subjected to a steady stream of lookieloos who kept asking for demo flights. Their response was, if we give a demo flight will you buy our airplanes? Strangely enough, the answer was never ‘yes’ until the Army asked for a demo flight. All of those visitors were looking to steal the Wrights’ IP. After all, they were just a couple of bicycle mechanics.

            Rossi might be at that stage, or he might be the best damned scam artist and magician on the planet.

          • Brokeeper

            I follow what you are saying and being quite truthful not skeptical. Thanks!

    • Engineer48

      Hi Blanco,

      The only flow measured is the flow into the reactors.

      IH have claimed output superheated steam temp of ~103C and pressure of ~0.0 barG. From Mats electricity account we know the the reactor used ~22kWh/h of energy. Assuming the pumps and other control systems used ~2kWh/h, that is ~20kWh/h into the heaters.

      From those numbers the needed flow for COP = 1 is ~30kg/hr.

      So assuming the electrical heater input is ~20kWh/h, the superheated steam temp is ~103C and the pressure is ~0.0 barG, ~414kg/hr of flow from these pumps (without adding the additional flow from the prime pump) would representante a COP of ~13.8.
      .

  • Gerard McEk

    Very interesting Engineer48, good research! As Kaminski says below it is only 1/100 of a second of the snapshot. But I am sure video’s will back-up this. About the main pump, do you have any photographic evidence on that pump?
    It is intriguing that two pumps of the third tiger were running only at 50%. Would that tiger reactor have had less output power than the other three?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Gerard,

      These pumps are topping up pumps that maintain the water level inside the reactors. The bank set to 18kg/hr less may just mean the main flow into that Tiger may be a bit higher than the others and that Tiger needed just a bit less topping up flow.

      Please understand these topping up pumps only supplied ~25% of the total flow and the main pump supplied the other ~75%.
      .

      • Jamie Sibley

        I too am very interested in knowing why you believe there is a main pump, in addition to the metering pumps? I do not recall any photos showing a larger single pump.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jamie,

          24 pumps x 18kg/hr = 432kg/hr. Quoted total flow was 1,500kg/hr. So there needs to be a larger pump or pumps to supply the bulk of the flow.

          I also asked Andrea who told me the small pumps are just topping up pumps.

          His statement is backed up by the physical evidence.
          .

        • Ged

          There is also a whole other area of the plant, beyond the rack those pumps there are serving, so there has to be something moving the water around for that area too.

  • Rossi claims 1MW and a real client, and endothermic process, COP 50 and saturated steam.

    anything different is a huge problem. huge and problem is an understatement.

    COP1.5 could be acceptable if it was admitted.
    a fake client could be accepted if it was told so
    hot water is ok if told so

    I would be happy, moderately happy, if Rossi have announced that the test was COP=1.5 with just a radiator and hotwater producing 30kW with a MTBF of 5 days.
    Like me IH would be happy, as any engineer kow that if COP is 1.5 at 100C for MTBF 5 days, it can be improved to infinite for 6 month, with the help of good engineers and a good nanotech lab.

    we have tolerated too much approximation around ethical questions.

    • Ged

      So far nothing precludes Rossi’s claims. Though that could be easily changed if the right data comes forth.

      Nonetheless, even if he claimed COP 1.5 I doubt people would challenge him any less, and in fact may have challenged him even more as it is easier to be within measurement error at that threshold. Dunno how much nanotech would help, unfortunately, without a precise working theory to apply nanotech to.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Alain,

      Superheated not saturated steam.

      BTW what was the COP of the October 2011 ECat reactor that ran in SSM mode for 5 hours and produced 500kWh/hr?
      .

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      Btw AlainCo, IH accepted the Lugano report as correct. They didn’t give any specific critiques of the Lugano report, so your claim that the report contained a huge basic calculation error is out the window. They need to debunk the report to win the courtcase.
      There you already have your proof that the e-cat works.

      • IH and me have been fooled by Lugano test.

        the argument on total versus IR-band emissivity is solid.
        it may be countered by a new argument, but we see none.

        Rossi could quickly end the uncertainty with good test, even 24H with serious protocol.

        that there is no such test while his reputation is deeply damaged, accused of having fooled a previous licensee, of dismounting correct instruments, is an answer in itself.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Alain,

          But not solid enough for the Lugano professors to retract their findings. So until they do, their findings stand and trump any other claim.

          Easy for someone who was not at the event to throw stones.

          BTW the ERV was the one who removed the IH instruments and replaced them with the instruments IH had preapproved the ERV to use.
          .

          • on the opposite, that Lugano professors refuse to answer that clear mistake, at least in the report, is tragically clear.

            any mistake can be forgiven if there is a correction, either to reexplain results are good with good arguments, or to explain how they are bad.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            Clearly in their expert opinion there is no mistake. I have not seen any equal experts dispute their data. The only ones that I know of that dispute the data are not equivalent experts.
            .

          • Guru Khalsa

            Sure I get most of my information from Rossi says as he is the only one talking. If IH has a story I would be interested in hearing it. So far their story goes like this: Penon and Fabiani colluded with Rossi to fabricate test results for the 1 MW plant. The Lugano test was flawed. The test results are wrong. Levi, Bo Höistad, and Hanno Essen are a bunch of incompetent idiots. IH couldn’t make it work so naturally it only follows that the Ecat never worked. Rossi fooled everybody and anyone who believes him is delusional.
            The problem with the IH narrative is that once you label Rossi as a con man then basically you are saying he has fooled everybody from the start. There are just too many people and too many circumstances that would have to be manipulated for me to believe it possible. I may as well believe someone has a cold fusion device capable of COP 50.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            That’s not their story. That is your contrived version of what they have posited in the lawsuit.

          • Guru Khalsa

            That’s the only story I have heard. Have you heard something else? Please share.

          • that is the problem.
            why don’t they admit they made an error.

            the error is so evident it cannot be denied, just opposed by rewriting the explanation correctly.
            but they don’t.

            in itself it is very strange.

            it is not a conspiracy theory like inverted clamp, but a clear mistake in IR thermometry.

            don’t you catch the problem?

            you seriously don’t start to understand ?

          • Warthog

            Perhaps they don’t think they made an error.

            If you recall, when the test was finished, in addition to samples of the spent fuel, they also obtained a sample of the ceramic used for the outer body specifically for the stated purpose of measuring the “real” emissivity of the ceramic.

            So there is no reason for them to “admit” that they “made an error”. They have an automatic “out” if the emissivities turn out to differ.

            There is another meme than the ones you and the “emissivity error” crowd is filling the web with, and that is that they indeed measured the ceramic’s emissivity, and found that it didn’t change the original data set.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            Your last paragraph describes the Lugano situation as I understand it.

            Then there are 5.5 hours of 490kWh/h of SSM ECat energy delivery 28 Oct 2011 with no heater current.

            Plus several Black HotCat test runs.

        • Ged

          Where is the proof he dismounted “correct instruments”? I have missed it if presented, so would be very interesting to see.

        • Guru Khalsa

          Hi Alain,
          I find it interesting that you and IH are on such good terms that you make reference to ‘we’. Is it possible to share who is your contact person in IH, in the spirit of transparency?
          Don’t you find it curious that IH manufactured the Ecats, manufactured the charge and never in 2 years did their own tests, if they had any doubts as to the viability of the tech? Forget the doubts what about due diligence and further documentation for investors? Don’t you find it curious that the dogbone Ecats from the Lugano test that IH had in its possession have disappeared? Sorry but there is just too many inconsistencies in the IH account to take them seriously.

          • we is for we the LENR community.
            I’m sorry we are split around such a tragedy.

            we have work to do to make LENR real, and not to lose time with crooks.

          • Guru Khalsa

            I had high hopes for Rossi and IH when I first heard they were joining forces. I was disappointed it didn’t work out because I thought IH gave Rossi the credibility he lacked. I don’t think Rossi is easy to work with but that does’t make him a crook.

            But it is in the courts now and IH has chosen a strategy for success that calls Rossi a crook. Maybe that is the only strategy available that offers them a chance for success, I don’t know I am not a lawyer. Personally I can’t tell who is lying and will wait for discovery, if it ever gets there, to make up my mind. Keeping an open mind is a good thing.

          • Omega Z

            There are over a half a million commercial/industrial businesses in the U.S. alone that use low grade heat/steam. Several million more that aren’t included with that. It’s a huge market.

        • Billy Jackson

          I just find it highly unlikely that Rossi is capable of fooling 7 experienced testers who had full access to the e-cat except for the fuel. (the fuel is unimportant.. as the thing ran for 31 days which precludes chemical reaction, and no above background radiation)

          I find it hard to believe that people will believe others who have nothing to do with the test or really LENR field in general. But because they have a degree does not make them an expert at everything and the closer you are to experimental work the less they are likely to know (specialized).. if we were to believe everyone that said that’s impossible then we would never invent anything new.

  • Gerard McEk

    Very interesting Engineer48, good research! As Kaminski says below it is only 1/100 of a second of the snapshot. But I am sure video’s will back-up this. About the main pump, do you have any photographic evidence on that pump?
    It is intriguing that two pumps of the third tiger were running only at 50%. Would that tiger reactor have had less output power than the other three?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Gerard,

      These pumps are topping up pumps that maintain the water level inside the reactors. The bank set to 18kg/hr less may just mean the main flow into that Tiger may be a bit higher than the others and that Tiger needed just a bit less topping up flow.

      Please understand these topping up pumps only supplied ~25% of the total flow and the main pump supplied the other ~75%.
      .

      • Jamie Sibley

        I too am very interested in knowing why you believe there is a main pump, in addition to the metering pumps? I do not recall any photos showing a larger single pump.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Jamie,

          24 pumps x 18kg/hr = 432kg/hr. Quoted total flow was 1,500kg/hr. So there needs to be a larger pump or pumps to supply the bulk of the flow.

          I also asked Andrea who told me the small pumps are just topping up pumps.

          His statement is backed up by the physical evidence.
          .

        • Ged

          There is also a whole other area of the plant, beyond the rack those pumps there are serving, so there has to be something moving the water around for that area too.

  • Rossi claims 1MW and a real client, and endothermic process, COP 50 and EDIT: DRY steam.

    anything different is a huge problem. huge and problem is an understatement.

    COP1.5 could be acceptable if it was admitted.
    a fake client could be accepted if it was told so
    hot water is ok if told so

    I would be happy, moderately happy, if Rossi have announced that the test was COP=1.5 with just a radiator and hotwater producing 30kW with a MTBF of 5 days.
    Like me IH would be happy, as any engineer kow that if COP is 1.5 at 100C for MTBF 5 days, it can be improved to infinite for 6 month, with the help of good engineers and a good nanotech lab.

    we have tolerated too much approximation around ethical questions.

    • Ged

      So far nothing precludes Rossi’s claims. Though that could be easily changed if the right data comes forth.

      Nonetheless, even if he claimed COP 1.5 I doubt people would challenge him any less, and in fact may have challenged him even more as it is easier to be within measurement error at that threshold. Dunno how much nanotech would help, unfortunately, without a precise working theory to apply nanotech to.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Alain,

      Superheated not saturated steam.

      BTW what was the COP of the October 2011 ECat reactor that ran in SSM mode for 5 hours and produced 500kWh/hr?
      .

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      Btw AlainCo, IH accepted the Lugano report as correct. They didn’t give any specific critiques of the Lugano report, so your claim that the report contained a huge basic calculation error is out the window. They need to debunk the report to win the courtcase.
      There you already have your proof that the e-cat works.

      • IH and me have been fooled by Lugano test.

        the argument on total versus IR-band emissivity is solid.
        it may be countered by a new argument, but we see none.

        Rossi could quickly end the uncertainty with good test, even 24H with serious protocol.

        that there is no such test while his reputation is deeply damaged, accused of having fooled a previous licensee, of dismounting correct instruments, is an answer in itself.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Alain,

          But not solid enough for the Lugano professors to retract their findings. So until they do, their findings stand and trump any other claim.

          Easy for someone who was not at the event to throw stones.

          BTW the ERV was the one who removed the IH instruments and replaced them with his instruments that IH had preapproved the ERV to use. Once the ERV had installed and tested his instruments, he sealed and photographed them.
          .

