Rossi v. IH — Final Penon Report Published in Court Documents (Among Many Others); “Plant Consistently Produced Energy that is at Least Six Times Greater than the Energy Consumed”

There have been a great number of new documents posted in the Rossi v. Industrial Heat case. Over the last day documents 194-207, along with many accompanying exhibits, have been added to the court docket, and they can all be read here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk (thanks again to Eric Walker for making them available). I have not had time to go through them all so far, but I thought it would be important to bring attention to the document that many people have been hoping to see, which is the final report of Fabio Penon — who was chosen as the expert responsible for validation (ERV).

Some of the document below has already been published in a previous exhibit, as the “Daily Valuation of the Energy Multiple”, but the first five pages are new.

Penon, who visited the site four times during the course of the test, writes in conclusion:

“Consequently the ERV certifies that for a period of 350 days, not consecutives, the temperature of the steam produced by the plant was greater than 100 C, and the plant consistently produced energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed by the Plant.”

“Definitely the guaranteed performances standards have been achieved for the test period”

http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/197-03-Exhibit-3.pdf

197-03 - Exhibit 3

I am sure there will be lots of analysis and discussion of this and the other documents in the court release, and I would hope we can keep the discussion about it on this thread to avoid going off-topic on others.

  • Leo Kaas

    This is fun, I was reading the plaintiffs motions for sanctions and now this document. Seems like things are heating up again. I hope there is more good news on the horizon.

    • Dr. Mike

      No wonder Rossi did not earlier release the EVR’s 197-03 document. The report is missing every detail that was thought to be needed by those reviewing the initial release of the data tables, including:
      1. Calibration methodology for all measurement equipment.
      2. Measement of the steam wetness (perhaps measuring the steam velocity).
      3. Diameter of the steam output pipe.
      4. Explanation of why a pressure meter was used that could only indicate a “0” reading.
      5. No indication of how it was determined that every module was outputting steam, rather than water.
      6. No indication of how the water flow was divided among the modules.

      Other obvious errors in the report include:
      1. Claims there were 115 modules, but details the listing of only 112 modules.
      2. Says water flow rate was measured in m3 when a flow rate should be volume per unit time or mass per unit time.
      3. The position of the water pump was not even shown in the diagrams.

      For the results of this test requiring almost all of Rossi’s time for one year and an $89M payment on the line, one would have thought that sufficient measurements would have been taken to verify that all of the water was being turned to steam (in each of the modules). In my opinion this is not a $89M report even if Rossi did meet his COP goal of 6. It is too bad Rossi did not put out a report of the first 3 months of operation of the reactor so that peer review would have permitted corrections of the deficiencies of the metrology on the reactor.

      • bachcole

        Hmmmm. Not good. I hope someone else has something more positive to say.

      • Omega Z

        Equipment calibration to be done by the manufacture before and after the test.

        It takes but a fraction of the energy to heat water from say 40`C to 99`C compared to the transition to 100`C. Steam dryness/wetness was not meant to matter. Only the energy required for the transition to 100`C.

        Diameter of the steam output pipe. In the pictures, it appeared to be around 10 inches in diameter. Also, condensation of the steam in the customer side would generate a slight vacuum that would keep pressure at normal of very close there of.

        The steam pipe went “UP” and over. Water doesn’t flow uphill.

        “No indication of how the water flow was divided among the modules.”

        Clearly visable in the pictures that can be obtained.

        I believe it is to easy to take things out of context when various information is currently not provided or not within the same document set. Also, I thought I read where Rossi has been asked to provide additional documents.

        On another note, It appears Darden “NEVER” wanted this test to take place at all putting up roadblocks and dragging his feet. What’s up with that…

        • Dr. Mike

          The issues that I mentioned above we’re all discussed when the test data was first released. This report does nothing to resolve any of the issues. The reactor’s COP can not be accurately calculated without knowing the wetness of the steam. I doubt we will ever see any more data on 1MW reactor unless Rossi is forced to reveal more information in the trial.
          As for Darden’s actions, I don’t have a clue what he was or is now thinking. Why didn’t Darden do a better job of specifying the metrology conditions for operating the reactor test?

          • SG

            Even if there was no phase change, there would be significant excess energy generated. The only hook IH has left is misplaced flowmeter instrument. And they haven’t shown any evidence yet that it was misplaced.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that there was most likely excess heat even with no phase change. (COP of a little over 5 if the water flow rate has been measured accurately and the water was really heated to 100C.) However, I’m not convinced the calibration of the flowmeter was checked prior to using it, and do not know what calibration was done on the sensor measuring temperature. I would have verified the calibration of the flowmeter at the intended water flow, verified the temperature sensor at 100C (boiling water) and measured the steam velocity in the output pipe to verify the flow rate indicated that all water was converted to steam.

          • SG

            Penon had the instruments (at least the flowmeter) calibrated by an external entity. Leonardo’s lawyer presented those calibrations to Murray during Murray’s deposition. Murray demurred.

          • There were multiple devices used to measure the temperature of the outflow/steam.

          • nietsnie

            EXACTLY! Although the results of the year-long test are insufficient to satisfy a scientist or engineer, due to bad planning for iron clad proof – the tests done are exactly what was called for in the contract. IH signed the contract which stipulated *how* results would be determined. It’s too late now to say it wants to use a different method to determine results.

          • Mike Rion

            Exactly on point.

        • IH?? I would say Rossi!

          The ERV Report is a farce.

          And look at the other exhibits.

          Rossi destroyed evidence! Hello?? Awake?

          • Vinney

            Why have too many sets of data.
            It provides reasons for lawyers to sift through more data and hike their fees.
            IH had their meters and Ross his meters, this is enough data.
            You use this additional datasets to check if the legal instruments are correct, and then you destroy them.
            You may keep ‘snippets’ for confirmation should it be required in court.
            Why isn’t IH using there own datasets to show the plant did not work.
            To specially setup a test of the flow meter to show its ‘flawed’ is suspicious. What do their own flow meter readings tell them.
            Is Rossi a genius at tricking multiple flow meters as well.

        • Mike Rion

          He wanted the IP to share with other collaborators, but he didn’t want Rossi, and he didn’t want to pay the 89M. He would have settled with him for something less, but then Rossi blew it all up by suing. I still think there will be an out of court settlement for tens of millions, before it gets to the jury.

      • Rene

        Finally, the ERV report.
        My points of interest are:
        1. Calibration – method described, but before/after calibration analysis was not reported. We need that.
        3. I wish there were more detail on the configuration and pipe diameters, but we all eyeballed it at around 8-10 inches.
        5. This concerns me because though water will not flow uphill unaided, the pump could move it up and over. So, since the output energy was not measured directly but is a derived number, which assumes the entirety of the water was converted to steam, this potential water slide could overstate the COP by a lot. My question is how much in-vaporized water would it take to reduce the 79 to 130 COP to below 6?
        O1. Module count. Clearly a mish mosh of different sized e-cats. He was flight testing different designs, but if the concern was more modules than expected, the COPs of 63 to 106 makes this a moot concern
        O2 I understand the concern of measuring in cubic meters, but the difference in the feed water volume between 58C and 79C is about 1%. It is not going to change the COP to any significant degree.

        • Dr. Mike

          You missed my point on O1 and O2. These both represent lack of attention to detail in a report that had $89M on the line. I expected a better report and better engineering in the reactor’s metrology. (Output pipe diameter included unknown amount of insulation.)

          • Rene

            I got your points, just did not think those particular ones (O1, O2) are particularly strong. My point is if we can apply error bars to the mistakes and determine they do not significantly shift the results, then so what. Yes, sloppy, no, not damning. I am, however, very concerned (as are you) about the points that *do* have sufficient ability to seriously skew results. Point 5 has that kind of impact. Did it happen? No idea, but it casts the ERV report in a bad light. I hope there is something to address that problem. The easiest would be for Rossi to send one of those e-cats (or a similar one) to an independent tester. There are several in this group who would do that.

      • Gerard McEk

        It surely is a disappointing report, it looks like it is smashend together in half a day and showing Dr. Ing. Penon can’t count properly (112115).
        He wasn’t properly payed obviously. Maybe IH refused to pay their share after they decided to quit with Andrea?

  • wpj

    Having read Bass’s deposition (207-48) it does seem that there wasn’t much going on in the JM side of things and he didn’t know much about it (his opening is, though, very good!)

    Interesting, though Rossi is asking Bass technical stuff which appears related to the Quark development (207-47).

  • Leonardo Corp of Florida is apparently not owned by Rossi but instead something called Florida Energy Trust.

    Leonardo Corp of New Hampshire (Rossi’s) was merged with Leonardo Corp of Florida.

    207-02

  • They told me for one year — Attorney,

    12 they told me for one year that they were in contact

    13 with the health care office of North Carolina to get

    14 those authorizations. Eventually we discovered that

    15 this was a lie because the health care office of

    16 North Carolina did never knew about any Industrial

    17 Heat and never had been informed that there was a

    18 plant to be put in operation. We have discovered it

    19 when the health care office went to Industrial Heat

    20 in Cherokee on Hargett Street because of some

    21 anonymous say that they were using radioactive

    22 something. And when they arrive there, they did not

    23 even know that existed a factory. And when JT

    24 Vaughn receive it there, JT Vaughn say to them no,

    25 the technology of Rossi is a bogus.

    207-02

    • wpj

      Interestingly, West says that it could never have operated there as there was not enough power.

      • Omega Z

        Must not have been much of a facility as I have 48 KW access in my home. which is more then Rossi’s plant was using.

        • wpj

          As below, West goes onto the power that MIGHT be needed, though they never got close to that.

          He also says that, after a lot of rust problems (that is now explained, Exhibit 5), things worked very well and steam was produced though one reactor was a constant problem. Rest of the problems were leaks.

          PS, your 48 is not 3 phase and neither is my 100 supply

      • SG

        Do you have 10m?

        • bachcole

          I was wondering about that. Perhaps Gordon Spicer would like to pay off my mortgage and I will give him 47 years of health wisdom at a one-on-one seminar for a month. I mean, you gotta have something to give to get something in return, right? (:->)

  • Contrary to the notion that Rossi might try his best to hide things at deposition in the mode of fraudster… he’s a regular chatterbox. IH counsel has to repeatedly beg him to shorten his answers and his own attorney keeps having to remind him to just answer the questions posed and not elaborate.

    He can’t wait to tell everyone how things went down. He’s an open book.

    And there WAS a relationship at the start of the test with Johnson Matthey. They were going to provide platinum sponge and buy the output (what that would be is still unclear). But Johnson Matthey pulled out for some reason. But it explains the name at least — JM Products. The Customer was Francesco Di Giovanni. Rossi ran all ops in the customer plant with some help from Bass and all/most of JMP’s finances ran thru Leonardo. So it’s not a fake customer. Nor is it an independent customer who can vouch for anything.

    • wpj

      Well West was fun to read; seems much more interested in fishing and hunting (Deer season….). Pity that he doesn’t know it’s Lazarus rather than Lazareth…… Don’t think the guy is too smart!

    • wpj

      Having done depositions before, it is a problem speaking out about what you know rather than what has been asked.

      • Omega Z

        It is like doing a poll.

        Do you believe in global warming?
        Do you believe in human caused global warming?
        Buy asking the right questions, you can paint your own story. Not necessarily the truth.

        The lawyers for the opposing team hates when you elaborate as it can totally destroy their narrative.

    • wpj

      Not quite on the JM front; it appears that they were willing to take back material that had been processed. This is standard industry practice for precious metal catalysts (just as with catalytic converters) and nothing special at all.

      Truth is that he only ever used a small amount (removed from some Pt impregnated filters that he bought).

      • The significance is that Rossi was in direct contact with Johnson Matthey and expected them to be a customer for the products that JMP produced.

        That didn’t wind up happening but there was a period when the test was being set up when Rossi could legitimately claim that Johnson Matthey was involved. IH had a fit on paper about that being a misrepresentation. In the light of the new evidence it looks more like Rossi exaggerated a possibility into a sure thing, which I would say is not such a big deal since he probably fully expected it to happen the way he was pitching it to IH..

        • wpj

          Similarly, he put on paper that JM was UK based but this was only ever word of mouth from Giovanni and never happened (OK, if that is the case he is not responsible, but it should never have been put to paper, especially in a legal document).

          • Yeah I don’t know what that seemingly irrelevant bit about UK ownership was all about. Maybe Di Giovanni has business concerns there. The entity that owns JMP is actually not Di Giovanni but Platinum American Trust or something like that. We don’t know much about that entity.

  • radvar

    194-1: ok, where did the heat go?

  • Rip Kirbyian

    If you have the solution to all energy problems why spending so much time and effort pretending that you have a customer?

    • Jas

      Do you think that the Ecat works? Or is this only about the test?
      Anyone who thinks the Ecat works is labled as Planet Rossi by Dewey and Rothwell and the others.

      • Mike Rion

        Dewey works for IH and Rothwell has a financial interest. In my opinion that makes their opinions against Rossi worthless.

  • georgehants

    Seven years and counting without any open definitive demonstration of his claims.
    There may just be either something wrong with Rossi or the system that encourages such secrecy against the needs of the World. I think.

  • wpj

    I have to say that, having read Rossi’s depositions, I am very disappointed and now understand some of the comments on another site.

    It really does look to be a totally fake set up on the JM side. He talks about Pt/graphene on the JM side (used for fuel cells) but only every bought a small amount of Pt and then switched to some Ni stuff. I really don’t see how a temperature of 100C could have been used to produce this material from Pt and industrial diamonds………..

    With removal of the pipes and heat exchangers from the JM side, this does not look very good at all especially when excess heat was measured during tests with a blank (no charged) reactor.

    • radvar

      Concur. Which takes me back to the question. Regardless of whether the “customer” was “real”, to what extent was Rossi contractually obliged to have a “real customer”? Where in the documents is that stated, one way or the other?

      If there was a contractual obligation to have a real customer, how much could the lack of evidence of a real customer hurt him? Seems like a lot.

      However, if there was no such contractual obligation, what impact would there be if there was obfuscation about the nature of the customer? I’m not suggesting that there would be no impact, however, it might not pertain directly to the issues in the case.

      • There was no contractual obligation to have a customer.

        It all just goes to who believed who about what and when. Industrial Heat feels misled and I can’t blame them. Rossi should have been upfront that while there was a real customer it would actually be him doing all the work and have been explicit about the financial arrangements between JMP, its owner and Leonardo.

        • SG

          I think Rossi was trying to “help” IH in his own weird way. It will not look good to the jury. But the remaining evidence in support of Rossi is overwhelming.

      • Mike Rion

        There was no contractual obligation for a customer. IH didn’t care. It was Rossi who wanted to sell the heat.

  • wpj

    216

    Looks like the judge has signed off the order about witness nobbling by IH

    • It was DENIED, as was IH’s call for sanctions… both because the court wants the parties to try harder to work out discovery problems with each other and because the proper procedure in any case is to take it up with the magistrate, not appeal directly to the judge for sanctions.

      So not a ruling in either motion on the merits.

      • Barbierir

        214-13 contains informations about previous tests in 2013, all signed by Penon

  • Rip Kirbyian

    I would pay a good sum of money to know what Hanno Essén, at the Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Sceptic society (with a known affection for publicly debunking fraudsters) think of the latest development when the scenario of fake customer seems to be confessed by Rossi. I also would want to know what Mats Lewan is thinking for the moment…

    • Mike Rion

      If you want to know what Mats thinks just read his lengthy post above. I seems very clear.

  • wpj

    These “heating strips” were suggested by various IH people, including their independent witness, as to why there was a temperature of 102-104C. There is no evidence that they were actually there.

  • Something that should give skeptics pause.

    Like a loooooooong pause.

    Rossi knew full well that the customer situation was what it was and then launched the lawsuit anyway knowing it would come out. When discovery and deposition time comes around he is not evasive at all. Tells everyone exactly what went down.

    Why would he do this?

    In the scenario where he’s just a fraud, why would he do this? Why would his alleged co-conspirators let him do this?

    You know that something isn’t right here. It nags at you. You know it doesn’t make sense so you just let it slide into the bucket of inexplicable things… the bucket that contains things like Rossi releasing his reactor to independent scientists for months long testing TWICE… and that the data says the plant was over-unity even with a partially filled pipe leading to the flow meter… and that IH states in now public documents that they had seen COP of 5 and 9 during their own tests (yeah, it’s in there, see if you can find it).

    • SG

      And we still don’t have any evidence that the pipe was only partially filled.

      • No, in fact my reading of some of the IH expert testimony hints that the flow meter was actually positioned below the inlet and would thus be full — based on how the Leonardo attorney was wording his questions (in the vein of don’t ask a question for which you don’t already know the answer).

        But he couldn’t get a straight answer. Lots of I don’t remember as I sit here today kind of responses.

        • SG

          It is almost as if the Leonardo attorney wanted Murray to say that it wasn’t below the inlet, so that he could hit him over the head with it later on during trial. Murray didn’t quite fall for it, but didn’t completely avoid the “trap” either. Or so it seems.

    • Ciaranjay

      Why would Steorn put their Orbo on sale knowing it was a fraud and did not work?
      That would never happen because it does not make sense.
      Or maybe normal average, honest people cannot imagine such a thing because we do not think in such a twisty way.

      • They made money.

        You must admit CJ that Rossi and company are not doing this for money. If that were the case they would have declared victory and hit Miami Beach after the $10M haul.

        Or spend a year on a night shift in a crate in a warehouse — if that’s your idea of heaven.

        • Ciaranjay

          I am not making specific accusations against Rossi, just a general comment about your point that fraudsters do things that do not make sense and are baffling to normal people. So I do not think your argument proves Rossi is, or is not, guilty of fraud. The problem is many guesses and theories about Rossi’s actions can be made.
          Likewise you say Rossi is not doing it for the money. I think Georgehants might disagree with you.
          Certainly a shot at $89million would be good motivation for desperate efforts.

          • I didn’t claim it proved anything. It’s just a factor to consider.

            Most fraud are for money and they cease either when caught, reached financial independence or they have to continue in order to avoid detection.

            This situation does not fit the usual patterns. If it is a fraud, it is a highly unusual one.

          • Rip Kirbyian

            The thinking of these two people interest me a lot in this situation but that does not exclude other factors do it?

          • georgehants

            Ciaranjay, I must point out that I have nothing against Rossi or anybody being fairly rewarded for their achievements, only the delay caused by our ridiculous system that allows excess greed to be more important then the benefits needed by society.
            Whoever is to blame for that.

          • Ciaranjay

            Fair enough. Rossi certainly does not want to donate his E-Cat to humanity otherwise he could have done that years ago.
            He certainly wants, and deserves, to be rewarded, but how much he wants I do not know.
            Who is to blame for excess greed and inequality, I guess all of us, till we find a way to change the system. Many have tried but as another George (Orwell) suggested with his book Animal Farm it is not going to be easy.

          • georgehants

            Ciaranjay, Wonderfully put.

          • Observer

            It will take resources to transform what Rossi has to what Society needs. Experience has taught Rossi to only depend on resources under his control.

    • Publius

      It’s called plausible deniability and can be a useful tool in deception. If you read the deposition transcripts, you can see Rossi trying to step back from the whole Johnson Matthey customer issue. He claims he “spoke” with people at Johnson Matthey and hoped to get something going with them, but couldn’t remember the people he spoke with. There is a lot of gray area Rossi can play with between Johnson Matthey as a customer and “approaching” Johnson Matthey as a potential customer. Proving the latter is difficult and Rossi is using this to his advantage. I know people like Rossi and you can never pin them down to the truth because they are always moving, squirming and creating diversions. Rossi is also using the “language barrier” to his advantage to conveniently claim he misunderstood or misspoke, whatever the case may be.

      • He also said his attorneys would have the names of the people with which he was communicating at Johnson Matthey.

        I ask you this… if you think he would lie about those Johnson Matthey discussions, why wouldn’t he lie about the rest of the customer set up?

      • Publius I like the subtle way you steered the narrative and focus away from the punchline –

        The punchline was: “We replaced reactor 2 with one of the remaining three that we built and started operating again on Tuesday, 9/17. We operated for three days, again showing good results based on our (caveated) measurements. The calculated COP ration was between 5 and 9. “

      • radvar

        AndrianAshfield’s post above shows deposition text establishing that a customer was not required by the contract. So any obfuscation around the customer is secondary to the main issues of the case.

        • Obvious

          The Customer story is actually very important. Apparently all of the original, real data collected from the Plant has been destroyed. So then the veracity of the Plant operator will be looked at to see if the highly distilled information, purportedly derived from the now destroyed original data, can be reasonably believed to be true.

          • Vinney

            Irrelevant, there is mountains of data with any experiment, it’s to double check the main instruments.
            Once confirmed, it is routinely destroyed. But if IH has any ‘REAL’ data, they would be advised to present it now. As it seems, they have wasted 3 years of Leonardo Corporations time in which they could havenow been on the market with another partner with conservative market worth estimations of in excess of $1 billion.

          • Obvious

            What will the Court double check with now?
            My dog ate my homework is not going to look good.

          • You know technically those destroyed emails probably live on somewhere on an ISP server, depending on the services used.

          • Vinney

            The deposition cannot ask for the ‘sueing’ parties collected data.
            They can only use their own data.
            And, if you got no data in ‘ Industrial agreements’ you are at an enormous disadvantage, in the past there have been enormous payouts in compensation.
            Even, non-performing contracts have been paid out.
            Governments typically succumb to the latter scenario quite regularly.
            In Industrial agreements you have to put the smartest people on the task in real-time.

          • artefact

            On JONP:

            “Andrea Rossi March 27, 2017 at 7:24 AM
            Jordan:
            This morning we will make a simulation of large scale production in the factory of Miami, Florida. We are resolving problems.
            Warm Regards, A.R.

            Frank Acland March 27, 2017 at 8:41 AM
            Dear Andrea,
            You mention making a simulation of large scale production of QuarkXes.
            Is this a software simulation, or actually combining QuarkXes in an industrial-size unit?
            Thank you, Frank Acland

            Andrea Rossi March 27, 2017 at 9:49 AM
            Frank Acland:
            We are working in this very moment on both issues.
            Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Would someone possibly make a sociogram on who is attacking who on LENR Forum? I think it might be fun to look at some day.

    • Q1 – Have you been able to contact the Uppsala doc student about the QuarkX paper? We’d at least like to know if he was actually there and if he participated in taking measurements.

      Q2 – Now that so much that was previously hidden has become public is anybody showing a new willingness to talk to you — even on background? Does what you know and we don’t make you more or less likely to believe the E-Cat is an over-unity technology?

      • 1. No contact yet.
        2. No big change. Specifically, IH, that never contacted me, or even avoided me not responding to my emails, still hasn’t contacted me, while I know its people have reached out to many others with various proposals, seemingly with underlying messages.
        I find the current developments very interesting and I’m looking forward to see how it all plays out. My expectation is that lots will have happened at the end of this year.
        And yes, I still have many reasons to think the E-Cat is real. None of the objections brought up by IH et al in the ongoing lawsuit seem impressive to me. Fairly vague hypotheses, not very convincing. But I’m curious to see if they can produce anything better.

        • Frank Acland

          From everything I have learned, including from recent information, it seems the e-cat works very well indeed. I think Andrea Rossi has made some exceptional progress with his impossible invention. I expect that the experimental data presented in the recent Gullstrom/Rossi paper will be confirmed if Rossi does his long-promised presentation.

          • Vinney

            I think that was the QuarkX demonstration, until after the court case. I think it will be confirmed Gullstrom was present, so the results credible.

          • Vinney

            Also with COP results of 5 to 9, from their own ( manufactured) reactors, they are also indirectly admiting that the know-how (IP) was substantially transferred.
            Being greedy corporate types, they would have run them at least 100x longer than any chemical mixture of the same size.
            Remember, most LENR researchers are trying to nudge (reliably) a COP of 3 after decades of experimentation.
            There are hundreds of companies around the world that would lay down $100 million for this know-how. The Court will consider this when calculating ‘compensation’ for Leonardo Corporation.
            IH has already the technology to make it billions, and the share Woodford purchased of it, valued it at $1 billion two years ago ($50 million bought 5%).

          • bachcole

            This is very reassuring, but I am afraid that I won’t be getting excited until there is a convincing presentation.

          • Between you, Mats and Alan Smith over on LENR Forum it seems that there must be convincing evidence circulating in a small group regarding the QuarkX.

            Fingers crossed.

          • Frank Acland

            Andrea Rossi
            March 25, 2017 at 7:48 AM
            JPR:
            Got a sight to the experiment earlier this mornng, we are doing well. We are making also calorimetric measurements, that basically confirm the numbers obtained with the direct masurements made by the Wien’s and Boltzmann’s equations.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            If the presentation does happen, I think it would much better to use calorimetry, as described above, than the techniques described in the Gullstrom/Rossi article. Trying to explain the Wien and Boltzmann equations to an audience who would mostly be non-experts would be very tough going.

          • Multiple types of measurement are key. Multiple instruments. If they want to convince anybody they should have at least 2 and preferably 3 ways of measuring energy out (and also energy in, but that’s less of a concern here since it’s so small).

    • sam

      I think Rossi should have IH Fanboy on his legal team.
      He is knowlagable and can take
      a blow and give one back at the
      same time.
      Him and Jed Rothwell have some
      good battles on Lenr forum.

  • And how does having $89M instead of $10M change your quality of life?

    Answer: it doesn’t. So you don’t live in a warehouse for a year and risk your freedom for nothing.

  • Ged

    That is a lot of speculative baiting. A healthy imagination at least.

    We have quite a lot of photo evidence from during operation (and more to come), so one cannot claim there is “no evidence” for one’s latest flavor of imagination when there is clear contrary hard evidence, which we’ve got.

  • Ged

    If you recall the science of mass flow, you would realize heating strips would do nothing to the sensors unless they were in contact immediately upstream and only if the sensors are a surface skin type and not directly sampling the flow. Also, I encourage you to do the math on power such would need to consume to affect the mass flow’s temp, since we know the power budget of the facility from the Utility. Give it a try, see what science thinks of this idea ;).

  • BillH

    179-7 exhibit 7, that looks like a fun day in court, only info I found relevant was IPH paid out the $10M to Rossi, under instruction from it’s parent company managed by Tom Darden. Almost all other questions of fact were referred back to IH.