          • on the opposite, that Lugano professors refuse to answer that clear mistake, at least in the report, is tragically clear.

            any mistake can be forgiven if there is a correction, either to reexplain results are good with good arguments, or to explain how they are bad.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            Clearly in their expert opinion there is no mistake. I have not seen any equal experts dispute their data. The only ones that I know of that dispute the data are not equivalent experts.
            .

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            McKubre wrote a hopeful critique in Decenber, 2014, that was actually devastating. The test was not to be relied on.

            http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

            He was far more qualified than any of the Lugano professors, who were not particularly qualified. Their experience was what?

            I just looked back at the CMNS list. Criticism of the test was in full swing by November, 2014, with the obvious problems noted by many.

            Then the real evidence, as far as IH would be concerned, was IH’s own testing of the same devices, which, after all, they had made. That was the first — and only — completely independent test of the Rossi technology.

            However, the Lugano test was not fraud, as far as we know, at least the heat part of it, it was blatant error, and it has been extensively critiqued, and these so-called experts have never coherently responded. The report was utterly impossible to publish in a journal, none would accept it.

            Engineer48, your comments deprecate your competence.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Engineer48 makes claims that indicate Rossi inside knowledge, I think he has acknowledged that. It appears that IH never approved the monitoring of the Doral plant as a Guaranteed Performance Test, so by calling Penon the “ERV” E48 is accepting the Rossi narrative, which is his privilege, but it won’t fly in court.

            The Lugano professors have never responded to serious critiques, including by experts. The report was never published as such, they could not even get it on arXiv. That doesn’t particularly prove anything, but how about JCMNS. They have had to face peer review.

            E48 claims to be working for people buying a reactor or reactors. Actual results from people paying for them, genuine customers, will mean far more than this fluff about Lugano. Perhaps the Lugano reactor didn’t work, like the Hot Cat that Rossi demonstrated for Hydro Fusion in 2012. Or all the critical experts are wrong, including where what they point out is almost literally face-palm obvious, and Lugano did work, and so what?

            Until and unless Rossi can and does teach others how to make the devices and make them work, this is not commercial LENR. It is art or magic or something like that.

          • that is the problem.
            why don’t they admit they made an error.

            the error is so evident it cannot be denied, just opposed by rewriting the explanation correctly.
            but they don’t.

            in itself it is very strange.

            it is not a conspiracy theory like inverted clamp, but a clear mistake in IR thermometry.

            don’t you catch the problem?

            you seriously don’t start to understand ?

          • Warthog

            Perhaps they don’t think they made an error.

            If you recall, when the test was finished, in addition to samples of the spent fuel, they also obtained a sample of the ceramic used for the outer body specifically for the stated purpose of measuring the “real” emissivity of the ceramic.

            So there is no reason for them to “admit” that they “made an error”. They have an automatic “out” if the emissivities turn out to differ.

            There is another meme than the ones you and the “emissivity error” crowd is filling the web with, and that is that they indeed measured the ceramic’s emissivity, and found that it didn’t change the original data set.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            Your last paragraph describes the Lugano situation as I understand it.

            Then there are 5.5 hours of 490kWh/h of SSM ECat energy delivery 28 Oct 2011 with no heater current.

            Plus several Black HotCat test runs.

        • Ged

          Where is the proof he dismounted “correct instruments”? I have missed it if presented, so would be very interesting to see.

          Edit: also, weren’t there two such 24 hour tests of the bigger plant under IH’s watch?

        • Guru Khalsa

          Hi Alain,
          I find it interesting that you and IH are on such good terms that you make reference to ‘we’. Is it possible to share who is your contact person in IH, in the spirit of transparency?
          Don’t you find it curious that IH manufactured the Ecats, manufactured the charge and never in 2 years did their own tests, if they had any doubts as to the viability of the tech? Forget the doubts what about due diligence and further documentation for investors? Don’t you find it curious that the dogbone Ecats from the Lugano test that IH had in its possession have disappeared? Sorry but there is just too many inconsistencies in the IH account to take them seriously.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            This is all-too-common here. “We” in Alain’s comment is not a reference to him and IH, but to the community that is looking at evidence.

            IH had substantial doubts about the technology from before their agreement with Rossi; if they, they were idiots, and they are not idiots.

            The dogbone story misses that those were really just reactor pieces, and the fuel tubes might have been of interest, but not the “dogbone,” which is an outer shell.

            The design was apparently superseded,. they couldn’t get any of these to work, and why should they take particular care to save the shells?

            IH has only begun to tell the story, and the pieces do fit together, unless one has a firm idea that the Rossi technology works, that Rossi taught them how to make devices that would work when properly tested independently, and that IH must be basically lying, lying, lying.

            Sure. with that firmly in mind, there are a pile of inconsistencies. Rossi likes to point them out. How come they obtained $50 million from Woodford and now they claim the Doral plant didn’t work? Isn’t that inconsistent?

            No, actually, there is an unstated assumption that is very likely false.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Sure I get most of my information from Rossi says as he is the only one talking. If IH has a story I would be interested in hearing it. So far their story goes like this: Penon and Fabiani colluded with Rossi to fabricate test results for the 1 MW plant. The Lugano test was flawed. The test results are wrong. Levi, Bo Höistad, and Hanno Essen are a bunch of incompetent idiots. IH couldn’t make it work so naturally it only follows that the Ecat never worked. Rossi fooled everybody and anyone who believes him is delusional.
            The problem with the IH narrative is that once you label Rossi as a con man then basically you are saying he has fooled everybody from the start. There are just too many people and too many circumstances that would have to be manipulated for me to believe it possible. I may as well believe someone has a cold fusion device capable of COP 50.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            That’s not their story. That is your contrived version of what they have posited in the lawsuit.

          • Guru Khalsa

            That’s the only story I have heard. Have you heard something else? Please share.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            You wrote:
            “Penon and Fabiani colluded with Rossi to fabricate test results for the 1 MW plant. The Lugano test was flawed. The test results are wrong.”

            They do more or less state this, except not Fabiani, necessarily.

            “Levi, Bo Höistad, and Hanno Essen are a bunch of incompetent idiots.”

            They don’t say that.

            “IH couldn’t make it work so naturally it only follows that the Ecat never worked.”
            They do say they could not make it work. They do not draw that conclusion, because it is moot.

            “Rossi fooled everybody and anyone who believes him is delusional.”

            Again, they do not say that. You did.

          • Guru Khalsa

            Apparently i am not the only one whom likes a little drama in the story.

            Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax to LENR G 15 days ago:

            ‘Penon, seeing the counterclaim: “I’m outa here.”

            Fabiani “Me too!”

            Johnson:”Shit! Andrea, you told me this would be fine”

            Rossi:”I never said that. You lie.”‘

          • we is for we the LENR community.
            I’m sorry we are split around such a tragedy.

            we have work to do to make LENR real, and not to lose time with crooks.

          • Guru Khalsa

            I had high hopes for Rossi and IH when I first heard they were joining forces. I was disappointed it didn’t work out because I thought IH gave Rossi the credibility he lacked. I don’t think Rossi is easy to work with but that does’t make him a crook.

            But it is in the courts now and IH has chosen a strategy for success that calls Rossi a crook. Maybe that is the only strategy available that offers them a chance for success, I don’t know I am not a lawyer. Personally I can’t tell who is lying and will wait for discovery, if it ever gets there, to make up my mind. Keeping an open mind is a good thing.

        • Billy Jackson

          I just find it highly unlikely that Rossi is capable of fooling 7 experienced testers who had full access to the e-cat except for the fuel. (the fuel is unimportant.. as the thing ran for 31 days which precludes chemical reaction, and no above background radiation)

          I find it hard to believe that people will believe others who have nothing to do with the test or really LENR field in general. But because they have a degree does not make them an expert at everything and the closer you are to experimental work the less they are likely to know (specialized).. if we were to believe everyone that said that’s impossible then we would never invent anything new.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It is unclear if Rossi fooled the Lugano team. They did fool themselves, and that’s long been obvious, and if others refuse to consider how, looking at the report itself, that’s not Rossi’s problem, though the above is how Rossi encourages people to think.

  • GiveADogABone

    There is something else of interest in that photo and it is right at the bottom. It’s the drain arrangements. Fit a small bore drain on the centre of a bigger pipe and what do you get when you use it? A water level in the bigger pipe at the lowest point in the bore of the drain. That sort of arrangement does not empty the horizontal pipe properly and where is the flowmeter that supposedly runs half-full?

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      You can see the reactor drain system in my plant schematic. Remember the floor of the reactor container is ~18in above the slab. But yes that drain will leave some water in the lowest drain pipe from the lowest Tiger reactor.

      I assume the flow meter is outside and near the concentrate condenser tank, as in the schematic, but that is just a guess. If that circuit had a similar drain then yes it could leave the flow meter half filled after the reactor shutdown drain and as that water slowly evaporated, it might leave a residue stain inside the flow meter.
      .

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this is an extra endothermic purification step after the first exothermic reaction. A hot aqueous wash to remove any of the remaining salts (like sodium aluminate and sodium hydroxide)?
    http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/rp2002530/fig2.gif

    • wpj

      Only exothermic if you are using the fine powder alloy, which I believe would be a no-no here on safety grounds. You are correct, though that several hot washes would be required.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this is an extra endothermic purification step after the first exothermic reaction. A hot aqueous wash to remove any of the remaining salts (like sodium aluminate and sodium hydroxide)?
    http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/rp2002530/fig2.gif

    • wpj

      Only exothermic if you are using the fine powder alloy, which I believe would be a no-no here on safety grounds. You are correct, though that several hot washes would be required.

  • Engineer48

    WE HAVE ERV DATA

    IH exhibit item 5 states:

    According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or for 3 ERV reports),

    1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
    average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h).

    2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively.

    3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG

    Surprise, Surprise Jed’s claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I mean does that really surprise anybody?

    As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be drawn through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly lower pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side of the heat exchanger.

    So what we have here is 10 months of averaged input water temp, flow rate, output steam temperature and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed’s “It was 36,000kg/day every day”. Well Jed that statement is now “BUSTED”.
    .

    • Ged

      Also, note the words “average”, the flow was not constant, of course, but averaging smooths out any time trace (averaging acts as a high pass filter).

      Sadly this is only a snippet with an average across 9 months, but it is something. Hopefully we get the full, real deal soon enough.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        What it shows is if Jed did really see data that only had 36,000kg/day data then he was fed cherry picked data by someone or his flow rate data claim is not based on any data.

        Either way what Jed has been claiming to support his claim the data was cooked is not supported by this data and his claim that the flow was 36,000kg/day, every day is BUSTED.

        Of course that averaged ERV data supports the 1MW output. As item 5 didn’t state the averaged electrical heater usage, we can’t from that data calc the COP.
        .

        • Ged

          Exactly true.

          • GiveADogABone

            Not entirely. The electrical supply had a maximum capacity, as all electrical supplies do. The stated maximum capacity of the electrical supply was 200kw with a normal operational maximum of 167kw. Divide 1MW by 167kw and you get CoP=6.

          • Mark

            which i believe is exactly what was needed for the $89million – and that’s worst case scenario built from the absence of the data (as we’re all waiting for the court case)

          • GiveADogABone

            And the worst case scenario for any payment is either CoP=4 or 2.6(not sure which).

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            COP <= 2.6 = $0.00 payment.
            .

          • Ged

            An excellent lower bound determination. We also see thick cabling going to the customer, which must draw from the mains, let alone all the other equipment in the office container, computers and pumps. Thank you for the calc.

    • Gerard McEk

      According to my simple calculations I think the plant delivered 0,92 MW on average. (I did not include the superheating).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerald,

        The energy delivery is not part of the clause 3.2c $89m claim which only requires a COP >= 6.0.

        Would suggest you need to add in the superheat energy as the customer was paying for the total energy delivered.
        .

        • Ged

          And if the customer was using SMR or the processes WPJ has noted (or even drying heat storage salts), then they could pretty effectively measure a good approximation of the power sent their way even without direct measurements, such as by methane consumption use for the SMR case. It wouldn’t be perfect, necessitating rounding, though.