    • Vinney

      Rossi would not have liked this, an IP acquisition shell, also formed by Darden, paying his first installment.
      His agreement was originally with Cherokee, then it was IH, and then finally to get paid by IPH.
      And you detractors insist Rossi is devious. Darden is a Corporate weasel.
      Little wonder he says very little publicly, because if he did, he would have to retract every second word in short order.

    • Vinney

      So, can we now ascertain whether the $10 million was Darden’s own money.( as asserted by DW) or investors money.

  • Do you assert that most frauds are committed for some other reason than money?

    • Bruce__H

      No

  • clovis ray

    Hi,guys just like to say in defence of Dr.Rossi it must be excruciating to have your life’s work in front of you and not be able to Show it to the world ,but it just wasn’t good enough, now it is.
    If he could get the jackles out of his way he could make some progress.
    And if I know Dr.Rossi he is not resting, as a multitasker and workaholic there’s lot’s of problems to be worked out.

  • Omega Z

    NO!

    It does not sound at all like Rossi.

    • Kekker

      It does though… Especially that random capitalization on Court which is something Rossi does on certain words for some reason (court being among them), in addition to the regular Italenglish and the formatting of the message. Look at the rossilivecat site, it’s almost embarrassing…

  • Mike Rion

    The energy lobby would just as soon see LENR fail, at least until the industry can get control of it.

  • Steve Swatman

    Sounds like someone wrote out their comment (maybe in Italian) and then used google to translate to English.

  • I’m a little stunned by the customer stuff.

    Rossi told IH up front that he’d be directing the customer operations for the first year for free. It’s all there in black and white.

    So IH going ballistic about the customer side seems now very disingenuous to me. Sure Johnson Matthey bailed as the ultimate consumer of JMP’s products, but Rossi was really back there drying first platinum sponge and then graphene with the heat provided by the 1 MW plant — for a real customer, Di Giovanni’s company that was trying to productize post-processed catalyst through some sort of experimental engineering.

    Rossi told them he’d be back there directing ops. The activities of JMP were protected trade secrets and legit. Rossi enlisted Fabiani and West to help with whatever control systems were needed back there but kept them at arms length as far as what was actually going on. Rossi built a butterfly valve/heat exchanger behind the wall so he could regulate the heat the process back there as needed.

    I know the current consensus is that the customer was a farce, but the more I look at it and the information available in the docs, the more it looks completely legit and as advertised to IH. The customer was a company created at the direction of an individual and Rossi ran the operations at the request of that individual. Rossi protected JMP’s trade secrets at the request of that individual.

    The letdown is that there weren’t a team of professional engineers from an established company back there that could vouch for the heat delivered and produce data to support it. But that’s our letdown. As far as what IH was told they have no good reason to be spitting nails about the customer side of this GPT equation.

    • Bruce__H

      “Sure Johnson Matthey bailed as the ultimate consumer of JMP’s products…”

      Why do you think this? IH’s contention is that Johnson Matthey never was a customer of JM Products. In their motion for summary judgement (document 207), IH says…

      “The only connections between J.M. Products and Johnson Matthey were that Rossi, on behalf of J.M. Products, once asked for a price quote from Johnson Matthey for the purchase of platinum sponge, and then later bought some filters from a Johnson Matthey subsidiary in the United States (to mine them for platinum sponge contained therein). See Ex. 2 at 201:14-203:11; Ex. 17 at 215:14-218:14, 221:8-223:16; Ex. 36 at 104:3-112:17; Ex. 37 at 125:8-127:25; Ex. 44 (Leonardo Corp. Dep. Ex. 17).”

      It doesn’t sound like Matthey Johnson “bailed”. It sounds like they never knew anything about any manufacturing undertaken at the Doral site.

      Does this change your opinion at all?

      • Agreed Johnson Matthey was never a customer. But based on Rossi’s testimony he was in discussions with them and Plan A was to sell derivatives of Johnson Matthey platinum sponge back to them.

        For unknown reasons the deal fell apart. But JMP pressed on with their derivatives experimentation switching to graphene at some point.

        I suppose IH doesn’t believe that Rossi was ever talking with Johnson Matthey, but he testified to that effect and said his attorney could provide the names of the people he was talking to. If that’s not true, then he perjured himself for no particular reason.

        • I wonder if Rossi possibly had invented some economically favourable process regarding the platinum sponges, and if the steep price fall of platinum during the initial period of the 1MW trial can have had an influence on the convenience of the process. That could be the simple reason for changing process.
          http://www.macrotrends.net/2540/platinum-prices-historical-chart-data

          • Yes, I can see that.

            Rossi also testified that the experiments with the platinum sponge were not as successful as they had hoped.

    • SD

      “Rossi told IH up front that he’d be directing the customer operations for the first year for free. It’s all there in black and white.”

      That’s what Rossi claims in his deposition. But is it true?

      I’ve seen two e-mails that are connected to that claim. I’ll quote them both up to the relevant part.

      E-MAIL #1:

      “I have completed the organization of my plan to put the 1 MW in operation. I confirm all I already said: we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $ /day to rent the 1 MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami, produce catalyzers that he sells; I will direct the operation of the plant for the first year”

      —-

      So, a customer will rent the 1MW plant, Rossi will direct the operation of the plant.

      How is Rossi not referring to the 1MW plant the second time he uses the word “plant”?

      EMAIL #2

      this email is for to confirm what we agreed upon during the meeting of June 17th in the factory of Industrial Heat in Raleigh.

      Preliminary considerations:

      1- in August 2013, according with our License Agreement of October 26th 2012, Leonardo Corporation delivered the 1 MW plant as it was when has been tested in Ferrara on April 30 and May 1 2013

      2- since August 2013 it has benn Impossible to communicate to us the where to install and make operative the plant

      Said this, to make operative the plant and pursuant to the Section 3.1, 3(c) and Section 5 of the same License Agreement, Leonardo Corporation has found this solution:

      a- a Customer has been found who will rent the 1 MW plant to use it as a dryer for his chemical additives and catalyzers

      b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida ( USA)

      c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $ /day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate

      d- the direction of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant

      ——

      Again, a customer will rent the plant, install the plant in his factory, pay a rental fee once the plant operates, and Rossi will direct the plant.

      Rossi uses the word plant 10 times in this quote, and the first 8 times it is obvious that he is talking about the 1MW plant. How on earth would it be that he would be talking about any other plant when he says he will direct the “plant”?

      • And now I feel lazy. Thanks, SD!

        • SD

          Thanks for acknowledging my research!

          • Man, they really have drunk the Kool Aid over on LENR Forum. They can’t even evaluate a simple thing like this properly.

          • SD

            I’m actually agreeing with the people on LENR forum on this specific point (i.e. Rossi talking about the e-cat and not JMP in those e-mails). Do you not agree?

          • Seriously? It’s obvious he’s talking about the customer plant in spots.

            Well I suppose it is ambiguous, I’ll give you that much. EDITED

          • So let me dive a little deeper here. I suppose my interpretation comes from the last two lines where the $1000 / day is followed by I’ll direct the plant for a year for free. Those seem inconsistent to me unless Rossi is referring to the customer piece. But I do agree that it’s ambiguous.

            Which perhaps is the crux of the problem in this regard. Rossi thought he had told IH what was happening and IH read it another way.

          • SD

            Yes I’m disagreeing with you on this.

            The $1000/day in EMAIL #2 is referring to the rental of the 1MW plant, don’t you agree?

            If you don’t agree, look at e-mail 1: “we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $ /day to rent the 1 MW plant”

            So the last two lines that you refer from email #2 are:

            “c- the Customer will pay 1,000 $ /day of rental fee starting from when the plant will be declared from me ready to operate

            d- the direction of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant”

            In c, Rossi is talking about the 1MW plant as I demonstrated above. Actually he talks about the plant multiple times even before that and it is clearly the 1MW plant each time.

            Then in d, he uses the same word “plant”; how could it be a different plant than the 1MW plant?

            IMO, Rossi is just saying that JMP won’t have to pay Rossi on top of the $1000/day plant rental fee.

          • I accept your interpretation, with the caveat that it remains fairly ambiguous. I overstated the case in my OP.

          • SG

            b- the Customer will install the plant in a factory of his in Florida ( USA)

            d- the direction of the plant will be made by Andrea Rossi, for free, for the first 350 days of operation of the plant

            That’s what makes it abiguous. The term “plant” is being used to refer to both the customer plant and the 1 MW plant. Maybe that was by design, but it is ambiguous.

          • Brent Buckner

            I read all three of those uses of “plant” to refer to the 1MW plant.

          • SG

            So the “customer” was to install the 1 MW plant? That doesn’t fit the context either, or make much sense.

          • SD

            In the other e-mail, Rossi writes something similar “we have a Customer who pays 1,000 $ /day to rent the 1 MW plant, put it in his factory in Miami,”

            Here it is even clearer that “it” is the 1MW plant.

            I think we can also agree that the customer is not the one that’s “putting” the 1MW plant in the factory or literally “installing” it themselves. But in both cases I interpret it as Rossi talking about the 1MW plant.

          • SG

            I think you might be stretching the word “install” beyond its meaning. I think the word “plant” is used in some cases to refer to the 1 MW plant and in some cases to refer to the “customer” plant. If it consoles you at all, I think the ambiguity was intentional.

          • Brent Buckner

            I read it much as I might write: “I will install central airconditioning” when I would have someone else doing the work.

          • Mike Rion

            I think it is still unclear. It still seems that at least part of the time he is referring to the customer’s plant.

  • BillH

    Here’s my bottom line. Penon was barely there for the duration of the test, some reports say only 4 days. Penon should have been on site at least as much as AR. His reliability and signature on any test document is highly dubious. In the end the judge will have to decide how much of Penons’ testimony can be relied upon. Let’s wait and see.

    • It all comes down to the reliability of the automatically recorded data. Penon attended in person four times to spot check the sealed instruments and verify that recorded data matched the data that Rossi and Fabiani were providing with their manual readings.

      IH is now asserting essentially that all of the data was fabricated, which is pretty intense considering that they agreed to have Penon be their ERV and paid him for the first three interim reports.

      • BillH

        Having not read all of the new documents can anyone tell me of a named person, apart from AR that was there for the duration of the testing? That person would surely be a key witness.

        • Well nobody was there for every second of every day. Rossi was there daily over the night shift which overlapped with the day shift manned by Fabiani and West (who was off about 1/4 of the time). Bass was also there but only occasionally and only on the JMP side.

          So I guess the best answer to your question is Fulvio Fabiani, nominally an employee of IH but also a Rossi compatriot. He is indeed a key witness in the case and his deposition is available in the court docs.

          • sam

            AR said they had security guards there.
            I wonder if A.R. said much to them when he got lonely through the night.

          • Bob K

            LENR G Can you recall what document Fulvio’s testimony is on? I have limited time , but would like to read his deposition. Thanks, Bob

          • 207-56

          • BillH

            I didn’t get much out of Fluvio’s deposition, other than he handed over some information at the end of the test but then went on to destroy all data and email communication, reportedly as instructed by IH. He was supposed to write a final report but didn’t do this because he wasn’t offered payment, and conveniently now he can’t do it because he’s destroyed all the data, reducing the probability he would ever get paid to zero. The use of an interpreter “to avoid confusion” seems to only have added to it, as he communicated perfectly well in English while talking to IH representatives.

          • I got the about same out of it. Seems we’d all be in a better place if IH just paid FF like they were supposed to.

            There are about a billion more questions that could be asked of FF but were not for some reason. How about getting him under oath about the amazing stuff he supposedly saw that Mats Lewan reported? How about asking him if he ever saw steam? How about going into the details of his control code and entering it into evidence? That alone could probably tell us how much water was moving thru the system and what temperatures it reached. Can’t fool mother nature.

    • Steve Swatman

      So long as both sides accepted penons instruments and where he placed them, he didnt need to be there unless an instrument failed. How long or how many days he spent on site isnt really relevant on an automated data retrieval system

  • You would not stay five years in a warehouse for $100M if you already had $10M.

  • Obvious

    Before the April warehouse visit is what I read somewhere.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    I don’t find the depositions really interesting, the most interesting read at this moment is the 18-month businessplan of Industrial Heat. It lists all the investments of IH and gives a good history of IH. That history looks like they did their diligence. An other interesting note was that 15 million of the invested 50 million in IH, will go back to the earlier investors(with the exception of Tom Darden).

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzKtdce19-wyeFZCLUt3WEoxUkU

  • Omega Z

    From the Lugano test-

    The 1st reactor failed. Rossi continued the setup with a 2nd of 3 reactors shipped to the professors. IH personel visited 5 times during the test. Slightly elevated neutron levels were detected within 50 cm -//- 19.685 inches range of the reactor, but within 1 standard deviation of background levels so do not appear to be dangerous.

    • Vinney

      Yes! We remember this, with a mighty demonstration of the immense power of the E-cat, the Professors would been left speechless.
      Temperatures in excess of 1500 C for hours on a tiny input power, totally melting cylinder and core.
      It was like a ‘ controlled’ destruction test of the reactor.
      But to Physics professors, a demonstration of the amount and longevity of power that can eventually be harnessed.
      That’s why they didn’t have to be asked twice for any subsequent test.
      This test was probably more impressive than the successful tests to the test team.
      Yes! Rossi is a show-off.

      • Obvious

        No, it just cracked.

  • Vinney

    My question is, did Rossi have access to the data log that Penon was collecting.
    If not, then these measurements were ‘unknown’ to Rossi.
    How can he manipulate figures he had no visuals on.
    These figures would be ‘ independent ‘ of his own temperature gauges and flow meters. Furthermore, the logs would even highlight ‘tamper’ events, jeopardising his long-term test.
    These logs cannot be manipulated after collection.
    This makes the data fool-proof.

    • BillH

      More importantly, did Penon have access to his own data at all times, since he wasn’t on site very often how did he collect it, was it stored in the meter or was it logged on a laptop perhaps, and how did he access that logged data from so far away, did he have a permanent datalink connection over the internet perhaps? All this is unclear to me.

  • We’re all dealing with information overload. Let’s not compound the problem by chasing ghosts for which we have no real info. Lots of under-oath testimony that needs to be analyzed.

  • Brent Buckner

    As of February 11 2017 none of those three plants had been delivered, per http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/10/26/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/#comment-3150033684

  • BillH

    Document 215-2 Exhibit B, contains many of the discussion regarding heat dissipation that have been discussed here. The conclusions arrived at seem pretty convincing i.e. the heat energy output could not have been dissipated effectively from the JML side of the plant.

    • Ged

      All it takes is airflow at about 1,800 CFM through an air cooled heat exchanger (which that black thing on the JMP side looks exactly like, with an air duct and everything) and out that ceiling vent at the speed of a moderate breeze to get rid of all 1 MW at ~100C air temp (faster cfm, lower air temp). So if there isn’t an air cooled heat exchanger, there is a problem (so this is something critical to look for to evaluate the claims), unless there is another means we are unaware of. Have to have a lot faster CFM if the small space of the front window was used, but I have seen no evidence of any venting out a window by that method (you would see the heat exchanger).

      • Stephen

        One interesting comparison might be to see what kind of fluid cooling set up is used for a 1MW data center or something similar.

        Although if the process in the customer side is endothermic I would expect a) the amount of thermal heat to be dissipated to be less than 1MW depending on the efficiency of the process. b) as much of the thermal heat as possible to be used for that process itself by efficient insulation etc. c) since the heat from the ECat is doing work then the wasted heat should to be lower grade heat maybe at a lower temperature but if sufficient overall capacity to account for the waste.

        Either this would be released as hot gasses maybe at 60 degrees or so Or Perhaps liquid water cooling circuit at 60 degrees or if phase change is required to increase the capacity may be another fluid such as ethanol or something.

        There is a picture somewhere of pipes going up a back wall in the warehouse I wonder if those are the ones going to the second floor?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As far as I remember, the contract required a COP of >= 6 for full payment or 4 for partial payment. This corresponds to an average power of 80-120 kW (input was 20) – still quite a lot, but probably manageable in a building of that size.

      • BillH

        From the data given the guy calculated the average output at over 700KW for the duration of the test, so unless this is wrong…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          IH needs only to demonstrate that the COP was below the required range. Therefore, the “heat dissipation argument” is void, except that they can show that 80-120 kW average power would have been impossible to handle.

          Critical are mainly the flow rate and the amount of steam. Of course, with significantly less flow and only little steam the COP could have been lower than 4-6. It could even have been lower than 1. However, I am not sure if a “could” or “might” would be sufficient from a legal point of view.

    • Mylan

      I just quickly read through half of Mr. Smith’s report, and already saw a significant error. He complains that the flow is given in multiples of 1000 kg, and that he had never seen this before in his career, trying to question the credibility of Penon.
      But this means that he actually did not read the report carefully, which is very short anyway. Penon writes that the water meter measures in m3 without decimals. Therefore, it has to be multiples of 1000 kg.
      I’m not happy with the quality of the Penon report, but Mr. Smith’s report is clearly not better.

      • BillH

        A water meter that only measures in thousands of Kg, doesn’t that mean anything below 1000 Kg would actually read as 0. I would read that as the meter only reads Kg and not fractions of Kgs i.e. it might read 27,123 Kg, I see no reason to record this as 27,000 Kg that’s just extra work using a rounding function.

        • Mylan

          Right, anything below 1000 kg would read zero. Because the meter reads m3 or multiples of 1000 kg of water. No need to round. Penon was very clear on that in the report.

          • Obvious

            Where is the cumulative m^3 count? The water meter doesn’t report in 36s and 27s, or whatever, and then reset each day.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, one would expect to see from time to time a “37” or a “35”. Did that flow meter have a reset button? By resetting the meter once a day these rounding errors could be avoided.

          • Mylan

            That is a valid point.

          • BillH

            That would require manual intervention, every day, and would be open to errors in timing, and who would be responsible for doing it, Penon who was almost never there, or Rossi?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Another idea: According to 215-03, PDF page 222, the flow meter was capable of displaying fractions of a m^3 (provided that the witness is talking about the ‘original’ model). What if the cumulated amount was registered in full (1L-) resolution and only the difference to the previous reading has been rounded? Maybe that way you could get as well consistent results. Certainly, this is again only speculation, but before forming a fixed opinion on such an important detail it might be advisable to consider all possibilities.

          • Obvious

            The meter counter is sort of like an odometer. Whatever total it shows should be at least the minimum total reported. There will be no reset. The main difference from a typical car odometer is that it is counting 1000s, and there are at least 2 extra dials for counting 100s and 10s, etc. One of these dials is where a reed switch or similar can go to report electrically the incremental count. The factory default is 1 pulse per 100 L/kg.

    • Mylan

      Similar to the flow-topic, Mr. Smith complains about the 0.0 bar pressure. While I also think that the Penon report should be more detailed, it seems detailed enough in this point. Penon mentions at one point that “The values refer to the atmospheric pressure.” Accordingly, it makes sense that the pressure is given in bar gauge. While it would have been nice to see this written in the spreadsheet clearly, it is certainly not necessary. Smith writes, Penon should have written “barg”. Well, Penon did not write “bara” or “bar abs” either. Bar can be both a relative and absolute pressure.
      I don’t know how it is elsewhere in the world, but where I live pressures on tire pumps are given in “bar”, but it actually means “bar gauge”.

    • Josh G

      Yes, but you should read document 215, which is a motion to strike the expert testimony of both Smith and Murray. It sounds compelling, but I don’t know the de facto legal standard. But logically their argument about that specific point makes sense to me:

      “Moreover, Mr. Smith’s last opinion is based upon his “process of elimination” relating to potential means by which heat could be dispersed from the Doral facility. Amazingly, while applying his “process of elimination,” Mr. Smith refused to consider alternative means of heat dispersion such as a heat exchanger based solely upon his believe that a heat exchanger was not used. (Smith Trans. 182: 17 to 185:2). Mr. Smith’s failure to even consider the possibility of the existence of a heat exchanger renders his conclusion unreliable.”

      Another problem I have is with Murray’s contention that “there is no logical reason why the COP should be changing inversely to the amount of power inputted…”

      Well, actually there is: if the COP is variable, then the relationship will be inverse: less power in, more power out = higher COP. Duh. You might say it’s impossible, fine. But it’s not illogical.

      • BillH

        Well you will notice when a reactor was taken off-line and the output reduced to 75% or 750KW that the mass flow rate was also reduced from 36000 to 27000Kg,
        this makes perfect sense since there is no water being pumped through one reactor, the one that is turned off. All things being equal though you wouldn’t expect the COP to go up, same reactors, same flow rate, same power input( per working reactor), I’d expect the COP to be exactly the same. Unless you know different?

        • Josh G

          All things being equal, I agree. But if the COP goes up then, logically, you would expect an inverse relationship. All I’m saying is that, contrary to Murray, there does exist a logical reason for the inverse relationship, even if that is not what is actually happening.

          • Omega Z

            In the deposition, it was clear that Murray didn’t fully grasp the COP in relationship to LENR. His train of thought is more conventional as in COP related to Heat Pumps etc,etc…

            I also totally disagree with his heat assessment. I’ve worked around extreme heat and he’s wrong. He even implied part of the facility could have reached 100`C. Yeah Right. If the building was contained within a sealed vacuum. Heat is a beast that can’t wait to escape. I also don’t care for his so called conservative calculations.

          • Obvious

            Which is why Murray modelled 10% of 1MWd. That 10% that ultimately escapes the system, while 90% does something… endothermically absorbed by sponges or whatever.

        • Observer

          Could it be the Reactor that was brought down for repair was not performing as well as the other three?

          • wpj

            West states that they had continual problems with one of the reactors but, other than that one, the major problems were with leaks (one they had resolved the rust problem).

          • BillH

            Not performing as well as the other 3? i.e. reducing the overall COP?
            Then how by turning it off, not performing at all, and cutting off the water to that reactor can the COP go up. Even considering that the overall output was reduced to 750KW. This is the equivalent of saying we’ll run 4 reactors, see which one is performing the best then shut the other 3 down because this will make our figures look better, even though we only supply 25% of the output we said we would.

          • Josh G

            It appears to me from Murray’s testimony that he was brought on board in May/June 2015 only after they had gotten the Woodford investment and after the 1MW test started. He was responsible, among other things, for assembling the engineering team. They were laid off around Sept. 2016, so they were paying nearly $1million/year for about a year and a half. Until then, it seems that Dameron was their only staff person with real engineering expertise, and Murray does not seem very impressed with Dameron’s skills.

            We can only speculate as to why they waited so long to assemble a real engineering team. Perhaps they relied on Rossi and the people working for him.

            What I find curious is why they did not move that engineering team over to their new R&D venture headed by La Gatta. Was Murray and his team brought on only for the task of testing various LENR technologies that IH had taken an interest in? So it would seem.

    • Vinney

      One point overlooked by this blog but pertains to overall heat created by the plant (not JMP side), is you cannot compare the heat of an e- cat plant to a normal gas or liquid fuel boiler.
      It’s even different to an electric boiler.
      The reason is there are 112 elements (each insulated) , and many water pumps. Compared to an electric assembly, there is a much greater surface area of heating element in contact with water, as opposed surface area of tank (electric heater) exposed to air.
      To test the difference in waste heat, you would have to construct a 112 element, 112 cell electric heater to provide 1 MW heat from water and this type of appliance does not exist on the market.
      Obviously a gas fired boiler would create a lot more waste heat (the combustion of the gas in same environment, with the toxic fumes flued).. A diesel fired boiler significantly more waste heat, because of its lower efficiency and the mass of the heated combustion chamber.
      So when these so called ‘ experts’ ‘say they have experienced 500kW or 1MW boilers, they are talking about the common later type, not anything that approaches the thermal efficiency of this ‘bespoke’ hand-made E-cat plant.

  • Josh G

    Doesn’t seem like anybody has taken much notice of Murray’s deposition where he basically says that IH tried and failed to substantiate the claims of several LENR researchers in addition to Rossi. I don’t remember exactly, but I do remember Mizuno and Miley were mentioned as no-go’s. He mentioned also Cravens and Letts. I think he said Cravens was no-go but they were still working with Letts. Apparently every LENR technology IH has investigated has turned up bupkis.

    • Omega Z

      You can bet that if you have COP=1.3, Someone who does not believe this possible will find this in error. Consiously or Not…

      Part of this is just human nature.

    • Obvious

      Rossi once claimed on JoNP that he was testing all LENR patents. If I remember correctly, this was in Raliegh, NC, with IH.
      Brian Ahern was one that he mentioned that did work.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Even if so, it seems that Defendants failed to provide corresponding documentation. See the article I have been pointing to below:

      »Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, an expert report must contain a “complete statement” of all the expert’s opinions, the bases for each opinion, as well as the data or other information considered in forming the opinion. […] Parties are also under a duty to supplement expert reports if they learn that the report is incomplete or incorrect in some material respect. […] It is important that an expert disclose all testing documentation when submitting his or her report to avoid any problems with “incompleteness.”« (p. 2)

      This appears to mean that it is not enough to say “We tried it, but it did not work”. On the other hand, a certain degree of “incompleteness” could also be ascribed to the Penon report. But at least that report exists.

      • Curbina

        Thanks Obvious, I did not remember exactly whose approach Rossi said they had been able yo validare, but Ahern was my Best bet, and now you confirm It.

    • Curbina

      The attempted and failed replications of other LENR claims was claimed even by Rossi himself after he begun working with Cherokee. I recall he said only one approach of all had been replicated, he bashed particularly the one of Brillouin. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/30/rossi-ih-unable-to-replicate-lenr-from-competitors-patents/

      • Josh G

        Yes but I was referring to the replication attempts by Murray and the team of engineers he assembled.

        • Curbina

          I think Rossi was refering exactly To the same, at that Moment he was part of IH and so was Murray.

          • Josh G

            I don’t think so because Murray was only brought on board in May/June 2015. Also in Murray’s testimony he basically said they didn’t need to rely on patents, because they had the researchers themselves in most cases working with them to validate. Mizuno for example.

  • Another interesting piece (there’s just too much material at the moment)—Craig Cassarino telling how Ampenergo tried to make IH understand that they needed to bring in tech people to get a meaningful collaboration and IP transfer going with Rossi (207-12, pp 192-193). And this is the impression I have got over time—IH never bothered to bring in competent expert on technology and engineering (‘They were money men,’ as Cassarino put it). Meaning that they either didn’t understand how to build a technology venture, or they were never even interested to develop and industrialise Rossi’s technology. You could also think that they only wanted to provide funding as a VC and let Rossi run R&D and going to market (which they should understand that an inventor alone usually is not capable of), but in that case, why would they bother about IP transfer?