    • Mark

      I like you!

  • Engineer48

    WE HAVE ERV DATA

    IH exhibit item 5 states:

    According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or for 3 ERV reports),

    1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
    average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).

    2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively.

    3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG

    Surprise, Surprise Jed’s claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I mean does that really surprise anybody?

    As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be drawn through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly lower pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side of the heat exchanger.

    So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV’s averaged input water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed’s flow statement

    “It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied”.

    Well Jed that statement is now “BUSTED”.
    .

    • Ged

      Also, note the words “average”, the flow was not constant, of course, but averaging smooths out any time trace (averaging acts as a high pass filter).

      Sadly this is only a snippet with an average across 9 months, but it is something. Hopefully we get the full, real deal soon enough.

      Edit: Also, would not condensing water being pumped from a heat exchanger (gravity or active) create a negative pressure draw?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        What it shows is if Jed did really see data that only had 36,000kg/day data then he was fed cherry picked data by someone or his flow rate data claim is not based on any data.

        Either way what Jed has been claiming to support his claim the data was cooked is not supported by this data and his claim that the flow was 36,000kg/day, every day is BUSTED.

        Of course that averaged ERV data supports the 1MW output. As item 5 didn’t state the averaged electrical heater usage, we can’t from that data calc the COP.
        .

        • Ged

          Exactly true.

          • GiveADogABone

            Not entirely. The electrical supply had a maximum capacity, as all electrical supplies do. The stated maximum capacity of the electrical supply was 200kw with a normal operational maximum of 167kw. Divide 1MW by 167kw and you get CoP=6.

          • Mark

            which i believe is exactly what was needed for the $89million – and that’s worst case scenario built from the absence of the data (as we’re all waiting for the court case)

          • GiveADogABone

            And the worst case scenario for any payment is either CoP=4 or 2.6(not sure which).

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            COP <= 2.6 = $0.00 payment.
            .

          • Ged

            An excellent lower bound determination. We also see thick cabling going to the customer, which must draw from the mains, let alone all the other equipment in the office container, computers and pumps. Thank you for the calc.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

          Jed never claimed to have seen all the data. Exhibit 5 has this:

          “In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.”

          Rossi also told Mats Lewan “The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day,” which is identical.

          The data Jed had was incomplete, but, actually, the issue remains, even though data for other period had variant values.

          It is unclear how much of the test showed varying flow.

          One more point is that pump settings at some moment, which might not have been during steam generation, is very weak evidence of anything.

    • Rheulan

      Nice find!

      Layman´s question: crunching these numbers, is it possible to obtain an avarege COP?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rheulan,

        We need the averaged kWh/h consumption of the ECat reactor heaters, which the item 5 statement failed to disclose.

        Mats Lewan did say he had obtained one on the monthly electrical utility accounts and that suggested the reactor’s heater energy usage was around 20kWh/h. Which would indicate the COP was around 50.

        Rossi’s court statement did say the COP was significantly higher than 50 so the electrical input must have been less than 20kWh/h.
        .

        • Rheulan

          Engineer48,

          Thanks for the explanation!

    • Gerard McEk

      According to my simple calculations I think the plant delivered 0,92 MW on average. (I did not include the superheating).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerald,

        The energy delivery is not part of the clause 3.2c $89m claim which only requires a COP >= 6.0.

        Would suggest you need to add in the superheat energy as the customer was paying for the total energy delivered.
        .

        • Ged

          And if the customer was using SMR or the processes WPJ has noted (or even drying heat storage salts), then they could pretty effectively measure a good approximation of the power sent their way even without direct measurements, such as by methane consumption use for the SMR case. It wouldn’t be perfect, necessitating rounding, though.

    • Mark

      I like you!

    • roseland67

      48,

      En route now, do the energy balance at the new flow, delta t, (assume pure water),
      And compare that to the electric energy input on the Ecat main.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Roselands,

        Item 5 failed to mention the averaged energy usage.

        The only electrical consumption data we have is from Mats that saw a utility bill that indicated 20kWh/h as the averaged energy usage.

        At that consumption the COP is around 50. ie 1,000kW/20kW = 50.
        .

        • roseland67

          48,
          All of that consumption was from the Ecat?

    • Grégory

      Naive question, but how do you know that what happens at the very moment the picture is taken is guaranteed to prove wrong an affirmation about average value ?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gregory,

        Each of the 24 pumps needed to be manually programed to the desired flow rate which was 18kg/hr of fluid.

        Each pump has 3 status leds.

        Green for everything OK and the desired flow rate is happening.

        Yellow for you need to look at the display as there may be a problem with the flow or pump.

        Red for something serious is wrong and the pump needs attention.

        From the image, the 24 pumps are all in Green status and physically pumping a highly accurate 18kg/hr per pump.
        .

        • Gerald

          I sometimes wonder, why the need of such accurate pumps. Is it just to have 1 less variable in the control or is it just experience. Like the design, every cat build the smae way.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Those pumps control the fluid level inside each reactor and I believe control the thermal gain in SSM and act to stop thermal runaways.

            So the remote system needs to know that by switching on the pump for X minutes it will reliably deliver Y volume of water into the reactor.

            Plus they are highly reliable as if one of the reactors is getting too hot in SSM that pump MUST work to increase reactor water level, reducing reactor temperature and avoiding a potential thermal runaway or meltdown.
            .

          • Gerald

            I think you are right. Its like driving a car round the bend with rear wheel drive, not using the steering wheel but gently using the gas pendal.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Not quite like that.

            A main pump supplies 80% of the necessary flow to all reactors in parallel. Then individual topping up pumps supply the last 20% to each individual reactor.

            This allows each reactor’s water level to be slightly varied to control the reactor in SSM.
            .

          • Mats002

            Any photo of the main pump?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Unluckly no. Likewise no for the flow meter, the condensate tank, the heat exchanger and the reactor superheated steam dumping system.

            Maybe one day.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            How do you know all this? Is it surmise or have you been told this?

        • Bruce__H

          This does not answer the question though

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            The image shows 24 pumps prigrammed to deliver 18kg/hr for a total flow of 432kg/hr. The 24 status leds are all Green, showing the pumps are doing their job with no faults detected.

            To deliver a COP = 1, the flow required is 30kg/hr or 7.5kg/hr per slab which could easily be done with just 1 pump per row at less than 50% capacity.

            So are you suggesting that during the entire 350 days, there was only 1 pump turned on per row, that no one noticed this and for the photo they turned on the other 20 pumps, prigrammed them at 18kg/hr, flooding the reactors, took the photo, then turned 20 pumps off?

            I do note you can see signs of leakage on the pump ports and tubing discoloration fir all the pump feeds, which suggests ALL the pumps were working for the 350 days.

            Which suggest that yes those pumps did deliver their 432kg/hr, which represents a min COP of ~14.
            .

        • Grégory

          Bruce_H is right, you’re not answering the question (FTR I already had that part right, I think).

          If there is water storage outside of the picture, is it possible to concentrate the flow just for the picture ?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gregory,

            The kg/hr flow numbers on the pump do not represent measured flow. They are displaying the pumps programmed flow rate.

            With 24 pumps programmed to deliver 18kg/hr each, the total delivered flow would be 432kg/hr or instead of all Greed leds, there would be Yellow and Red leds.
            .

          • Grégory

            Assuming I can temporarily handle such a flow (say for 1 min), can I then take such a picture despite and average value on the whole period (say over days) way lower ?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe it’s just a standard drying step. Heat until you get a constant LOD (Loss On Drying).

    • wpj

      Can’t be metal sponges, then as these have to be stored over water

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, I guess a Karl-Fischer could be done one the wet material before it’s stored under water to determine how much active material there is.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Fischer_titration

        • wpj

          The fine stuff is supplied as 50% with water- a real pain if you have to get an accurate weight on the amount used. Even worse for stirring as it’s magnetic………………….

          • Ged

            That last part sounds horrid to deal with :(.

          • wpj

            Yes, give me Pd/C any day (just stirring some at the moment with ammonium formate and a compound).

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe it’s just a standard drying step. Heat until you get a constant LOD (Loss On Drying).

    • wpj

      Can’t be metal sponges, then as these have to be stored over water

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, I guess a Karl-Fischer could be done one the wet material before it’s stored under water to determine how much active material there is.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Fischer_titration

        • wpj

          The fine stuff is supplied as 50% with water- a real pain if you have to get an accurate weight on the amount used. Even worse for stirring as it’s magnetic………………….

          • Ged

            That last part sounds horrid to deal with :(.

          • wpj

            Yes, give me Pd/C any day (just stirring some at the moment with ammonium formate and a compound).

  • Engineer48

    Hi Rheulan,

    We need the averaged kWh/h consumption of the ECat reactor heaters, which the item 5 statement failed to disclose.

    Mats Lewan did say he had obtained one on the monthly electrical utility accounts and that suggested the reactor’s heater energy usage was around 20kWh/h. Which would indicate the COP was around 50.

    Rossi’s court statement did say the COP was significantly higher than 50 so the electrical input must have been less than 20kWh/h.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    The only electrical consumption data we have is from Mats that saw a utility bill that indicated 20kWh/h as the averaged energy usage.

    At that consumption the COP is around 50. ie 1,000kW/20kW = 50.
    .

  • bfast

    Ok, so, if I were setting up a scam, I would have the output from one pump flow into the next.

    • GiveADogABone

      Please take a good look at the photo. The pumps suck through a short pipe from the header and discharge DIRECTLY into the reactor.

    • psi2u2

      You seem to be kind of new here.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Because none of IHs employees would notice over the course of a year?
      If you shut one down all the others would burn out, drawing attention.

      Stick to your day job.

      • BillH

        Apparently IH staff noticed absolutely nothing for a whole year, or so they claim, so it’s entirely feasible. Their entire defence appears to be that they were totally incompetent for a year. They are so dumb it is believable.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Ouchy, harsh Bill, harsh.

          I wonder if the lawyers asked for all communications between the IH Staff and IH management. That would make some interesting reading I bet!

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Well.
            As the case has developed and with the new clues/proofs (i wont explain all these here)

            For IH to be the good guy we need this:
            Rossi is a really great scammer and created a incredible machine wich no one would notice is a scam.
            He even made IH to build it (even with the design – the pumps filling water one onto another – laugh) at this point they were unable to realize that this would misrepresent the results.
            And they realized of nothing at all during a whole year.
            Also, there must be a lot of people involved in the con and no one spilled any single word who could create suspicions.
            This is best than the movie with Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

            Ok. Just start holliwood and tell me when is done to watch it

        • bfast

          Good point.

  • bfast

    Ok, so, if I were setting up a scam, I would have the output from one pump flow into the next.

    • GiveADogABone

      Please take a good look at the photo. The pumps suck through short pipes from the header and discharge DIRECTLY into the reactor.

      • Bruce__H

        They do? Where? Which hose in inlet and which is outlet on each pump?

        • GiveADogABone

          Small steps. I see one pipe connection from the top surface of the pump. Which other surface contains this mythical second pipe? Bottom, sides, front, back?

          • Bruce__H

            I see hoses slanting diagonally downwards behind each bank of pumps. Don’t know what they are.

            Are you saying that the 6 pumps in each bank discharge horizontally from behind into a single reactor?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            I originally thought the pumps discharged horizontally directly into the reactor but was told that was not correct.

            On further checking the photographs and checking the pump specs on the net, it was clear the pumps used sucked water from the bottom and discharged it from the top. That mode of operation fits the images.

            Each bank of 6 pumps discharges into a common horizontal header located above the row of pumps and feeds a single Tiger/slab reactor.

            The flow from the discharge at the top of the pump is

            Leave pump discharge port
            Up
            Left
            Down
            Forward
            Right
            Enter reactor
            Get heated into superheated steam
            .

          • Bruce__H

            Is this an image that is supposed to correspond the 1 MW unit we are talking about?

            http://1zi1nw7qb8j26yrfx15kzsp4.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Modules-751×605.jpg

            If so I don’t see how the pipes extending vertically from each pump can be outputs as they eventually all come to a single pipe. These vertical bits must be inlets to the pumps. I don’t know where the outlets are.