    • Omega Z

      ->”but in that case, why would they bother about IP transfer? ”

      Money. pure and simple.

      They were looking to file IP’s on any little idea to trap IP.
      An E-cat home heater. That’s an IP filing.
      An E-cat home A/C. That’s an IP filing.
      An E-cat powered aircraft, car, truck, tractor etc, etc, etc..
      Each is an IP filing. Many IP licenses and much more money then just royalties off of E-cats…

      Paul Morris of Deep River Ventures is a key player in promoting the IP Trap.

    • Adam Lepczak

      Absolutely true. Managers should not be running R&D efforts. Bring a retired researcher from SPAWAR or DARPA on board to run tests. Make a coherent test plan and stick to it. Insist on bringing the generator and its technology to the neutral ground. At the time of the agreement, MFMP was already around. Hire the Hunt group and their methodology.

    • Peter Lang

      hello matts lewan (we are friends on twitter at ekimmu777) this makes very clear that LENR is coming to market. it is guaranteed that the Chinese will start cranking these out now that these documents are out. their government atomic agency already had positive results. America is too full of corrupt special interests but india, china, Singapore, etc. need this tech desperately and they will start production. (china was very interested in boeing’s and airbus’s cold fusion patents) my youtube channel even has a couple videos on LENR replication (based on quantum delocalization like water in beryl crystals http://www.youtube.com/user/endingoil777/videos

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      IH was never interested in developing Rossi technology, I also question the Washington based Ampenergo motives. Rossi realized this very soon when he started working with them.

      • BillH

        A bold statement. 3 years is a long time for AR to just go along with it, not so smart then?

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Three years, where did you get that information, he was their “chief scientist” far less than three years.

          • BillH

            “The test lasted for 32 days and was performed in Lugano, Switerland from 24 Feb 2014 ”
            I include the time since the Miami test concluded, no progress seems to have been made on commercialisation.

            I was told not to mention the Chief Scientist issue, but since you appear to
            know how long that was perhaps you could enlighten us?

          • sam

            Comment from Lenr forum.

            Online
            LENR Calender
            Intermediate
            5 hours ago
            New
            +1
            As an aside: it looks to me that so far IH has been flinging a lot of poo at the wall trying to see if something sticks. I think that rather than engaging consultants that enable them in those ideas (remember 100.1C, the DN40 pipes, etc), and instead of denigrating “planet Rossi”, they should have instead hired someone from planet Rossi to try and debunk the IH arguments.

            Someone like IHFB is I admit a bit biased, but when IH comes up with an unconvincing argument, he sees right through it and asks that more digging be done.

            IH has some good reasons to be concerned about the 1MW e-cat test results. However, I think they should have put forward the stuff that is obviously wrong rather than the stuff they don’t understand. More digging should have been done on the latter. Maybe that’s what Dewey was doing on the forum. In that case, he could have been more friendly to “planet Rossi”, who are just people who are also trying to find the truth, but just have a different way of thinking.

          • Vinney

            IH has very little evidence, they have no photographic survey, no thermal imaging, and no monitoring software of their own on Penon’s computer (to log all inputs and data transactions).
            They have no choice than to settle with Rossi with a substantial sum, and significantly reduced IP and market rights, because of their actions.
            But will still remain a leader in LENR field, because they will have access to ‘ongoing’ E-cat IP.
            Without a settlement the court and jury will award everything Rossi desires, including compensation and damages.
            Rossi has read the game very well.

          • BillH

            From AR’s deposition on 1-Mar-2017:-

            “10 we could modulate the steam. Why we foresaw a
            11 powerful heat exchanger at the end? Because I did
            12 not know how much heat I was going to consume, but I
            13 knew that I had to produce one megawatt power per
            14 hour for the performance test”

            So AR clearly knew 1MWth of steam output per hour was required for the test to be considered a success. Day 1 output power 2.03E+07 wh/d is 20300000 is on average 845.833 KW/h. Oops

          • That wasn’t the criterion for the GPT.

          • GiveADogABone

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html
            Latent heat of Vaporization 2257.92 kJ/kg
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html

            total enthalpy change of water (70C to 103C)
            = 30*(4.191+4.219)/2 + 2257.92 + 3*2.0267
            = 126.15+2257.92+6.08 = 2390.15 kJ/kg

            Penon records 0.9*2257.92 = 2032.13 kJ/kg
            2032.13/2390.15=0.8502

            When claiming 850kW in the test record, the E-cat is running at 1MW.

          • BillH

            Penon couldn’t have been aware of the 1MWth steam output criteria then or he would have made this much clearer in the report.

          • Ged

            Penon intentionally made a conservative analysis and used a multiplier to do so and said as much from the start. Just undo his conservative multiplier and there you go. He well knew the name plate rating of the plant as he writes in his report, but none of that mattered for the test–only that the COP achieved a certain threshold for a certain time.

            This is completely pointless, and there are actual issues to look at rather than trying to pull off a “not exactly 1000, gotchya!” that doesn’t change the price of the tea in China.

          • GiveADogABone

            197-03 in the court record is the ERV report.
            2. Calculation of the energy multiple
            This section explains the calc

          • BillH

            Yes, I read 197-03, Penon assumed a reduced flow rate of 10% in his calculation. You were doing a reasonable job of providing an explanation till Ged got involved. However we don’t know exactly how leaks effected the test. You might want to look at the results for the whole of Sept 2015 and draw a different conclusion.

          • GiveADogABone

            The Licence Agreement [1:] should sort out the confusion here. The absolute requirements are CoP>6 and steam temperature high enough.

            There is a secondary requirement that is not absolute and that is for Rossi to use his ‘best efforts’ to complete the GPT. This is not an absolute requirement to run at full power. Hence a loss of one of the tiger units for a period of time does not invalidate the overall 350 day test.

            It could also be noted that Rossi had a spare E-cat available that could have been brought into service if an output drop became lengthy; it was never used, apart from an initial proving run.

            [1:] 215-05 : License Agreement
            4: Validation of the Plant and 5: Guaranteed Performance
            Plant consistently produces energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed … the temperature of the steam produced by the Plant …

            Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved, …

          • BillH

            Since you mention the tiger units, puzzle me this. How can the loss of one tiger as appears to have happened in Sept 2015 have resulted in the resulting configuration and output? you will agree that it appears that output was reduced by 25%? But the maximum number of reactors in a tiger is 16. So a loss of 16 out of 112 reactors isn’t 25% This suggests to me that only the 4 tigers were used, so was Penon wrong or misinformed?

          • GiveADogABone

            The answer is in 197-03 (the ERV Report).
            Fig 1: shows the layout of the plant.
            A to F total 5*9+6=60
            BF1 to BF4 total 16+3*15=61
            making a total of 121 modules

            A to F are in the standby plant and BF1 to BF4 are the main plant that contains the tigers. A to F were never run for real. One of the BF units coming off-line is a 25% reduction in capacity.

            Not sure about the last sentence. What is the reference?

          • BillH

            5*9=45
            6
            3*15=45
            16
            Total 112

            Penon drew the diagram(very badly) not me, I just assumed he knew what he was testing. I have no idea if each reactor was created equal.

          • Obvious

            Here is the control panel. Do you suppose the panel is reporting L of water for each Tiger/BF? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1575ef80412fd82b0d4850e64e7ef4a1761d1e23901514d05016dba69cba98b.jpg

          • GiveADogABone

            Group VII 405
            Group VIII 397
            Group IX 398
            Group X 382
            Total 1582
            Maybe the displayed units are litres/hour. These are precision positive displacement pumps, so their output is precision volume.

            At 70C that converts [1:] to 1582*(983.2+971.8)/2000=1546.4 kg/h
            The normally quoted maximum flow rate of the E-cat is 1500kg/h. This looks like the feed flow is about 3.1% high at this time.

            [1:] https://www.simetric.co.uk/si_water.htm
            At 60C water density is 983.2kg/m^3
            At 80C water density is 971.8kg/m^3

          • Stephen

            It’s interesting that Ascon technologic supplied this touch panel:

            http://www.ascontecnologic.com/index.php/en/industrial-automation/operator-panels

            They also supply accessories for complete Industrial systems like this one for boilers and power plants:

            http://www.ascontecnologic.com/index.php/en/power-plants.

            I think the “Big Frankie’s” (BF) are also controlled some how by “Cindy”. The dedicated control box we have seen pictures of with Fabiani Barry and the two other engineers.

          • Obvious

            Except that 24 Prominent pumps, set at maximum, can only pump something like 750 L/h . (I forget the actual amount. I think it is 32 L/h maximum, each).

            I think that photo was taken in March 2016, but I am not certain. I haven’t worked out any better explanation than water volume for the panel numbers. The Prominent pumps aren’t supposed to pump any fluid over 50 C, either, except for short periods (15 minutes) in order to clean them.

          • Stephen

            Well I was also thinking flow but if we look at capacity:

            We know the dimensions of each Tiger are 2m by 0.7m by 0.3m

            This makes a total 0.42 m3 or 420 litre per Tiger 1680 litre over all.. So if almost the whole volume was use for water then It would have about 1.7 cm spare space at the top of each Tiger unit. Obviously this does not leave much spare volume for all the equipment, insulation (and spare space if we assume they contain 15 or 16 separate module tanks rather than 1 tank). I understand there is a water level guage next to each tank which I think shows the water level is about half full too.

          • cashmemorz

            The customer payment for power was on a monthly basis, so one might conclude the monthly power sum as the customers base for power received and payment for that power for calculation purposes.

          • Ged

            This is one of the most ridiculous, irrelevent, nitpicky and petty tripes I have seen, which says a lot in the current political environment, and isn’t even based on proper analysis as GDB points out above. Seriously… “845 versus 1000, omg it is the end of the wooorrrld! Sure it shows the thing works and meets all contractional obligations with extreme COP but oh no we are all going to die cause it is 15.5% off and not exactly 1000!”

            Do you challenge how utterly childish and foolish this sounds?

          • BillH

            No need to be insulting, This is what AR said in his deposition, it’s a matter of record I was seeking clarification, you have given none.

          • Ged

            What clarification do you need? The man wanted to aim for a certain output and set up all his equipment and cooling to make sure he could handle that goal. What is confusing in that?

            You pulled off a gotchya “oops” at the end of your post so your intention on tone and spin are clear… over a non issue when there are real issues to discuss.

          • BillH

            The oops is that he said it in a deposition, on record. Rather than except your explanation I’ll wait to see what AR has to say about it on the stand, it clearly needs clarification but not from you.

          • Ged

            I am sorry if I sounded mean, but the level of incredulity this leaves me in is flabbergasting and I sound harsher than I intend when trying to express that.

            What problem do you see needs clarification? Let’s dismantle this silliness with no mercy.

            1. Reaching 1 MW was not an important condition of the test, but was the rated output goal of the plant.

            2. When making energy, Rossi expresses clearly that he had to plan to cool all the heat he was aiming to make. That is, as he says, he didn’t know how much heat would be used, but he had to make his cooling capable of handling all 1 MW he was aiming to produce. Common sense.

            3. If you do the math, as has been done many times here, you will see the plant would be making about 1-1.1 MW of power to meet the resulting data in the report with the average flow rate. Meaning Rossi met his power rating goal (except when one “Tiger” went down) as he alludes to.

            Again, you can do this math yourself, as GDB did above. There is no mystery, no clarification missing, nothing weird. Penon and Ross I have both started the ERV would measure water to steam enthalpy only and use a 0.9 conservative multiplier, which correctly yields the ~845 KW from ~1 MW you are looking at.

            Sometimes ridiculous stuff has to be called out for what it is so people don’t lose perspective on meaningless junk, since a great deal of the growing craziness in the world is caused exactly by that.

          • BillH

            I understand what your saying but I don’t agree, so let’s leave it there.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Bill: January 2014 Rossi announces he is IH Chief Scientist. October 2014 IH starts patenting Rossi IP, relationship is over. Who told you “not to mention the Chief Scientist issue”?

  • sam

    Bruce
    Can you tell me when Malcom posted this on Lenr
    forum.
    Thanks

  • Kekker, I actually don’t think these times are different than before. You just have to look carefully at the claims and data presented, and in what way they are presented. And not care too much about what other people say or think.

    I like to think about it this way: People can be convinced and misled by other people’s intentional or unintentional efforts to present information in a certain way. But physics really doesn’t care about people. Physics just is, and sooner or later what it is will be undeniable.

    • Billy Jackson

      Well said.

      This is an either or situation and politics, personal ambition, or each of our own bias to the situation in the end does not matter.. the e-cat either works or it does not. So far despite all the rhetoric that favors one side or the other i haven’t seen anything that says it does not work.

  • BillH

    Just so I’m clear, the full reading on that meter is 2011.0001 cubic meters?
    and if it were checked by a meter reader it would be reported 2011 to the nearest cubic meter. Taking your readings for Hot water, and starting at 2011 I’d expect to see readings at 2015, 2019, 2023, 2027 etc monthly or quartely? and your dear old mum would pay so many $$$ per unit used.
    Those extra digits after the decimal point are of no consequence since the water company only charge for whole units. However, in our case those extra digits would be available and should have been automatically recorded and not discarded. An extra cubic meter of water is important..

    • BillH

      I was hoping that the readings had been independently recorded and verified.

  • New docs available. 226-04 indicates IH’s lawyers mistakenly turned over a privileged smoking gun to plaintiffs in discovery and then clawed it back months later (the court ruled that plaintiffs could not use the info at all).

    The legal Porpoise speaks:

    MR. EVANS: It is a proverbial — from what I
    understand, it’s a proverbial smoking gun. It’s not an
    intellectual exercise.

    It’s not revealed what this smoking gun refers to exactly, but it seems the context (as an attempt is made to introduce it during Darden’s deposition in 226-03) is something to do with a Darden communication regarding the general performance test.

  • Mike Rion

    Wow! Things have really gotten contentious over over on the LENR forum. And it appears that I’ve just been banned for 10 days for pointing it out. It seems that all but a few posters are totally in the bag for IH and every time a dissenter deigns to propose an alternative he is ganged up on and shamed into submission with volumes of dismissive rhetoric based on conjecture and incomplete information.

  • Mike Rion

    Actually being banned may be a good thing because all of that negativity was really getting depressing, yet, somehow it was addictive and hard not to follow.

    • Josh G

      The irony was they didn’t want to ban him because they said he provided valuable information. I know I’ve been out of the loop but since when has Dewey EVER provided us with valuable information? How many of his claims have turned out to be “mistaken”? I’ve lost count…

      • Omega Z

        ->How many of his claims have turned out to be “mistaken”?

        Precisely. If Dewey says it’s light out side, you can be confident it isn’t.
        🙂

  • Mike Rion

    I managed to get in through the back door to read about why I was banned and it appears I’m not alone. It seems that Eric Walker is systematically banning just about anyone who believes that Rossi is credible and says so.

  • BillH

    Now I’m going to suggest that the meter that you have show is what I would call a mechanical meter, by which I mean the last digit has to be interpolated, so if the actual reading was 2023.6 as above it could be read as either 2023 or 2024 so to expect something to read exactly 27.000 almost every day would be highly unlikely, if we only have 2 significant digits it might read 26,000 or 27,000 or even 28,000 introducing a systematic error of nearly 4%.

  • Mike Rion

    This is fascinating. Nearly everyone in support of Rossi is being threated with being banned, while Dewey Weaver gets a pass every time. Incredible!

  • Mike Rion

    Well, it finally happened. Dewey Weaver just got banned by Alan for insulting behavior. About time!

    • sam

      Is this going to be War between US and the UK.
      Will Sweden stay Neutral.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Funny. I guess now he will burst.

  • Mike Rion

    Wow! Eric walker is cleaning house over at LENR Forum. Soon there won’t be a Rossi supporter left.

    • radvar

      “Put the mouse down and step away from the website.”
      It’s a cortisol/adrenaline rush. Not productive, not healthy.
      Save yourself, so that you can save others.

      • Stephen

        I’m not sure I can put my mouse down. I know I should but I’m drawn to it like a moth to a furnace.

        But I agree with your second sentence. And probably people on both sides should take heed of it.

    • wpj

      Sifferkoll is back………………..

      • Josh G

        We’ll see how long that lasts once Eric wakes up…

        • artefact

          Aaaaand he is gone …

  • radvar

    Conjecture: Rossi went for a moonshot by trying to have a real customer, when he did not need to. Which somehow seems entirely like Rossi.

  • Josh G

    So the recent documents filed under 226 and 228 are interesting.
    They are updates to the charges made by Rossi et al. earlier this month accusing Darden et al. of basically trying to bribe/threaten Lugano authors (specifically bribing Levi and threatening Holstad) in order to get them to retract, in one way or another, their the report. The motive would be to weaken Rossi’s case.

    Their evidence is pretty thin, to say the least. And at first I was tempted to dismiss it, which is basically what the magistrate did. For Hoistad, all they have is an e-mail from Dewey Weaver saying that when IH wins the case it will hurt Bo and Uppsala’s reputation. The judges was like, “well, he’s not wrong.” I chalked it up to Dewey trying to be as charming as possible.

    Levi wrote that an Israeli guy, Uzi Shaya, tried to bribe him to recant the testimony. Levi’s full account is in document 167-05 (it’s an interesting read). This alleged bribe was under the guise of: we’ll make you rich; to start off, write a report about how to properly measure the COP from a Lugano-style reactor (wink, wink).

    But why would you ask a co-author of the report that described how to measure the energy output of the reactor to write another report about how to measure the energy output of a similar reactor? They could have just used the front end of the Lugano report. It doesn’t add up, unless they wanted him to make changes.

    Uzi Shaya is a “former” Israeli intelligence officer apparently hired by Zalli Jaffe, an Israeli lawyer that Darden hired, ostensibly with respect to an international fraud case/investigation.

    Uzi told Levi that he was working on behalf of some wealthy Russian Jews who were looking for a new power source for Israel (that is, according to Levi). Well with the documents provided in this most recent update, specifically Uzi’s affidavit 228-03, we know that Uzi was actually working for Darden via Zalli. Interesting, I would say.

    The bribery thing is reading between the lines, but one thing that he was clearly doing, and we know this is also what Darden hired Zalli to do, is to find out conflicts of interest and relationships between Rossi and relevant parties, including Penon. Uzi asked Levi directly if he had any financial or other ties to Rossi (whether he “had paid me any money or give me a position on his staff).

    So if nothing else Uzi was basically doing intelligence work, using skulduggery to see if Levi’s work on the Lugano reactor was on the up and up.

    But I agree with Rossi’s lawyers that there is enough smoke there to suspect a fire. However the magistrate ruled that the deadline for discovery is over and anyway the information they’re seeking is protected under lawyer-client privilege and Levi’s letter is not enough evidence to override that privilege. The only way for Rossi to introduce it into the trial is to put Levi up on the witness stand. So I don’t think we’re going to hear any more about this for the remainder of the trial.

  • BillH

    Having reviewed the nature of the flow meter used:-
    http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/water-meters/propeller-water-meters/mwn-mwn-130-nk

    It’s clear that this would have had to be read manually every single day, since this was not done by Penon, who took the readings? My understanding was that the readings were taken every night at 10:30PM who do we know was always around at that time?

    Since this is a 6 digit barrel meter, the last digit would always be interpolated i.e. is it between a 4 and a 5, do we call it a 4 or a 5, or perhaps the reader looks at the red dial which indicate values after the decimal point and makes a decision based on that? In any case the readings recorded are strangely consistent, bearing in mind the number of reactor shutdowns and leaky pipes reported.

    • Ged

      Leaks won’t affect the flow meter unless they are after steam condensation and before the meter, in which case the meter would see less water flow than actual. Remember the flow of water is controlled by the pumps and the steam condensation in the heat exchanger. As long as the pumps moved as much as they were programmed to move, the water flow would stay very consistant–reactor issues would not affect this either, only the pumps.

      • BillH

        I’m talking about leaks that had to be repaired, and reactors that had to be shut down and flow rates that had to be subsequently adjusted i.e. when the flow rate was adjusted from 36,000 to 27,000 when a reactor was taken off-line for repair.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      See Penon’s statements in 194-09. AR took the flow meter readings (p. 109) and submitted the exact (not rounded) numbers to Penon (p. 190).

      • BillH

        Thanks to you and Bruce(below) for clearing this up. I’d have been happier if Penon had taken the readings himself, but there you have it.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          It seems that Penon checked the cumulated readings when he was on site. However, his corresponding statement (p. 109) looks somewhat ambiguous – perhaps due to translation issues. In case that he checked the numbers and the meter was sealed I would see no problem, except that he could only determine a daily average in this way.

  • cashmemorz

    Then the acronym “LENR” would mean “Low Energy Nucleon Reaction” to cover the point that it is the “inner” atomic particles which are what, in effect, causing the main or central reaction, leading to the production of excess energy. Another recent meaning of the acronym was “Low Energy Neutron Reaction”, to cover the point why normally fast neutrons are not or rarely recorded outside LENR devises.

  • BillH

    Anyone uncovered information on the pressure gauge that was always reading 0? It appears to have served no purpose? Unless it was a zero centred gauge. It’s supposed to measure the change of pressure inside the pipe right? so that if the pressure was getting too high inside the pipe it would be a warning to take some action, or if the gauge dropped too low it would indicate a possible leak. Even changes in the atmospheric pressure outside should have had some effect on the pressure in the pipe. Over so many days you would expect the gauge to record at least some variation.

    • Omega Z

      The pressure gauge reads atmospheric pressure (14.6psi — 1Bar) as zero.

      Rossi had said in the past that the pressure woud be around 1.1 or slightly more. Thus the pressure gage probably wasn’t refined enough to show such a minor variation.

      Also, if the steam(in a closed system) is condensing at the customer side, it would create a vacuum of some degree offsetting what would be a pressure increase.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I agree about the vacuum. If you condense steam completely in a closed vessel you will end up with about 1/1700 of the original pressure. What is unclear to me is how a constant outlet pressure could be maintained under this condition. Even in a semi-open system you would expect to see a pressure differential that varies dependent on the ‘load’.

        • US_Citizen71

          I do not think there was variation in the load. The pressure is maintained by a combination of the inflow of water into the boiler and heat energy in the steam.

  • Darin

    This report which had been hyped over such long time could have made a huge impact in regards to spreading awareness about LENR, the fallout would have been multiple times bigger boost than what the Lugano report gave, so it’s now very sad to see the front saying with large letters ‘Exibit 3’.

    The best for the world would have been if IH stood behind the report, which they do not, but this lawsuit might have been the second best (?).

    Except for the ‘unofficial spokes persons’ for IH, there really has not been much information at all announced by IH, whenever they said anything the information has been very sparse and general. Following this lawsuit is the only way we can get any information out of them. Unfortunately we still lack what we need more than anything, useful data for making reliable tests and proofs of concept.

  • US_Citizen71

    I did a little googling and read some spec sheets for industrial blowers. 300,000 CFM blowers have BHP rating of 200 BHP (Braking Horsepower) which would be 150 kW. That seems a bit high considering my 3500 CFM evaporative cooler uses just under 500 watts, I guess the technology loses efficiency with scale. The fan had a 22 inch opening and was rated to over 300,000 CFM by itself. I hope that helps.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      The fan head enters into the equation as well. A fan with little or no pressure drop moves a lot of air with few watts. I looked up attic vent fans and they typically have 1650 CFM and dissipate about 200 watts (using and efficient PSC motor). this would be about 40kW for the 300,000 CFM.

  • US_Citizen71

    The vacuum formed by a heat exchanger would not vary in an easily measurable amount due to the change in ambient air temperature. Whether the steam is cooled to 2C below boiling or 50C below boiling the pressure drop would be essentially the same. Where you would see variation is in the temperature of the condensate going back to the plant.

  • Mike Rion

    I can’t believe it! Just tuned back in to the Darden/Rossi thread on LENR forum. Eric Walker is systematically getting rid of just about everyone who can argue convincingly for Rossi. It boggles my mind.

    • Curbina

      Mike, I am also a moderator on LENR-forum and I have To say that the criteria for banning is not based on which side is the person but in the behavior to each other.

      • Mike Rion

        I’m afraid you’re going to have a hard time convincing me of that. It appears to me that most of the posters there have about the same opinion of “planet Rossi” as they do of Rossi himself. So far the only anti-Rossi to be banned is Weaver and it way past time for him and his offensive comment. I see clear bias. I only hope you are not a moderator here or maybe you will ban me here also.

        • I can ensure you: We are NOT in any way supporting any of the parties.
          We neither received money, nor we received threats from IH to follow their commands.

          In the contrary: At the moment we even have information which indicate a more bright future of Rossi’s party. But more about this has to be published soon by the corresponding party.

          • artefact

            Good to hear!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Regarding your last point: Could you be more specific? We need information, not just ‘appetizers’.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Instead of giving an answer, he deletes the corresponding paragraph…Now that’s courteous!

          • wpj

            He’s probably been told off by Alan (the others are still asleep in the US).

          • wpj

            Hey! What’s with the edit removing the juicy part?

            We want to believe!

          • That is probably true. I however believe there are a handful of pro posters that creates a narrative, ie moving the discussion to details and if you follow that narrative and blend in, it is ok to be critical because they want it to look like there is a discussion and that the forum is neutral. This is really obvious and it is standard astroturfing procedure as almost invented by Apco. But when you do not comply and touch the important subject, ie. the reasons and strategy behind – then you are out. Your called a conspiracy theorist, crackpot or whatever. This behaviour is everywhere and it is working. I like this picture revealed by Snowden.
            http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/#comment-43609
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa5c8ecc8d5770d49d772b48a7537d0b327fa71f5ae51b814cee597526d261d0.png

          • Curbina

            Barty, Good To see you stepping in.

      • Dewey is proof of the opposite. It has been ok to say almost anything about Rossi and those with even a slight Rossi bias. Even questioning the motives of IH biased posters got me banned directly. What is the point of a discussion when it is not allowed to discuss to motives of the posters, especially when those are core elements in the story

        • artefact

          It reminds me of the Wikipedia ColdFusion talk page in some regards.

          • Omega Z

            Man changes wiki page about himself to show his correct middle name,
            How many kids he has really has,
            and his correct ethnicity….

            Wiki immediately changes it back.

            Man is banned from future editing. Man through tireless effort finally gets in contact with the Wiki administrator who tells the man-

            You are not a Credible Source.
            OH MY 🙂

        • Curbina

          And he also got banned. As so did Abd time ago. There have been several posts in the more conflictive threads that have stated causes for warning and for banning. You are not banned permanently, Just for a two weeks, in case you dont know.