          • psi2u2

            Well, it could’ve been there! Somewhere. You have to admit. The whole exercise was an exploration of possibilities of fraud and how bf would commit such a thing if he were so inclined. So don’t think that evidence has any bearing on the question. It still could have been there. 😉

          • Engineer48

            Hi Psi2u2,

            If you carefully study the 2 images of the 24 topping up pumps, it is very clear how they are hooked up.

            There are 4 white left to right headers at the floor level. Each of the 4 floor headers has 6 plastic tubes connected to them which feed into the bottom of each set of six pumps inlet. The pumps outlet is at the top and feeds a header above each row of pumps via a short section of tubing. That header then feeds the pumps water left, then down, then forward, then right into the bottom of the adjacent reactor’s shell.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            Why do the hoses coming out of the tops of a row of pumps all feed into the same header? Isn’t the point of a topping up pump to individually serve one particular reactor?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            It seems that due to there being only 4 Tiger/slab reactors, each Tiger needed 6 topping up pumps to maintain the reactor water level.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            Engineer:

            Thanks for so patiently answering my questions.

            I have lost track of the configuration of this thing (the 1 MW plant). I thought there was over 100 reactors in total.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Backup 1MW plant had 51 x 20kW BlueCat reactors.

            Prine reactor had 4 x 250kW Tigers, with 13 internal reactors sharing one external casing per Tiger.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            Do you know the internal configuration of a “Tiger” unit? Do the 13 internal reactors all share the same space? They appear to be all cooled by the same water level.

    • psi2u2

      You seem to be kind of new here.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Because none of IHs employees would notice over the course of a year?
      If you shut one down all the others would burn out, drawing attention.

      Stick to your day job.
      I hear that prison food his horrid.

      • BillH

        Apparently IH staff noticed absolutely nothing for a whole year, or so they claim, so it’s entirely feasible. Their entire defence appears to be that they were totally incompetent for a year. They are so dumb it is believable.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Ouchy, harsh Bill, harsh.

          I wonder if the lawyers asked for all communications between the IH Staff and IH management. That would make some interesting reading I bet!

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Well.
            As the case has developed and with the new clues/proofs (i wont explain all these here)

            For IH to be the good guy we need this:
            Rossi is a really great scammer and created a incredible machine wich no one would notice is a scam.
            He even made IH to build it (even with the design – the pumps filling water one onto another – laugh) at this point they were unable to realize that this would misrepresent the results.
            And they realized of nothing at all during a whole year.
            Also, there must be a lot of people involved in the con and no one spilled any single word who could create suspicions.
            This is best than the movie with Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

            Ok. Just start holliwood and tell me when is done to watch it

        • bfast

          Good point.

      • Bruce__H

        Yes, because none of the IH employees would notice over the course of the year. How could they notice other than by disassembling the thing?

        • Ged

          Pipes aren’t invisible unless using metamaterials, so it would be easy enough to see. Even our limited views show most of the plumbing (minus important to us external bits 🙁 ), and the IH employees built the thing.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          The condensate tank would be sizable. Any pipes feeding in water from short cycling the reactor would be very obvious and visible.

          From the reports it was the IH crew and Rossi who installed the reactor.
          .

          • Bruce__H

            “Any pipes feeding in water from short cycling the reactor would be very obvious and visible.”

            Why? There are pipes all over the place from what I can see.

            “From the reports it was the IH crew and Rossi who installed the reactor.”

            I see this sort of thing from various people posting here but I don’t understand the force behind the argument. It is IH’s contention in their countersuit that the “sole reason” for the switch to the site in Doral was to remove the plant from a place where IH engineers could supervise it closely. Under these circumstances if the plant was installed in one configuration that doesn’t mean it stayed in that configuration during operation. .

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Well that is just another “What If” argument that no one can defend against.

            What I can tell you is as the real data and images are revealed, instead of supporting IH, they support Rossi.

            I suggest that process will continue.

          • Bruce__H

            Interesting!

            I think, though, from now on and for the benefit of everyone here, you should make a distinction between what you are guessing and what you have been told.

    • Bruce__H

      I think your observation is fine. Ignore the others.

      If I were setting up a scam I would direct most of the 36 m^3 per day as water through a short circuit from the output of the main pump back to its input.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        More secret batteries under the floor and trick plugs, come on get serious.

        • Bruce__H

          Well IH, in their countersuit, are definitely alleging that something was not right with the plant in Doral. If you read their countersuit you will find that they are worried that the physical setup of the plant was changed the night after their engineer visited the premises. I expect that these are the types of things they suspected.

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    IH item 5 talks about 5 example images A – E that are not shown in Abd’s downloaded PDF.

    Anyone know if they can they be obtained as they should be VERY interesting images.

    • you should ask at LENR Forum, if I remember correctly Eric Walker also has access to the court docket

      • Ged

        I don’t think they appear in the docket? LuFong already uploaded everything available from PACER, as far as I am aware.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Barty,

        Thanks.

        I have done that.
        .

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    IH item 5 talks about 5 example images A – E that are not shown in Abd’s downloaded PDF.

    Anyone know if they can they be obtained as they should be VERY interesting images.

    • you should ask at LENR Forum, if I remember correctly Eric Walker also has access to the court docket

      • Ged

        I don’t think they appear in the docket? LuFong already uploaded everything available from PACER, as far as I am aware.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Exhibit 5 has no images. They were not included in the filing, presumably were included in a package given to Penon May 25.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Barty,

        Thanks. I have done that.

        Lets hope someone can surface those 5 very interesting exhibit images.
        .

  • Engineer48

    Jed says:

    “I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake”.

    Seems maybe Jed was fed cherry picked data by someone? Now who would have an interest to do that to Jed?
    .

    • Ged

      Mistakes can always be forgiven, particularly best when they are learned from.

      Nothing more powerful in making a person temporarily gullible than confirmation bias. A lesson for us all.

      • Mats002

        +1

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002 & Ged,

          Then again maybe some people never learn?
          .

          • Mats002

            Jed is fighting for his reputation, who would not? Save what could be saved. I admire him for lenr-canr archive, he do not need to prove anything to me. He is a LENR hero whatever outcome.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            I followed Jed for many years and often referred others to his library, http://www.lenr-canr.org.

            It is hard to read what he now writes. Did he not ask himself why his IH friends did not stop him from making statements they knew one day would bite him in the ass?

            Who needs “friends” like that?
            .

          • TVulgaris

            If the intent of your “friends” is to manipulate you into working enthusiastically in their interests while they’re finagling millions of investment in their other assets, all the while they are slowing release of a product (even if they own the IP) while several other competitive products and processes are being rushed through development, perhaps you need to vet your friends better.

          • TomR

            In my opinion, Jed did a great disservice to the progress of LENR with all his unfounded statements. I used to have a lot of respect for him.

      • SD

        I suspect IH people have a serious case of confirmation bias as well. (To be fair, a lot of us at ECW do as well)

    • psi2u2

      This may be an impertinent question, but why would Jed think the given data was “for the entire test”? Was it presented to him as such or did he make an unwarranted generalization on his own?

  • Mats002

    Again I endorse the analysis of E48 et ECW al but wonder: what is the origin of the pictures that are the base of the analysis? They represent a snapshot of one year operation. Mats Lewans energy bill is (if I remember correctly) from the very first month of operation – maybe the plant was only in partial operation during that period?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats002,

      Each piece of information does not make a case by itself.

      But slowly the real physical evidence, such as the high res 24 pump image, the flow merer model number, the averaged electrical kWh/h of energy consumed and now 10 months of averaged ERV data starts to paint a powerful picture that as each new piece of data arrives, becomes stronger and stronger than the probability of a real customer, using a new and highly confidential production process did in fact receive 1MWh/h of thermal energy from the IH manufactured dual 1MW reactors during the 350 days of the trial.

      Additionally data from the 28 Oct 2011 1MW reactor test shows lengthy 5.5 hour periods of SSM were not invented by Rossi during his 350 day stay in the container but were there in 2011 and were there when IH built the dual 1MW reactors.
      .

      • Mats002

        Ho Eng, agree evidence piling up, definitely not piling down 😉

        I like to give you something, not from me but from MFMP. They are to all my perception intellectually honest. It is not a mindboggling result like Rossi deliver but for science it should be: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf

        Thanks to Alan Goldwater.

        • Ged

          Ah, now I am getting all excited again. GS6 is sounding pretty dang impressive, and the offer to Bob to have lab space and grad student labor to carry out experiments is incredible and heartwarming.

          • Mats002

            The ‘crowd’ is us! The peanut gallery ^^

            I especially like “We now think that this signal was generated by nuclear (LENR) activity in the Glowstick cell”. It took many experiments and time to make that statement.

          • psi2u2

            Yes, that report is as exciting in its understated conclusions as it is a brilliantly lucid and comprehensible model of scientific reportage.

            Surely a big congratulations is in order for the whole MFMP team.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002,

          I don’t agree with the Lugano comments for several reasons.

          As an engineer who has been on both sides of such situations, those not there make assumptions that had they been there they might not have made.

          With respect to those making the counter claims, they have no where the experience of the Lugano team.

          The Lugano trial was not the 1st time the Lugano team had used that technique on a Rossi reactor.

          During the debate I read several other experts that stated the way the measurement was done was proper.

          The Lugano team are professionals and would surely recant their results if they found some validity in the others analysis.

          2 other similar Rossi reactors, the Black & stainless flanged and unflanged HotCats were tested with good results.
          .

          • Mats002

            Let’s say this is the lower limit, it can only be better.

  • Mats002

    Again I endorse the analysis of E48 et ECW al but wonder: what is the origin of the pictures that are the base of the analysis? They represent a snapshot of one year operation. Mats Lewans energy bill is (if I remember correctly) from the very first month of operation – maybe the plant was only in partial operation during that period?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats002,

      Each piece of information does not make a case by itself.

      But slowly the real physical evidence, such as the high res 24 pump image, the flow merer model number, the averaged electrical kWh/h of energy consumed and now 10 months of averaged ERV data starts to paint a powerful picture that as each new piece of data arrives, becomes stronger and stronger than the probability of a real customer, using a new and highly confidential production process did in fact receive 1MWh/h of thermal energy from the IH manufactured dual 1MW reactors during the 350 days of the trial.

      Additionally data from the 28 Oct 2011 1MW reactor test shows lengthy 5.5 hour periods of SSM were not invented by Rossi during his 350 day stay in the container but were there in 2011 and were there when IH built the dual 1MW reactors.
      .

      • Mats002

        Ho Eng, agree evidence piling up, definitely not piling down 😉

        I like to give you something, not from me but from MFMP. They are to all my perception intellectually honest. It is not a mindboggling result like Rossi deliver but for science it should be: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf

        Thanks to Alan Goldwater.

        • Ged

          Ah, now I am getting all excited again. GS6 is sounding pretty dang impressive, and the offer to Bob to have lab space and grad student labor to carry out experiments is incredible and heartwarming.

          • Mats002

            The ‘crowd’ is us! The peanut gallery ^^

            I especially like “We now think that this signal was generated by nuclear (LENR) activity in the Glowstick cell”. It took many experiments and time to make that statement.

          • psi2u2

            Yes, that report is as exciting in its understated conclusions as it is a brilliantly lucid and comprehensible model of scientific reportage.

            Surely a big congratulations is in order for the whole MFMP team.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Mats002,

          Thanks for sharing the data.

          I don’t agree with the Lugano comments for several reasons.

          As an engineer who has been on both sides of such situations, those not there make assumptions that had they been there they might not have made.

          With respect to those making the counter claims, they have no where the experience of the Lugano team.

          The Lugano trial was not the 1st time the Lugano team had used that technique on a Rossi reactor.

          During the debate I read several other experts that stated the way the measurement was done was proper.

          The Lugano team are professionals and would surely recant their results if they found some validity in the others analysis.

          2 other similar Rossi reactors, the Black & stainless flanged and unflanged HotCats were tested with good results.
          .

          • Mats002

            Let’s say this is the lower limit, it can only be better.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Gregory,

    Each of the 24 pumps needed to be manually programed to the desired flow rate which was 18kg/hr of fluid.

    Each pump has 3 status leds.

    Green for everything OK and the desired flow rate is happening.

    Yellow for you need to look at the display as there may be a problem with the flow or pump.

    Red for something serious is wrong and the pump needs attention.

    From the image, the 24 pumps are all in Green status and physically pumping a highly accurate 18kg/hr per pump.
    .

    • Gerald

      I sometimes wonder, why the need of such accurate pumps. Is it just to have 1 less variable in the control or is it just experience. Like the design, every cat build the smae way.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerald,

        Those pumps control the fluid level inside each reactor and I believe control the thermal gain in SSM and act to stop thermal runaways.

        So the remote system needs to know that by switching on the pump for X minutes it will reliably deliver Y volume of water into the reactor.

        Plus they are highly reliable as if one of the reactors is getting too hot in SSM that pump MUST work to increase reactor water level, reducing reactor temperature and avoiding a potential thermal runaway or meltdown.
        .

        • Gerald

          I think you are right. Its like driving a car round the bend with rear wheel drive, not using the steering wheel but gently using the gas pendal.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Not quite like that.

            A main pump supplies 80% of the necessary flow to all reactors in parallel. Then individual topping up pumps supply the last 20% to each individual reactor.

            This allows each reactor’s water level to be slightly varied to control the reactor in SSM.
            .

          • Mats002

            Any photo of the main pump?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Unluckly no. Likewise no for the flow meter, the condensate tank, the heat exchanger and the reactor superheated steam dumping system.

            Maybe one day.
            .

      • Warthog

        “:Where does that leave us???”

        I’d say in pretty much the same morass of pathological skepticisim that has hampered LENR since 1989.

        • Kevmo ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

          If Rossi has $100M in his pocket and has proven in court that his box generated a COP of >6 + an independent report, there’s some progress made.
          Using my analogy, someone could make something out of knowing the Wright brothers flew and they now have the Wrights’ box of airplane parts.

          • Warthog

            “…there’s some progress made.”

            Concur. A court victory for Rossi would provide a strong indicator of the reality of his tech…….but the skeptopaths will fall back to the “but it’s not scientific proof” meme.

            Rossi was right…..multiple working commercial devices are the only thing that “might” convince them. But even then I have my doubts.

          • Kevmo ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

            There was a stage the Wright brothers went through after their first set of flights. They were subjected to a steady stream of lookieloos who kept asking for demo flights. Their response was, if we give a demo flight will you buy our airplanes? Strangely enough, the answer was never ‘yes’ until the Army asked for a demo flight. All of those visitors were looking to steal the Wrights’ IP. After all, they were just a couple of bicycle mechanics.

            Rossi might be at that stage, or he might be the best damned scam artist and magician on the planet.

          • Brokeeper

            I follow what you are saying and being quite truthful not skeptical. Thanks!

  • BillH

    Please don’t extract unreliable conclusion from one picture, this process happened over days and weeks. A video showing the meters over several hours might be more convincing. A data logger of all the parameters over the course of the test would have been much more convincing, manual collection of data is always open to errors.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bill,

      The pump flow rate is manually set and an internal flow meter and 2 x 1 way valves ensure the programned flow is achieved. ERV flow is not obtained from those pumps.

      The ERV flow monitoring is done by a seperate flow meter with an 80mm ID bore.
      .

      • psi2u2

        Perhaps this is a good place to echo what has already been said by many others, appreciating Engineer48s lucid expertise.

      • Ged

        Pipes aren’t invisible unless using metamaterials, so it would be easy enough to see. Even our limited views show most of the plumbing (minus important to us external bits 🙁 ), and the IH employees built the thing.

  • BillH

    Please don’t extract unreliable conclusion from one picture, this process happened over days and weeks. A video showing the meters over several hours might be more convincing. A data logger of all the parameters over the course of the test would have been much more convincing, manual collection of data is always open to errors.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bill,

      The pump flow rate is manually set and an internal flow meter and 2 x 1 way valves ensure the programned flow is achieved. ERV flow is not obtained from those pumps.

      The ERV flow monitoring is done by a seperate flow meter with an 80mm ID bore.
      .

      • psi2u2

        Perhaps this is a good place to echo what has already been said by many others, appreciating Engineer48s lucid expertise.

      • roseland67

        48,

        Do these 2 disparate flow metering methods concur?

        • Ged

          Supposedly, but we don’t have that data, so we must leave that as an “unknown” for now.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Roselands,

          As far as I know there was the ERV’s flow meter and then Rossi’s identical flow meter. Technically there was only one flow meter.

          While the pumps do have inbuilt flow meters, they are only used to measure the pumps flow and to adjust the pump stroke length to obtain the manually programmed flow targets.

          So there is only one flow meter.
          .

      • roseland67

        48,

        Has anyone calculated how much heat all of the pumps are adding to the water?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Roselands,

          Pumps are not generally considered to heat water.

          Besides the ERV COP calc ignores the inlet water temp and only uses the min superheat enthalpy for the steam pressure minus the enthalpy of boiling water. This ignores any superheat margin energy and the energy used to boil the water. Then, to be conservative, the COP is further reduced by 10%.

          So the ERV’s COP is very conservative.
          .

          • TVulgaris

            There’d be a small heat loss, even though they’re not considered to heat water, unless they waste at or below the water inlet temperature, but the 10% pad in the CoP would overwhelm that

        • Ged

          We can look at the wattage of the pumps, and then their efficiency rating to calculate waste heat, and then the area of contact with the water to estimate proportion of waste heat entering the water. It is part of the overall efficiency calculation for the plant (the true, total system COP), but most folks keep output conservative by looking just at heat of vaporization.

          • roseland67

            GED,

            Can figure a certain amount of energy goes into ” heating, compressing” and making the fluid move, like refrigerant compressors, blowers, hydraulic pumps etc,
            Maybe 1-2000 but/hp?

  • GiveADogABone

    Small steps. I see one pipe connection from the top surface of the pump. Which other surface contains this mythical second pipe? Bottom, sides, front, back?

    • psi2u2

      Well, it could’ve been there! Somewhere. You have to admit. The whole exercise was an exploration of possibilities of fraud and how bf would commit such a thing if he were so inclined. So don’t think that evidence has any bearing on the question. It still could have been there. 😉

      • Engineer48

        Hi Psi2u2,

        If you carefully study the 2 images of the 24 topping up pumps, it is very clear how they are hooked up.

        There are 4 white left to right headers at the floor level. Each of the 4 floor headers has 6 plastic tubes connected to them which feed into the bottom of each set of six pumps inlet. The pumps outlet is at the top and feeds a header above each row of pumps via a short section of tubing. That header then feeds the pumps water left, then down, then forward, then right into the bottom of the adjacent reactor’s shell.
        .

  • Andy Kumar

    //20kWh/h is still a significant amount of heat to dissipate//
    “Engineer”, your schematics look prettier. Where did you learn to use kWh/h? Isn’t h/h a bit redundant. You are bringing in some big customers for AR. Don’t you have any leverage with him to get some more solid data or may be even a decent demo like Mats Lewan had?
    After spending more than 5 years of his life on e-cat, I wish admin could demand a solid personal demo from the inventor on behalf of all the fans, rather than having to ask him questions on JoNP like the rest of the general public. I think we deserve better than crumbs of information and laconic yes/no/F9/F8 answers?

    • Omega Z

      Unless you have money on the line, Rossi doesn’t owe you or anyone a demonstration. Beyond that, Rossi could perform the perfect demo and people would still have issues. Rossi was involved if nothing else. They need an independent 3rd party test. Should a perfect independent 3rd party test be performed, then the claim would be they were tainted by Rossi when he instructed them on how to do the test..

      Seriously Andy. The other day you were pumping up your educational background and then you come up with this.

  • William Doerr

    So, what is IH doing.

    My guess is that they do not have $89,000,000.00 for payment to Rossi. It seems that they cannot sell the ecat (who wudda thunk, they probably cannot give it away, much less ask for millions for it). They have not developed any products and the only marketing I have heard of is having potential customers view someone else’s, Rossi’s, steam plant (which non-engineers find difficult to believe works).

    The client base for this type of steam plant is small. Why would a utility company buy a dogbone. What would they do with it? They probably would send it to their research labs for testing, for years. It’s not worth their effort to try to implement it.

    Also, it seems IH knows the ecat is obsolete, Rossi has a new product, their time is limited and that they can never recoup an $89,000,000.00 payout.

    It seems IH knows their business plan was wrong, that they are doomed and will just play with Rossi in the courts, delay and bleed the last of their finances until they go broke and out of business.

    • Vinney

      With a COP of in excess of 50, then where is every other energy source (all less than 3 from primary sources) with their incumbant distribution costs.
      The only reason this is not in the market is Rossi is waiting for more patent protection and ‘first to market’ advantage (this is where Cherokee were supposed to come in). But Darden rescinded the funds for growth, spoiling his grand plan.
      He may be forced to go on his own (ABB is only providing machinery and not a capital venture partner).
      My question remains, where is the ‘killer app’, supposedly the QuarkX has
      ‘inbuilt’ copy protection. Meaning something like a Powerbank with USB connectivity to charge mobile devices or placed in series/parallel to provide rudimentary power ‘off-the-grid’ (albeit DC) for hundreds of applications in developing and third world economies.
      Although Rossi answers, ‘yes’ to the Quark X being self-started via a charged battery, then what is the problem a massive robotised factory producing millions of these and we having our first ‘benevolent’ trillionaire.
      If this is not the ‘killer app’ then what is (in the first instance).

    • LarryJ

      Don’t forget that IH built the 1MW test reactor including the core under Rossi’s supervision and they had engineers on site for the entire 1 year test run. That means they know very well how to build an ecat capable of cop 50. IH have also filed a patent for the ecat claiming a share in the IP so they can argue that they are not infringing on Leonardo’s IP. You refer to the ecat as obsolete but at a likely cop of 50 most industrial customers will be quite happy with IH’s offering even if it is too big and clunky to power your toaster like a quark might.

      I think right now that IH are doing the same as Rossi. They are selling prototypes under nda and deciding on a final design to mass produce. In the end there will be 2 major suppliers of ecat reactors and the resulting competition will benefit us all. It appears similar to the patent fight between Apple and Samsung where Samsung borrowed heavily from Apple’s iPhone IP. That patent fight ran around 7 years and the competition benefited us all. The Leonardo/IH patent war will run for many years as well and we will all benefit from the resulting competition.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Rossi cannot get out of the way of his own success, he does not want to mass produce a product that will be obsolete six months after it is introduced. The problem is he cannot predict when his “advanced” product will be ready.

        • Omega Z

          Bernie, there will be multiple product types. Each will have it’s own economic advantage.

          • Engineer48

            Hi OmegaZ,

            Yes I agree with you.
            .

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Omega, You might be right, but just yesterday Rossi said he wants to incorporate his current research into the district heating e-cat.

        • roseland67

          Bernie,

          This argument is circular , if you really believe this Rossi will NEvER release a product for the same reason, simple, basic or advanced, and in “Bernie World”
          That seems to be okay with you.

          But coming up on 6 years now, no one outside of the Rossi coven has ever even seen an Ecat.
          At some point, even the most does hard Zealots, must begin to wonder if Rossi has the goods.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Roseland, you seem to always be hedging your bet, get off the fence and read what E47 and friends are saying about Rossi tech on this site. And, if you cannot make up you mind, just be quiet and listen, we understand if you just can’t make up your mind, so please do not waste our time.

          • roseland67

            Bernie,
            Have not made any bets, not hedging anything, there is simply NOT enough valid, replicated data to make an informed decision.

            When new data becomes available, I will reassess.

      • Bruce__H

        When you say IH had engineers on site (the site of the Doral plant) for the entire 1 year test run, what do you mean? Do you mean continuously on site? Who were they, Fabiani?

        • LarryJ

          Rossi stated recently that during the 1 year test he took the night shift and IH managed the plant during the day. I tried to find the reference but unfortunately RossiLiveCat.com has removed the link that allows a download of the entire comment history and only the last couple of weeks are now available. JONP is very difficult to search. Rossi has also made other comments that IH monitored the plant continuously. Regrets that I can’t search for them.