          • Well, I actually believe banning those were in the interest of IH; Dewey was a out of control liability, and Abd… well, lets just say he was too wordy to contribute to the narrative in any meaningful way …

          • Ciaranjay

            Wow you can just fit anything into your theories can’t you!

          • Do you disagree, or are you only trolling me? Give it to me baby! 🙂

          • Ciaranjay

            Seriously!
            Maybe some are being paid by IH.
            Maybe some are being paid by Rossi.
            Who knows, who cares?
            Just get Rossi to sell, (or have an independent demonstration of) one product, that’s all we need, it is as simple as that.

          • Seriously, I advise everyone to read lenr-forum as a show where both sides more often than not are on the same team, throwing the ball to each other and building endless discussions about … nothing… repetitions, repetitions, repetitions …

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            Lenr-forum is literally troll village, with Eric Walker as the most sophisticated troll over there. Nobody of the trolls can explain the so called fraud of Rossi. There is no general hypothesis.

          • Omega Z

            Lenr-forum. The new eCat News???

          • Mike Rion

            Exactly Sifferkoll, exactly.

          • Zeddicus23

            You’re right about the 2 weeks but come on now, Dewey only got banned after months and months of provocative and often insulting posts! I don’t know why Abd was banned, but given the volume and length of his posts I’m not sure that was a bad thing:) Sifferkoll was banned in 1 day! – for giving his opinions and some indications of his connections with hydrofusion. Anyway, these discussions are fairly useless, since there is very little information content on Lenr-news anyway. And discussing it here, is I must admit, only adding to the noise level.

          • Mike Rion

            You only get one shot at me, I’m out of there, consider it permanently. I would never again feel confident in expressing my honest opinion. I used to check in daily, but now maybe once a month, as an observer, or so just out of curiousity.

        • Mike Rion

          Here, here!

      • AdrianAshfield

        I wasn’t even allowed to join the forum. When I tried, in the early days, my email address was miraculously transferred to another member. So when I tried I got a message that email address was already in use. I even showed who had now got it. I tried several times to get the error corrected without success.

        Reading the blog it was obvious to me that I was not welcome as a supporter of Rossi

      • Mike Rion

        It certainly looks as if it is a combination professional conceit and paid FUD. It’s hard to explain otherwise.

    • Doesn’t sound good. Biassed and poorly founded comments are more a rule than exception in the thread about the lawsuit, as far as I have seen. Then most users should be banned. Where can I see a list of those who are banned?

      • Josh G

        There are now a bunch of posts of people speculating on whether you have been paid by Rossi.

        • I can imagine 🙂
          I wouldn’t be surprised if evidence on who has been paid by whom in this story will be presented in court. You will not find my name there, unless it regards payment for a few copies of my book that Rossi bought from me (a total of 63 copies by now).

          • artefact

            63? cool 🙂
            Maybe he always reads them until IH or Defkalion appears and then throws the book in the trash. After some time he wants to read about his past accomplishments again and the drama continues….

          • 😉
            I think he’s giving them away.

          • Omega Z

            Seriously?

            But didn’t your book mention his past problems.
            Why would he intentionally expose that.

            No seriously. Thanks to Krivit, I was able to research much of what was said, implied or twisted by him to know that most all of it was B.S.
            Rossi was victimized.

          • Omega Z—of course my book mentions his past problems. That’s part of the true story. And Rossi has repeatedly stated that he found my book to be an honest report of what he has been through. You might need to read it to find out, if you haven’t 😉

          • Mike Rion

            He’s still being victimized.

        • Jas

          They are also judging Frank saying he is a bad forum admin. They would love to take over ecatworld too. They have no chance while Frank is in charge but we should continue to be vigilant. Spot their attempts to spread FUD like we always have. Eric Walker says that good honest debate is all he wants on Lenr Forum but its clear there is bias.

          • Omega Z

            I’ve seen ECW mentioned on other sites in the past. Usually followed by a derogatory post from someone else.

            When someone links another website in a post, I may or may not check it out. However, if someone posts something derogatory about that site, I almost always check it out.

            SEE- Even bad press can be good press. Once they come to ECW, they can make their own determinations about the site…

          • Zeddicus23

            I agree.

          • Rene

            This forum has been a convention of a continuum of believers, skeptics, and disbelievers with some makers/experimenters in the mix.
            It’s a decent stew.

          • Mike Rion

            Extreme bias!

      • Gerard McEk

        I was banned quite a while ago, but I did not really mind:)!

        • Mike Rion

          Yeah, I don’t think I will ever go back as a member, even after the two weeks are up, although I might drop in once in a while as an observer just to see how bad it’s gotten.

        • Hi Gerard,
          I don’t know what you are talking about.
          You never were banned nor you received a warning!
          Maybe you just had login problems or used wrong password?

          You always were a polite user, so there was no reason for banning or warning you.

          If you still have login problems please let me know. I will try to solve them.

          • Gerard McEk

            Thank you for your reply barty.
            Since the new LFsite-look was established, I couldn’t get access anymore via my Facebook or direct. After having read about this banning I assumed that was the reason. Maybe my password is wrong somehow. I prefer to use Facebook because that includes also my picture clip, but if that is not possible, then direct access will do. Please make it possible that I can access LF under my name again.

          • Hi Gerard,

            I’m sorry that you have this problem.
            After the forum software update we had issues with the third party login services.

            If you want, I can set a new password for your account which you can change in your profile settings afterwards.
            This solved that problem for other users in the same situation.

            I will sent you the password to your mail adress if you want me to reset it.

          • Gerard McEk

            Please do so Barty

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Do you really think it is uninformed people or is it a directed campayn? This is a TED video:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

    • Alan Smith

      But we also banned Dewey Weaver. So not entirely 1-sided.

      • Mike Rion

        Alan, I think you only banned Dewey because he gave you no other choice. I just went through the last 3 pages of posts on LENR forum and all it seems to be is one Rossi hater after another playing off each other, spouting the same questionable beliefs and evidence over and over again. There only seem to be a couple of Rossi supporters left who are posting and when they do they get shut down immediately by Jed or Bob, or one of the other IH supporter. What you done is eliminate almost all of the opposition so the rest can post long dissertations on why Rossi is a scoundrel, crook, con artist, scammer and all around despicable person. If FUD is not being supported you’ve made it a lot easier for folks to be suspicious of it. To tell the truth I was surprised that you supported this as you always seemed to come down in the middle. Now I just don’t know anymore.

        • Alan Smith

          Hi Mike. Banning anybody is a matter of ‘no other choice’ in general. We have tried to be a tolerant forum- tolerant that is of a wide range of opinions. Not an echo-chamber for one point of view. This coupled with the less tolerant policy here at ECW has had an inevitable result.
          As Frank has tended to ban anti-Rossi posters quite readily, LENR-Forum has not been in the habit of banning people for their opinions. LF bans people for the most part for ‘bad behaviour’ only. So this place gets mostly Pros and LENR-Forum gets mostly Cons. (There’s a joke in there).
          As for my own position, it hasn’t changed. I am a Ni/H fan, and active researcher, since I am of the opinion that only Nickel/Hydrogen (or other inexpensive fuels) will make possible the real democratization of the energy market. There is very likely only enough Palladium/Deuterium for the rich nations.
          I am also strongly of the opinion that AR will confound everybody by producing a huge rabbit out from under his new mop of silver hair. Watch out!

  • artefact

    In the second last picture at http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/
    “IH is also funding a replication of the Fleischmann & Pons boil-off experiment through Biberian with Stan Pons confidentially coming out of the retirement (and hiding) to assist in the project”

    • Josh G

      That’s an interesting post on his blog.

      • Stephen

        The exhibits he points to in his blog are really interesting to read through.

  • Josh G

    At least Frank doesn’t pretend to be neutral.

  • Omega Z

    Dardens CV shows no real world technical experiance. He depends on others for that.

    Boeing and others would do their own research etc at their own expense from what I read in the documents.

    As to Murray, his personal expertise appears to be bits and pieces with many time gaps. He’s much more technical then Darden, but still lacking. He also needs to rely on others more skilled then himself. Murray looks more like a manager of those who do the leg work with enough expertise to understand what they are doing even.

  • US_Citizen71

    I am drawing from studies a half a lifetime ago, but from my recollection BHP is the average power to keep the blower moving at the given RPM and flow rate. I think there is an industry standard value applied to account for an average pressure drop of an average system in the BHP rating of the blowers, but I never did HVAC for a living, I just learned some related technology during my time in the NAVY.

  • BillH

    The final report 197-3 Exhibit 3 above. It appears Penon was actually on site for 12 days in total. There was also this strange statement that it was not necessary to enquire about the clients use of the energy or take it into account? I doubt had IH known this or Penon had told them that they would have seen requests for billing from a customer and not queried it. This was something that Penon would not put into a report unless instructed by AR or IH or both.

    The judge or council would simply ask if Penon can confirm that the water that came back into the internal tank was in fact the same as the water that had been turned to steam and passed through the output pipe?. Since he has no knowledge of the customer I would assume that the answer would be no. Unless of course there was something special about the water that was traceable.

    If distilled water was used doesn’t that mean it didn’t come from the general water supply?

    • US_Citizen71

      The water definitely wasn’t tap water. The boiler would fill up with scale/lime very quickly if they were boiling tap water and letting the steam go. Penon is correct what happens to the steam and where the inflow of water comes from doesn’t matter. The inflow water temperature and flow rate along with the temperature of the steam leaving is really all you would need to know. Since only the energy to bring the water up to 100C was being used to calculate the COP even the steam quality doesn’t matter as long as it’s temperature was 100C plus.

      • BillH

        However, if there was no customer, there was absolutely no reason to move the plant from NC to Miami, was there? It just incurred unnecessary cost.

        • US_Citizen71

          That is debatable and and has no bearing on the test itself. Moving the plant to get the test actually done would be reason enough in my opinion. IH hadn’t even contacted the NC government to get a permit to set the plant up. So necessity would be in the eye of the beholder.

      • LilyLover

        Correction:
        Only the energy required for the phase chage was used to calculate the COP. Therefore only the volume of water converted into steam matters. Water OR steam temperature DOES NOT matter for the report. But would be good to have for more accurate calculation of plus delta.

        • US_Citizen71

          You are correct! My mistake.

      • DrD

        If the water were recycled and no (or negligible) top up added the boiler wouldn’t be badly scaled.

        • US_Citizen71

          Any scale will reduce the thermal transfer ability of the boiler that is why distilled water is used in a closed loop. Yes you can use tap water in an emergency but it will damage your boiler and is difficult to clean up after. The report says it was distilled water so this thread is really moot unless you are trying to spread disinformation.

  • US_Citizen71

    I did at one time but it has been almost 30 years since I have had to do anything like that and I no longer even remember the equations. Any HVAC or boiler technicians lurking about?

  • Bicke Dutte

    Thanks for the damage control!

  • Rene

    This might help: http://www.uwex.edu/energy/dairy_V.html
    48″ fan 1HP (750W) moves 29,000CFM, so 11 fans or 8300W
    Or, get two huge 8 foot paddle fans and it moves 300,000CFM with 2HP or 1500W

  • BillH

    Digging deeper into Penon’s report, Looks like he only saw 7 days of the test. He was there 16-18 Feb 2015, but that was before the test started, Again he was there 15-17 Feb 2016, but the power analyser wasn’t recording on the 15th and the test was stopped on the 15th. What was the problem with the power analyser? How did they know it was faulty? Was it replaced? Was it sent for recertification?

    Is the number of reactors wrong? 112? 115?
    Why doesn’t the diagram show the difference between junction points and crossover points?
    Why were the units for average power supplied changed from KWh/h to Wh/h between May and June 2015?
    Why was a COP calculated for a day when the power analyser was known to be faulty(28-Jul-15)? In fact, how could it be calculated?

    Any of these questions been answered in depositions yet? I’ve only read those of Smith and Murray so far.

  • Obvious

    Rossi said in one of his depositions that the air for the upstairs heat exchanger came in and went out of the same window. The middle window, which is visible from the street.
    So that not only cuts the available area for the fan to send the heat out through in half, it makes it rather likely that a large amount of the heated air could be drawn back in, since the outlet and intake are at the same location.

    • Stephen

      Are you sure he said the same window? I can’t remember the thread exactly but i thought he mentioned the middle window in the context of outflow. But didn’t say which window the inlet was. I could be wrong or it may also be ambiguous. Could you clarify?

      • Obvious

        The purported upstairs heat exchanger , according to Rossi, drew air in from the middle upstairs window where two people are standing in a photo in Exhibit A-1 (see Wong report 197-01, report Exhibit A-1, PDF page 13), and then vented it back out that window (Document 194-08, PDF Page 15, transcript page 160).

        (Rossi is Witness, Answering)

        1 box, not to allow the air to heat up too much.

        2 Q. And the — so the fans are drawing air

        3 from outside —

        4 A. Yes.

        5 Q. — into the second story of the Doral

        6 warehouse and then they are going over these pipes,

        7 if I understand how the system works, because the

        8 pipes are warm, that air is getting warmed up and it

        9 has to be circulated back out of the second story?

        10 A. Right.

        11 Q. And it circulates back out of the second

        12 story through the windows?