          • Bruce__H

            I think this must be referring to Fabiani. Fabiani was hired by IH as a consultant. He is a Rossi collaborator and I would not call him an IH representative. IIH has included him as part of the countersuit.

          • LarryJ

            IH built the 1 year test reactor and it’s core so I have assumed they would have other engineering resources besides Fabiani. How about the one whose name appears on IH’S patent application for the ecat. IH/Cherokee would surely have access to trusted engineering resources and we know they supplied support for the 1 year test.

            My original point was that IH are fully capable and have the resources to build 1MW ecat reactors and like Rossi they are probably doing so now. At this point they need to hustle and grab as much market share as they can. The patent war will run for years and will have no effect on industrialization of the ecat by Leonardo and IH.

          • Bruce__H

            It is IH’s contention in their countersuit that the reason Rossi wanted to move the equipment to Doral was to remove it from their (IH’s) supervision. So no, I think that when Rossi says that IH personnel were on hand he meant his own guy, Fabiani, who he had persuaded IH to hire as a consultant. IH are suing Fabiani as well as Rossi.
            IH have never been able to operate the Rossi equipment and get the results Rossi gets. They are a bit cagy about exactly what results they get but some with inside information are saying that COP = 1

          • LarryJ

            IH’s contention that the plant was moved to avoid supervision is just a contention. Rossi contends it was moved because after 1 year IH failed to get operating permits which sounds a lot more real world to me. Rossi also contends that IH offered him cash to halt the test early, which if true, shows a deliberate effort by IH to put things on the back burner.

            IH’s claim of no excess power is also a hotly debated contention although your strong statement on that point implies no doubt and that your mind is already made up.

            Whether or not Fabiani was the only IH resource on site I don’t know. At this point you can believe Rossi or you can believe IH. Time will tell but someone here once quipped.

            The lineup of experts Rossi fooled has become embarrassingly long.

            That would appear to be not a contention.

          • Bruce__H

            You haven’t followed my argument. We are talking about why I think there was no real IH representative on site (except for Fabiani who is actually Rossi’s guy). It is because of IH’s claims that the plant was moved in order to get it away from their supervision. It doesn’t matter whether or not it actually was moved for this reason, what matters is who IH think of as a genuine representative.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Or, IH is simply, deliberately trying to delay the implementation of LENR

      • roseland67

        Bernie,
        I appreciate your zeal to get his into the mainstream, but do you really think some small obscure group of venture capitalists can delay the single greatest invention since the Internet?

        I do not, no way, no how, no chance, if Rossi has what he says he has, Exxon Google, Apple, GM, Mao, Stalin and Nixon combined could not stop it.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Yes, they have done a great job in the last 27 years, this “obscure group of venture capitalists” are spending millions on the best law firm and the best propaganda company in the world. Do you think these millions are coming from this small “obscure group of venture capitalists”. Roseland, you are simply naive, how old are you?

          • roseland67

            Bernie,
            I was drafted.

            If it was Exxon law firm, I may give it a 2nd thought, but these rummy’s?
            No chance.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Roseland, You are calling Jones Day “rummy’s”? “Ranked among the world’s most integrated law firms and best in client service”. I bet their bill does not reflect your disparaging remarks.

          • roseland67

            Bernie,
            I think you’re getting lost in the clutter here.

            It doesn’t matter how this law firm is integrated or where they’re ranked, that’s worth less that 2 dead flies.

            It doesn’t matter who wins or loses, it doesn’t matter if you believe Rossi or not.

            The only thing that matters is still the only thing that has ever mattered:

            Energy out > Energy in
            Replicable
            Safe
            Cost effective
            Reliable
            Repairable

            It is my hope that the Ecat is everything that Rossi has lead us to believe it is and that it gets commercialized and integrated into part of the global energy solution.

            But I ain’t holding my breath.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Roselands,

          Do you understand what billions of $$s of stranded assets do to a public energy company’s share price?
          .

          • roseland67

            48?

            Uhm, yeah,

            Read my posts on Discuss re: automotive internal combustion engines, battery powered cars,
            autonomous driving,
            (what do you think the Teemsters think about this).
            Talk about stranded assets, mercy.
            (Which, by the way, anyone anywhere can see everyday)
            and decentralized power distribution.

            LENR is just not ready otherwise you WOULD see Senators and Congressmen writing laws about why it can’t be done.
            IH, is a fly on an elephants rear in the world of political graft and corruption.
            Not one single person on this board ever even heard of them before Rossi got involved.
            Just ain’t gonna happen the way you suggest.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Roselands.

            If and I say if I can get the necessary standards and other safety certifications, which I believe can do, my E48 Black Box Lenr reactor will be made available to system integrators.
            .

          • roseland67

            48,
            Does a UL safety sticker fall under the “necessary safety certifications”
            Where you live?
            Stateside, without one of these, it won’t see the light of day.

    • Omega Z

      There are over a half a million commercial/industrial businesses in the U.S. alone that use low grade heat/steam. Several million more that aren’t included with that. It’s a huge market.

    • LookMoo

      Much money??????? trust me in the energy business this kind of money is “Chicken feed”.

      If they could not pay (insolvent) they just file for bankruptcy.

      Suggest you read the contract.

      https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

      If IH paid they would have access to not only the present eCat but all further designs as well. According to the contract they would also have full technical support in all related matters.

      So what is this legan mess about…??

      “– The lawsuit could possibly over time develop into a parallel to the Honeywell, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp. case regarding the invention of the electronic computer—a case that went on from 1967 until 1973, which some people argue was in order to keep third parties out of the computer business, with lawyers on both sides dragging out the lawsuit as long as possible.”

      https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/

      With above in concern the matters is not about money but about delaying Rossi from marketing his product. Big oil needs time to re-position.

      A large parts of US. strategic concept is based on stability of the fossil energy. IF oil is not traded any more the stability of the Dollar will be in jeopardize as trade currency. Oil/Gas is a $107 trillion business.

  • Philippe Goulet

    Do we have a picture of the main pump somewhere ? And do we have the temp reading of the output water/vapor ?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Philippe,

      None of the pictures we have show the main pump. Nor the flow meter, nor the heat exchanger, nor the condensate tank.

      The superheated steam temp was around 103C at 0.0 barG pressure. It is assumed the outlet of the primary side of the heat exchanger ran at -0.2 barG to draw in the superheated steam.
      .

  • TVulgaris

    If the intent of your “friends” is to manipulate you into working enthusiastically in their interests while they’re finagling millions of investment in their other assets, all the while they are slowing release of a product (even if they own the IP) while several other competitive products and processes are being rushed through development, perhaps you need to vet your friends better.

  • My2c

    BTW:
    When was the “main pump” introduced to the design of the 1MW plant?
    All the other e-cats we have seen before had one metering pump which supplied a constant flow to the e-cat.
    Is this “main pump” shown on anyone of the pictures.

    • Engineer48

      Hi My2c,

      If you do the research, you will find those small topping up pumps do not have the capacity to deliver the total needed flow.

      None of the pictures we have show the main pump. Nor the flow meter, nor the heat exchanger, nor the condensate tank.

      When I worked out the total capacity of the individual pumps could not deliver the stated 1,500kg/hr flow I asked Andrea how this worked. He told me the individual topping up pumps deliver a portion of the flow volume and another large pump deliver the main flow volume.
      .

      • Mike

        What is a topping up pump? If this pump is in line with the other pumps it doesn’t add any flow if the flow is regulated using some kind of programmable valve. The topping up pump has to be connected to another pipe in parallel. I need a hydraulic layout sketch to understand the flow and piping. Maybe you have shown it elsewhere. Adding a lot of pumps to estimate a COP requires that you know the temperature difference in each pipe etc.

    • Engineer48

      Hi My2c

      Pardon but the 1MW test on 28 Oct 2011 had 4 pumps that serviced all the reactors, with no individual reactor topping up pumps.

      But no there are no pictures of the main pumps but there are pictures of the individual BlueCat pumps and the 6 x Tiger topping up pumps.

      Neither of which could supply the total require flow but could supply a flow that was well above COP = 1 flow.

      Here are the 20kW BlueCat topping up pump and reactor water level sensor images.

      If you wish I can supply the appropriate 250kW Tiger reactor images.
      .

  • Engineer48

    Hi My2c,

    If you do the research, you will find those small topping up pumps do not have the capacity to deliver the total needed flow.

    None of the pictures we have show the main pump. Nor the flow meter, nor the heat exchanger, nor the condensate tank.

    When I worked out the total capacity of the individual pumps could not deliver the stated 1,500kg/hr flow I asked Andrea how this worked. He told me the individual topping up pumps deliver a portion of the flow volume and another large pump deliver the main flow volume.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Philippe,

    None of the pictures we have show the main pump. Nor the flow meter, nor the heat exchanger, nor the condensate tank.

    The superheated steam temp was around 103C at 0.0 barG pressure. It is assumed the outlet of the primary side of the heat exchanger ran at -0.2 barG to draw in the superheated steam.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Gregory,

    The kg/hr flow numbers on the pump do not represent measured flow. They are displaying the pumps programmed flow rate.

    With 24 pumps programmed to deliver 18kg/hr each, the total delivered flow would be 432kg/hr.
    .

  • Ged

    Supposedly, but we don’t have that data, so we must leave that as an “unknown” for now.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    Pumps are not generally considered to heat water.

    Besides the ERV COP calc ignores the inlet water temp and only uses the min superheat enthalpy for the steam pressure minus the enthalpy of boiling water. This ignores any superheat margin energy and the energy used to boil the water. Then, to be conservative, the COP is further reduced by 10%.

    So the ERV’s COP is very conservative.
    .

    • TVulgaris

      There’d be a small heat loss, even though they’re not considered to heat water, unless they waste at or below the water inlet temperature, but the 10% pad in the CoP would overwhelm that

  • Ged

    We can look at the wattage of the pumps, and then their efficiency rating to calculate waste heat, and then the area of contact with the water to estimate proportion of waste heat entering the water. It is part of the overall efficiency calculation for the plant (the true, total system COP), but most folks keep output conservative by looking just at heat of vaporization.

    • roseland67

      GED,

      Can figure a certain amount of energy goes into ” heating, compressing” and making the fluid move, like refrigerant compressors, blowers, hydraulic pumps etc,
      Maybe 1-2000 but/hp?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    As far as I know there was the ERV’s flow meter and then Rossi’s identical flow meter. Technically there was only one flow meter.

    While the pumps do have inbuilt flow meters, they are only used to measure the pumps flow and to adjust the pump stroke length to obtain the manually programmed flow targets.

    So there is only one flow meter.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    It seems that due to there being only 4 Tiger/slab reactors, each Tiger needed 6 topping up pumps to maintain the reactor water level.
    .

    • Bruce__H

      Engineer:

      Thanks for so patiently answering my questions.

      I have lost track of the configuration of this thing (the 1 MW plant). I thought there was over 100 reactors in total.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Backup 1MW plant had 51 x 20kW BlueCat reactors.

        Prine reactor had 4 x 250kW Tigers, with 13 internal reactors sharing one external casing per Tiger.
        .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    I originally thought the pumps discharged horizontally directly into the reactor but was told that was not correct.

    On further checking the photographs and checking the pump specs on the net, it was clear the pumps used sucked water from the bottom and discharged it from the top. That mode of operation fits the images.

    Each bank of 6 pumps discharges into a common horizontal header located above the row of pumps and feeds a single Tiger/slab reactor.

    The flow from the discharge at the top of the pump is

    Leave pump discharge port
    Up
    Left
    Down
    Forward
    Right
    Enter reactor
    Get heated into superheated steam
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    The image shows 24 pumps prigrammed to deliver 18kg/hr for a total flow of 432kg/hr. The 24 status leds are all Green, showing the pumps are doing their job with no faults detected.

    To deliver a COP = 1, the flow required is 30kg/hr or 7.5kg/hr per slab which could easily be done with just 1 pump per row at less than 50% capacity.

    So are you suggesting that during the entire 350 days, there was only 1 pump turned on per row, that no one noticed this and for the photo they turned on the other 20 pumps, prigrammed them at 18kg/hr, flooding the reactors, took the photo, then turned 20 pumps off?

    I do note you can see signs of leakage on the pump ports and tubing discoloration fir all the pump feeds, which suggests ALL the pumps were working for the 350 days.

    Which suggest that yes those pumps did deliver their 432kg/hr, which represents a min COP of ~14.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    The condensate tank would be sizable. Any pipes feeding in water from short cycling the reactor would be very obvious and visible.

    From the reports it was the IH crew and Rossi who installed the reactor.
    .

    • Bruce__H

      “Any pipes feeding in water from short cycling the reactor would be very obvious and visible.”

      Why? There are pipes all over the place from what I can see.

      “From the reports it was the IH crew and Rossi who installed the reactor.”

      I see this sort of thing from various people posting here but I don’t understand the force behind the argument. It is IH’s contention in their countersuit that the “sole reason” for the switch to the site in Doral was to remove the plant from a place where IH engineers could supervise it closely. Under these circumstances if the plant was installed in one configuration that doesn’t mean it stayed in that configuration during operation. .

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Well that is just another “What If” argument that no one can defend against.

        What I can tell you is as the real data and images are revealed, instead of supporting IH, they support Rossi.

        I suggest that process will continue.

  • LarryJ

    Don’t forget that IH built the 1MW test reactor including the core under Rossi’s supervision and they had engineers on site for the entire 1 year test run. That means they know very well how to build an ecat capable of cop 50. IH have also filed a patent for the ecat claiming a share in the IP so they can argue that they are not infringing on Leonardo’s IP. You refer to the ecat as obsolete but at a likely cop of 50 most industrial customers will be quite happy with IH’s offering even if it is too clunky to power your toaster.

    I think right now that IH are doing the same as Rossi. They are selling prototypes under nda and deciding on a final design to mass produce. In the end there will be 2 major suppliers of ecat reactors and the resulting competition will benefit us all. It appears similar to the patent fight between Apple and Samsung where Samsung borrowed heavily from Apple’s smartphone IP. That patent fight ran 7 years and we all benefited. The Leonardo/IH patent war will run for many years as well and we will all benefit.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Rossi cannot get out of the way of his own success, he does not want to mass produce a product that will be obsolete six months after it is introduced. The problem is he cannot predict when his “advanced” product will be ready.

      • Omega Z

        Bernie, there will be multiple product types. Each will have it’s own economic advantage.

        • Engineer48

          Hi OmegaZ,

          Yes I agree with you.
          .

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Omega, You might be right, but just yesterday Rossi said he wants to incorporate his current research into the district heating e-cat.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Or, they are deliberately trying to delay the implementation of LENR

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    More secret batteries under the floor and trick plugs, come on get serious.

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    Is there anybody that has a copy the JMP electricity account?

    I believe there may be very valuable data to mine out of that image.
    .

    • Ged

      So far all I know of is http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/24/mats-lewan-receives-an-electric-bill-for-1mw-test-customer/ . I don’t think we’ve seen a picture, but Mats would have it.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        We need someone who downloaded that image to share it as I believe there are data to mine.
        .

    • wpj

      Mats has a copy of the first bill, but took it down from his site rapidly as it was “in confidence”. Apparantly had COP 24 hand written on it.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        Yes I understand that but surely someone did a download?
        .

        • wpj

          Not that we know of, sadly………………………..

          Maybe Mats could give you some info in confidence?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Need the info in the public arena as I believe there is very significant gold to mine.
            .

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    Is there anybody that has a copy the JMP electricity account?

    I believe there may be very valuable data to mine out of that image.
    .

    • Ged

      So far all I know of is http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/24/mats-lewan-receives-an-electric-bill-for-1mw-test-customer/ . I don’t think we’ve seen a picture, but Mats would have it.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        We need someone who downloaded that image to share it as I believe there are data to mine.
        .

    • wpj

      Mats has a copy of the first bill, but took it down from his site rapidly as it was “in confidence”. Apparantly had COP 24 hand written on it.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        Yes I understand that but surely someone did a download?
        .

        • wpj

          Not that we know of, sadly………………………..

          Maybe Mats could give you some info in confidence?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Need the info in the public arena as I believe there is very significant gold to mine.
            .

  • Omega Z

    Unless you have money on the line, Rossi doesn’t owe you or anyone a demonstration. Beyond that, Rossi could perform the perfect demo and people would still have issues. Rossi was involved if nothing else. They need an independent 3rd party test. Should a perfect independent 3rd party test be performed, then the claim would be they were tainted by Rossi when he instructed them on how to do the test..

    Seriously Andy. The other day you were pumping up your educational background and then you come up with this.

  • Bruce__H

    There is something I don’t understand about the photos at the top of the thread. Where are they supposed to be from? Are we looking inside of the shipping container in the Doral facility? I thought that all other photos of the equipment in that shipping container showed the ecat units on the outside walls — not in the centre as here..

    • Ged

      The container is the long variety, and you can even see the seam on the ground in the lowest picture between the two “halves”. The other pictures we have of the techs working on the side walls of E-cats is from one end, and you can see this centered rack, which blocks the view of the container doors of the opposite end. It’s all the same place. If you look carefully at the bottom picture, you can see the end of one of the side wall E-cat racks.

      This center rack is the Tigers (easiest to see that from the other view), and the side wall racks are the backups.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        Yup the 2 1MW reactors were arranged like this.
        .

        • Engineer48

          main steam pipe is seen here.

          Note the size and that it exits stage Right toward the North wall of the warehouse at the middle of the 40ft dual reactor container with the 51 x 20kW BlueCats reactors at the West end and the 4 x Tiger 250kW reactors at the East end.

      • Bruce__H

        So the 36-pump end is the end with the reactors that were meant to carry the main heating load during the operation of the Doral plant?

        What end do the large pipes emerge from (the ones that are supposed to carry steam across to the customer)?

  • Bruce__H

    There is something I don’t understand about the photos at the top of the thread. Where are they supposed to be from? Are we looking inside of the shipping container in the Doral facility? I thought that all other photos of the equipment in that shipping container showed the ecat units on the outside walls — not in the centre as here..

    • Ged

      The container is the long variety, and you can even see what looks like a seam [Edit: or just random tape maybe?] on the ground in the lowest picture between the two “halves”. The other pictures we have of the techs working on the side walls of E-cats is from one end, and you can see this centered rack, which blocks the view of the container doors of the opposite end. It’s all the same place. If you look carefully at the bottom picture, you can see the end of one of the side wall E-cat racks.

      This center rack is the Tigers (easiest to see that from the other view), and the side wall racks are the backups, I guess.

      Edit: Totally need a respository of all the pictures of the plant and location. Anyways, this picture should help as it gives a much better view into the otherside but from the perspective of the pictures in the article http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e38c6ce4b0b6d75a4175a7/54e3ca09e4b0af154d1539a3/54e3ca39e4b015ce3b5f8201/1424215217471/ecat+MW1-USA+Andrea+checking.jpg?format=500w

      Compare with the typical view from the other end we’ve seen a lot of http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e38c6ce4b0b6d75a4175a7/54e3ca09e4b0af154d1539a3/54e3ca33e4b015ce3b5f81b7/1424215065920/ecat+MW1-USA+team+at+working.jpg?format=500w

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ged,

        Yup the 2 1MW reactors were arranged like this.
        .

        • Bruce__H

          How do you know? Is this a guess?

          • Ged

            The photos show it. The one from the central view with Rossi shows the steam pipe does not exit to the left in the image Engineer posted above, and instead bends away from the viewer and runs along the side being fed by the small “perimeter” reactors (the flow is from those reactors, and then bending into the perpendicular steam pipe). Meanwhile, the arrow on the pipe is pointing to the right in the image posted above. So, given the pipes exit the container as we see in the outside view (not obstructing the doors, so coming out the side), and the pipe does not exit to the left of the view above, it must be exiting to the right of the view above in line with the marked direction of flow (which is also the correct height for the external view).

            So, not a guess, as I am able to reach the same conclusion with the photo evidence.

            Edit: The reactor specs have been provided by Rossi a few times, and seemingly match the images too, as far as is determinable (we can’t fully know output from the images, I think, though we can see the size differences from the images, which seemingly corroborates the number of reactors in each magnitude of the difference at least).

        • Engineer48

          main steam pipe is seen here.

          Note the size and that it exits stage Right toward the North wall of the warehouse at the middle of the 40ft dual reactor container with the 51 x 20kW BlueCats reactors at the West end and the 4 x Tiger 250kW reactors at the East end.

      • Bruce__H

        So the 36-pump end is the end with the reactors that were meant to carry the main heating load during the operation of the Doral plant?

        What end do the large pipes emerge from (the ones that are supposed to carry steam across to the customer)?

        • Ged

          You can see the same (perpendicular to the container’s long axis) large steam pipe in both pictures from both ends. These three pictures (the two I dug back up here and the one in the article above) are all I know of, so what you see is as good as what I see!

          Edit: the central config, with the 24 pumps we see serving the four slabs (hm, what side do you reference with the 36 pumps? Maybe saying “central” or “perimeter” arrangements will help differentiate between the two configurations) is supposedly carrying the main system load, hence when one of the four “Tigers” went down, the power output dropped by 1/4th, according to the customer’s invoice. The perimeter configuration is a backup for if the central configuration goes down completely. At least, that is my understanding of it all, based on all we’ve been told–if I am mistaken, please correct me.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          There are 4 rows of 6 topping up pumps or 24 in total for the 4 250kW Tiger/slab reactors, 6 per 250kW reactor. For the backup 51 BlueCats there were 51 topping up pumps or 1 per 20kW BlueCat reactor.

          The steam emerges from the other end of the 4 x Tiger/slab reactors, that is near the centre of the 40ft container as attached.

          It amazes me how many times I need to post the same images to the same posters.

          Do you never read / look at what I post?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf2c8fcea32cb686ee1b12ff69028ef7464159183df80564bb11d880ac0fd934.png
          .
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b221a5bce405649fb243e4b0400a9c1f082d7da4dfdd8502f8a407544027e1f.jpg
          .

          • Bruce__H

            You need to realize that my posts do not appear when I submit them. There is always a time delay accompanied by a message saying that the post needs to be reviewed first. Sometimes the delays are quite short but most often they are between 2 and 10 hours. I the meantime many other posts will have appeared. My question may thus not appear until you have already answered it for others … even if I was the first to ask. This may from time to time make it look as though I am not paying as close attention as I am.

          • Ged

            I’ve noticed that happen to your posts and mine sometimes. It does make communication occasionally asynchronous. In fact, I have this page open on two different devices and browsers freshly loaded, and one sees this post of yours and the other doesn’t. I have no idea how that could be, but such is the mystery of Disqus it seems.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Maybe talk to Frank about making your account non moderated. Not my call.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            I wasn’t complaining. I was telling you that sometimes you may feel you are having to explain things to me that have already been explained when in reality this is not the case.

          • My2c

            Same happens with my comments (Sometimes they don’t get published at all).
            That makes me reluctant to join the discussions.
            Could it be that my contribution and opinion isn’t really appreciated here?

          • Bruce__H

            That’s too bad My2c because you have produced the best physical demonstration of the sorts of things that should be happening with Rossi’s equipment (but aren’t) that I have seen.

            I am talking about the 2 videos on this thread

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/12/industrial-heat-amends-answer-to-rossis-complaint/

          • My2c

            Thanks!
            But I can only take credit for putting up the links to the videos. The videos itself weren’t done by me.

            I like the idea to show with the help of some simple videos what certain numbers (e.g. those 6kg/hr steam flow) mean in reality.
            I think there are quite a number of people around which just throw out some numbers not knowing what they are talking about.
            I put also a link to a video showing a typical 20 000 cfm air blower in operation. Unfortunatley that comment got stuck somewhere in digital no man’s land.

  • Grégory

    Sorry for reposting this from below but I assume it must be quite hard for Engineer48 to see it otherwise:

    “Assuming I can temporarily handle such a flow (say for 1 min) with “out of the picture” extra gear, can I
    then take such a picture despite and average value on the whole period
    (say over days) way lower ?”

    Is that assumption far fetched in your view ? If so, why ?

    Thanks in advance.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Gregory,

      The flow numbers you can see are not measured flow numbers but are the target flow values programmed into the pumps. Plus the pumps have 3 coloured leds to indicate the state of the pump being:

      Green: everything is OK and the programmed flow is being achieved.

      Yellow: there may be a problem and please see this display.

      Red: Houston we have a problem.

      As you can see all the pumps are showing Green status.

      • Grégory

        For 1/30th of a second (rough estimation of camera shutter speed). Yeah, I got that. You OTOH clearly don’t get the question. Let’s try it another way:

        How do you go from “this picture prooves that for [camera shutter speed] COP was > 1 to “this picture prooves that COP was > 1 on average ? How are you sure than say 2 minutes after the shot the pump status didn’t change to red, say because some water tank hidden on the pictures had reached its limits ?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    (My question, this appears to have been answered. Question left for context of answers)

    How would analysis of this photo have anything to do with the Doral Plant? This is obviously not that Plant.This is apparently a photo of the Doral Plant: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/04/new-fulvio-fabiani-e-cat-photo/

    Central walkway, reactors along both sides of the container. Not the central arrangement shown here.

  • Bruce__H

    I would like to request of Engineer48 that he distinguish between his deductions/reasoning/guesswork that originate with him and information that he is conveying from others. It is difficult to carry on a debate if such distinctions are not made.

    • Ged

      Why single him out? Should this not be the case for everyone? I’ve had to push back on a deluge of baseless statements presented as fact but for which no facts corroborrate, and it really gets annoying after awhile.

      • Bruce__H

        Because he keeps hinting he has inside knowledge. It is hard to distinguish what he has been told by insiders he trusts and what is just his guesswork.

        • Steve Swatman

          Bruce, bruce, bruce, he has told you many times that he is contact with Mr Rossi and leonardo on a business basis, that he worked in the field and he appears to offer evidence for every deduction,reasoning and even guesswork.

          You either accept him for what he appears to be or you dont.

          if you require such distinctions, you would then require proof and you would then proof of the proof.

          • Bruce__H

            No. I can’t tell between things he is just coming up with as his original thoughts and things that are supposed to have been communicated to him as facts by insiders in a position to know. There is an important distinction.

          • Steve Swatman

            It would seem that important distinction is all yours, maybe if you pointed to specifics Engineer48 might give you personally some more details, at least that would that you giving his efforts the attention they deserve rather than than just throwing blankets statements and complaining about your comments not appearing. You know, because Engineer48 really seems to be putting in a awful lot of effort, compared to you or I.

            And I for one really appreciate his work, and demand nothing from him for his efforts.

          • TomR

            Well said Steve Swatman, if Bruce_H is not a troll he might be a lot happier if he frequented a different website.

          • Steve Swatman

            I consider some commentors to be like the people who bring their uncontrolled kids to the theater and eat chips from a noisy bag, talk all the way through the show and then complain because no one explained the story to them.

          • Bruce__H

            There is a basic misapprehension or lack or knowledge here. I am doing nothing other than is usually done is scientific discourse. I know because I am a scientist. I publish papers and review other peoples papers all the time. I have also served on editorial boards. The sorts of things I am asking are standard.

            In pure research we often investigate things whose basic existence is in doubt. Otherwise it wouldn’t be research. I am therefore used to being interested in, and working on with enthusiasm, things about which one might be properly skeptical. This is a positive thing, not a negative thing. The fact that it is sometimes perceived as negative here points to a malaise in the world LENR research.

  • Engineer48

    Hi My2c

    Pardon but the 1MW test on 28 Oct 2011 had 4 pumps that serviced all the reactors, with no individual reactor topping up pumps.

    But no there are no pictures of the main pumps but there are pictures of the individual BlueCat pumps and the 6 x Tiger topping up pumps.

    Neither of which could supply the total require flow but could supply a flow that was well above COP = 1 flow.

    Here are the 20kW BlueCat topping up pump and reactor water level sensor images.

    If you wish I can supply the appropriate 250kW Tiger reactor images.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Abd,

    Fail as the 2 x 1MW reactors were arranged like this.
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Gregory,

    The flow numbers you can see are not measured flow numbers but are the target flow values programmed into the pumps. Plus the pumps have 3 coloured leds to indicate the state of the pump being:

    Green: everything is OK and the programmed flow is being achieved.

    Yellow: there may be a problem and please see this display.

    Red: Houston we have a problem.

    As you can see all the pumps are showing Green status.

  • Ged

    No, the central arrangement is part of the same plant. Take a look http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e38c6ce4b0b6d75a4175a7/54e3ca09e4b0af154d1539a3/54e3ca39e4b015ce3b5f8201/1424215217471/ecat+MW1-USA+Andrea+checking.jpg?format=500w . You can see the side arrangement from this view.

    Meanwhile, take a look: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e38c6ce4b0b6d75a4175a7/54e3ca09e4b0af154d1539a3/54e3ca33e4b015ce3b5f81b7/1424215065920/ecat+MW1-USA+team+at+working.jpg?format=500w . You can see the central arrangement from this view (blocking view of the container doors).

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Yes, this “obscure group of venture capitalists” are spending millions on the best law firm and the best propaganda company in the world. Do you think these millions are coming from this small “obscure group of venture capitalists”. Roseland, you are simply naive, how old are you?

  • Ged

    The photos show it. The one from the central view with Rossi shows the steam pipe does not exit to the left in the image Engineer posted above, and instead bends away and runs along the side being fed by the small “perimeter” reactors (the flow is from those reactors, and then bending into the perpendicular steam pipe). Meanwhile, the arrow on the pipe is pointing to the right in the image posted above. So, given the pipes exit the container as we see in the outside view (not obstructing the doors, so coming out the side), and the pipe does not exit to the left of the view above, it must be exiting to the right of the view above in line with the marked direction of flow (which is also the correct height for the external view).

    So, not a guess, as I am able to reach the same conclusion with the photo evidence.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Roselands,

    Do you understand what billions of $$s of stranded assets do to a public energy company’s share price?
    .

    • roseland67

      48?

      Uhm, yeah,

      Read my posts on Discuss re: automotive internal combustion engines, battery powered cars,
      autonomous driving,
      (what do you think the Teemsters think about this).
      Talk about stranded assets, mercy.
      (Which, by the way, anyone anywhere can see everyday)
      and decentralized power distribution.

      LENR is just not ready otherwise you WOULD see Senators and Congressmen writing laws about why it can’t be done.
      IH, is a fly on an elephants rear in the world of political graft and corruption.
      Not one single person on this board ever even heard of them before Rossi got involved.
      Just ain’t gonna happen the way you suggest.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Roselands.

        If and I say if I can get the necessary standards and other safety certifications, which I believe can do, my E48 Black Box Lenr reactor will be made available to system integrators.
        .

  • Ged
  • Ged

    Why single him out? Should this not be the case for everyone? I’ve had to push back on a dearth of baseless statements for which no facts corroborrate, and it really gets annoying after awhile.

  • LarryJ

    Rossi stated recently that during the 1 year test he took the night shift and IH managed the plant during the day. I tried to find the reference but unfortunately RossiLiveCat.com has removed the link that allows a download of the entire comment history and only the last couple of weeks are now available. JONP is very difficult to search. Rossi has also made other comments that IH monitored the plant continuously. Regrets that I can’t search for them.

  • How are you calculating the Coefficient of Performance (COP) without stating the output and return Temperatures? What temperature was the the output set at? What was the return temperature? What type of heat exchanger? Once you know the flow rate of the water (or Propylene Glycole?) and the amount of electricity being used, calculating the COP can be accomplished. COP = Power Output/ Power Input.

    • Ged

      Temp out for the plant is reported by IH as averaging over 9 months at 102.8 C as water steam. Temp in was averaging around 68.7 C water. We don’t know any numbers for the customer side, and the heat exchangers have not been photo shared with us by anyone yet. Power consumption for the time was not reported by IH, but from the power bill Mats got his hands on awhile ago it was around 20 kWh/h. Unknown if that is a typical number or not as it is only one data point, so don’t read too much into it.

  • How are you calculating the Coefficient of Performance (COP) without stating the output and return Temperatures? What temperature was the the output set at? What was the return temperature? What type of heat exchanger? Once you know the flow rate of the water (or Propylene Glycole?) and the amount of electricity being used, calculating the COP can be accomplished. COP = Power Output/ Power Input.

    • Ged

      Temp out for the plant is reported by IH as averaging over 9 months at 102.8 C as water steam. Temp in was averaging around 68.7 C water. Average flow rate for that time was 33,558 kg/day. We don’t know any numbers for the customer side, and the heat exchangers have not been photo shared with us by anyone yet. Power consumption for the time was not reported by IH, but from the monthly power bill Mats got his hands on awhile ago it was around 20 kWh/h. Unknown if that is a typical number or not as it is only one data point, so don’t read too much into it.

  • Guru Khalsa

    Apparently i am not the only one whom likes a little drama in the story.

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax to LENR G 15 days ago:

    ‘Penon, seeing the counterclaim: “I’m outa here.”

    Fabiani “Me too!”

    Johnson:”Shit! Andrea, you told me this would be fine”

    Rossi:”I never said that. You lie.”‘

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Roseland, You are calling Jones Day “rummy’s”? “Ranked among the world’s most integrated law firms and best in client service”. I bet their bill does not reflect your disparaging remarks.

  • LarryJ

    IH built the 1 year test reactor and it’s core so I have assumed they would have other engineering resources besides Fabiani. How about the one whose name appears on IH’S patent application for the ecat. IH/Cherokee would surely have access to trusted engineering resources and we know they supplied support for the 1 year test.

    My original point was that IH are fully capable and have the resources to build 1MW ecat reactors and like Rossi they are probably doing so now. At this point they need to hustle and grab as much market share as they can. The patent war will run for years and will have no effect on industrialization of the ecat by Leonardo and IH.

  • Steve Swatman

    Bruce, bruce, bruce, he has told you many times that he is contact with Mr Rossi and leonardo on a business basis, that he worked in the field and he appears to offer evidence for every deduction,reasoning and even guesswork.

    You either accept him for what he appears to be or you dont.

    if you require such distinctions, you would then require proof and you would then proof of the proof.

  • Steve Swatman

    It would seem that important distinction is all yours, maybe if you pointed to specifics Engineer48 might give you personally some more details, at least that would that you giving his efforts the attention they deserve rather than than just throwing blankets statements and complaining about your comments not appearing. You know, because Engineer48 really seems to be putting in a awful lot of effort, compared to you or I.

    And I for one really appreciate his work, and demand nothing from him for his efforts.

    • TomR

      Well said Steve Swatman, if Bruce_H is not a troll he might be a lot happier if he frequented a different website.

      • Steve Swatman

        I consider some commentors to be like the people who bring their uncontrolled kids to the theater and eat chips from a noisy bag, talk all the way through the show and then complain because no one explained the story to them.

  • LarryJ

    IH’s contention that the plant was moved to avoid supervision is just a contention. Rossi contends it was moved because after 1 year IH failed to get operating permits which sounds a lot more real world to me. Rossi also contends that IH offered him cash to halt the test early, which if true, shows a deliberate effort by IH to put things on the back burner.

    IH’s claim of no excess power is also a hotly debated contention although your strong statement on that point implies no doubt and that your mind is already made up.

    Whether or not Fabiani was the only IH resource on site I don’t know. At this point you can believe Rossi or you can believe IH. Time will tell but someone here once quipped.

    The lineup of experts Rossi fooled has become embarrassingly long.

    That would appear to be not a contention.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Roseland, you seem to always be hedging your bet, get off the fence and read what E47 and friends are saying about Rossi tech on this site. And, if you cannot make up you mind, just be quiet and listen, we understand if you just can’t make up your mind, so please do not waste our time.

    • roseland67

      Bernie,
      Have not made any bets, not hedging anything, there is simply NOT enough valid, replicated data to make an informed decision.

      When new data becomes available, I will reassess.