        13 A. Yes.

        14 Q. So if you look at Exhibit A-1, when we

        15 look on — we can see light coming through two

        16 openings here. Are those both windows or am I

        17 looking somehow at doors?

        18 A. No, are both windows.

        19 Q. Was the air being pushed out of both

        20 those windows or just one?

        21 A. No, just one. The one with the two guys

        22 there because we were substituting the — we were

        23 making substitution of — of the glasses there. The

        24 second one has been the window that we used.

        25 Q. Okay. So A-2, is that the — is it your

        Page 161

        1 testimony that’s the window that was used to push the

        2 air out?

        3 A. I think so, yes.

        4 Q. Okay. And just so I understand —

        5 A. I think so. Sorry to interrupt. I think

        6 so because, you know, I am not — I don’t remember

        7 exactly looking out of that window, if this is the

        8 panorama.

        9 In any case, yes, I think so. Because

        10 this window is equal to another — there are three

        11 windows basically. Yes, three windows there are and

        12 we used for this purpose the central one.

        • Stephen

          Well unless I’m misreading it it seems to me he says the air is pushed out through the middle window but didn’t say where the air inlet was just that it is drawn in from fans. But it could still be that window I guess.

          It is curious the whole story about the window and heat exchanger in that room. I must admit I wasn’t expecting that so I am curious as all of us I think how this story plays out.

        • Stephen

          Just a curious observation about the above text and the ventilation room picture. Andrea Rossi says the air was pushed out the middle window and when shown the picture of the ventilation room with two windows in though it was the window with the two guys. But seem initially unsure. That’s the window on the right hand side of the picture.

          Interestingly its the left hand window which seems to have the lower panels boarded up under the small orange curtain.

          • Obvious

            The orange curtain is a garbage bag. That left (facing out) window has six panes, and is directly over the front entrance to the suite.

            The strangest part is that Wong considered the window pane replacement as evidence that heat was pushed out/in (see his deposition). But his visit was on Feb 10, 2017. Almost a year to the day after the Plant was shut off, and Rossi said in one of his depositions that the heat exchanger upstairs was dissasembled immediately following the Plant shut down.

    • Stephen

      Where does it say steam was in the cooling circuit between the JMP plant and the window?

  • Obvious

    The distance the steam must travel in order to reach the upstairs room is significant, possibly 30m. That means a rather large diameter pipe is required to supply steam to an upstairs radiator. It should have been rather noticeable

  • Obvious

    It is a contact switch activated pulse that reports 100L (standard configuration) increments.

  • Josh G

    Say what you will about Abd, but here is an EXTREMELY helpful case document index he put together on his site: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rossi-v-darden-docket-and-case-files/

  • Jerry Soloman

    Industrial Heat has been buying up the lenr sector and signing NDA’s, just noticed Jed Rothwell one of the most vocal on lenr forum is listed here as an advisor to IH.

    https://tinyurl.com/l6rfy8y

    • Google street view from April 2015 clearly shows that the window where the heat exchanger was supposed to be installed is just a normal window. The plant was supposedly running from Feb 2015 to Feb 2016. When was the heat exchanger supposedly installed?

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0fee6fba323347a2fb4806efae316aec991c91d92b163888a863a6a2bbc8c2ba.png

      • SG

        Which window?

        • It’s the fully visible one on the second level, based on testimony and Wong’s interior pictures. The one they are working on in this picture.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c90dc23308c8e1b59c02a623cf8c9927007b1dc2843bfe5de8128a9fe0e96a92.png

          • Ged

            Yeah, I don’t get it either. Definitely something we are missing. I haven’t seen visual evidence so far of any vent there, yet we see people working on the window in the picture here, so seemingly something was actually done to it that we aren’t seeing in the streetview.

          • Possibilities:

            Up and Up Scenario
            Heat exchanger installed shortly after April 2015 Google street view picture. Removed just before Wong’s visit, leaving empty window to be fixed by workmen.

            Fraud Scenario
            Nothing ever changed up there. Rossi removes window just prior to Wong visit and calls in workmen to fix while Wong is there, giving him the impression that the window had been open prior and helping to sell Rossi’s fictional description of a heat exchanger.

            One friggin picture of that heat exchanger breaks this case wide open.

          • Ged

            If we had another image source from that time period, that would really help corroborate one or the other of the possibilities (they had everything positioned inside to vent through the ceiling, so don’t know why that alone wouldn’t be used–though I remember it being said that the roof vent was used to some extent).

            I’ve personally seen Google streetview assign the wrong date to photos before (happened for two years with an old property of mine), but we have the benefit of that side of the road construction in front of the place to help constrain when it all was photoed. Be interesting to see if we can nail down more info.

          • In theory, the shadows in that picture could tell us exactly what day that picture was taken.

          • sam

            So that tells me is
            I.H.should have asked Rossi
            to show them the heat exchanger .
            Or Rossi should have showed them without
            them asking.

          • US_Citizen71

            150,000 ft3/minute = 9,000,000 ft3/hour = 254,851.6193 m3/hour

            Your flow rate is to low.

          • Björn-Ola

            It was 50.000 m3/h according to dr. Wong.

      • Stephen

        In one disposition discussing the air flow Andrea mentions the picture of the room with 2 guys by the window. Andrea mentions the air exits this window. He also mentioned they are replacing the glass in the window in that picture I think.

        So the question would be if the window frame contains glass.

      • Josh G

        In my view this is evidence is devastating for Rossi. I don’t see how can explain his way out of it. According to his testimony, he removed these windows and in their place fitted a frame for the heat exchanger. Also according to testimony he removed the exchanger right after the test and left the window unrepaired (wide open to the elements) until the day that Dr. Wong (his expert witness) came to inspect the property.

        • It requires explanation, for sure.

        • Ged

          It really is an odd twist. The roof vent was far more then enough for all their cooling needs via exchanger, so I don’t know why an exchanger in the front window would even be needed, especially with 300k CFM capacity (this is incidentally a little higher a capacity than the CFM value needed to simply exchange all the inside air with outside air to vent the 1 MW heat and equillibrate inside and outside to roughly the same temp–a heat exchanger isn’t even needed in that case of pure air replacement).

        • Hhiram

          Can someone explain the significance of what’s going on here? I haven’t been following things too closely. Why is Rossi’s testimony about a window important?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If you use the „rotate“ function, you will see ‘triangular’ structures above the middle window of each block (partly hidden by the trees). Are they simply artifacts, or could they be part of a ventilation system?

        https://www.google.de/maps/place/7861+NW+46th+St,+Doral,+FL+33166,+USA/@25.8149874,-80.3252326,58a,35y,48.74t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88d9bbd5b1e1203d:0x5e338a9c2e7f100d!8m2!3d25.8152519!4d-80.3249335

        (Not sure if this link will work.)

      • SG

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/513f839a5aa6620b25be6e929a6f7464b1a1f82ca48533bc051292e31d27e9e6.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/735ef83edeb31a9d90f0b9c72025de2051f7f8b22b0db13136e4eca2e37a09cb.jpg

        LENR G, I think you might have the wrong window. Here are two shots of what I believe the correct window is. As you can see, it is the third building section over from the left. And the window indeed has something strange coming out of it, or something strange about it.

        • SG
        • We’re looking at the same window. What you are seeing is just an artifact of the way Google splices images together.

          • SG

            It does look like some kind of weird artifact, but isn’t it a bit strange that the artifact is on the very window that we have interest in.

          • Only from that one angle so I think we can rule out any attempt to hide anything.

          • SG

            True that. From your image, can you discern whether the panes are present in the window of interest?

          • I can’t tell for sure one way or the other.

          • SG

            I also wonder what Ged mentioned about whether the date of April 2015 really means the picture was taken in April 2015. It might mean that the data was posted that month.

  • The view out the second story door into the warehouse at Doral — brightened up.

    You can get the basic layout of things… the JMP black box is there… the E-Cat plant can be seen at the back. There’s a prominent silver pipe close to the door.

    Maybe someone can see a detail that makes sense to them and share it with us.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/328af7b182e950a4e31d7ad4a87415bfba3ff07839a9dcccbfd7f38dae2a28d5.png

    • Andreas Moraitis

      If you look only at the ceiling, it seems that are at least 4 pipes. For what purpose would one need such pipes, except for ventilation?

      • Stephen

        Wow sharp eyes interesting. There are also 4 holes in the white box below the pipes on the wall and currently a gap between the 4 pipes and those holes

        • wpj

          The photograph on page 21 of that document was discussed a lot when they first came out, especially the nature/function of the pipe right at the rear of the building. The initial suggestions were of a toilet vent, but that did not explain the nature (metal outer rather than plastic).

          • Stephen

            Yup I remember thinking about that pipe in particular and wondered if it went to a chimney on the roof. And wondered the purpose of the knee above the white door… if it was a meter or valve or something. But apparently that chimney has been there along time. Not sure about the pipes history though. Maybe it is still used for venting gases or something.

            The 4 pipes through the “doorway” though would be going up the right hand side wall near the back wall from the perspective in this photograph.

      • From the Gullstrom paper, we know that Rossi has been using the JMP side of the warehouse for QuarkX development and testing.

        The pipes must be related to the QX since the E-Cat 1 MW plant and JMP activities are dormant. The QX co-location helps explains why Rossi would reconfigure everything the day after the 1 MW test ended. “Finally that stupid test has ended and I can set up the piping I want for the much better QX without IH’s prying eyes, while I try to get my IP back in court.”

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9415aa9a599ce43b41b2ad024283e2e304f7253dd64dedd171ad7854908e5cf2.png

        • Andreas Moraitis

          He could have meant the piping for the flow calorimeter, which he promised (I think) to use in the demonstration.

    • US_Citizen71

      Without something to give it scale it is hard to say exactly what the pipes are, but they look like industrial conduit. The 90 degree corner fitting looks like it is curved to allow wires to easily pass through the bend. The end of the pipe without any fitting mid-wall also is something you see with conduit.

  • A rare picture from the JMP side of the wall. Can anyone identify what the two things are on the bottom right?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d5cadb099daa86fc82c99ab44ddc188f9526f0b991e8ad8247084b722e69901.png

    • Ged

      The lower right looks to be a tool supply shelving or what not (nuts, bolts, small tools, that sort of thing maybe). The lower middle looks like a dolly with the handles up against the wall. The left and along the top of the wall looks like electrical cabling bundle conduits.

      That is how each looks to me, interesting to hear what others think, but doesn’t seem like this particular picture shows us too much of interest. Cool shot though! Shows more pictures likely to come, indeed.

      • Frost*

        Lower right is looking through the open door towards the wall (see how the the pipes match up).

        • Yes! Nice. It’s through the door and we see the loading bay door and maybe some kind of security fencing?

        • Stephen

          Wow I had to look several times it really looks like a tool box but you are right it’s the door way!!!

        • Ged

          Oh wow, nice! It fooled me good, but now that you point it out, I can see it. What looked like drawers is just the segmentation of the loading bay door. Thank you!

      • What’s the honeycomb-ish thing at the very bottom right? Some sort of mesh leaning up against the tool drawers?

    • SG

      Looks like at least 5 pipes of considerable diameter going up through the ceiling. Dare we call these, chimneys?

  • Not really concerned about the landscaping.

  • He was trying to achieve that level for other reasons.

    • BillH

      Other reasons? Please explain, because AR seemed quite clear.

      • I don’t understand where you’re going with this. Do you think that Rossi’s mentioning 1 MW and GPT in the same sentence magically changes what was in the agreement between him and IH?

        Cause it doesn’t.

        • BillH

          We’re letting a judge decide that.

          • radvar

            Decide what exactly? Are you saying that Rossi’s mention *might* change what was in the agreement? If so, could you suggest any causal pathways by which that might occur?

          • BillH

            Because if it’s not in the agreement he should surely not have mentioned it, In which case there was no reason to build a heat exchanger to vent up to 1MW of heat.

          • radvar

            I fail to see how that statement has any bearing on my last post, which was, in support of LENR G’s post, to question *how* Rossi’s mention of that might change what was *in* the agreement, or even an *understanding or interpretation* of the agreement.

            “he should surely not have mentioned it”…why not?

            Are you trying to say that Rossi created some sort of legal risk by making the statement? What risk in particular?

            “mentioned it, In which case there was no reason” etc…I cannot easily parse the negatives, hypotheses and actualities in that quasi-syllogism.

            I believe Ged and LERN G are, in summary, asking “so what?” That’s basically what I asked.

            I believe Ged’s concern is that you might be attempting to sow FUD, by finding the little thread that once pulled upon unravels the entire narrative. By not resolving the “so what”, you leave that concern open. In that scenario, your last post could be interpreted as deflection.

            Familiarity with Rossi shows that he makes lots of statements he “surely should not” have made. Yes, ok, you have possibly caught him at it again.

            However, unless there is a specific consequence, “so what?”

            So, again, what in your mind is the specific legal risk or consequence of his having made the statement?

            i.e. “so what?”

            Or are you just pointing out that Rossi is not 100% consistent in everything he says, and sometimes fails to perfectly convey the model of reality that he has in his head, which by the way, may not be 100% self-consistent in the first place.

            For myself, I don’t recall ever running into anyone who appeared to have mental models with that particular quality.

          • BillH

            The document is Document 194-8 Exhibit 8, there are a lot more documents to read maybe you’ll find something interesting to discuss.

          • radvar

            Still no response on the “so what”.

          • BillH

            So, I gave you a chance to read AR’s deposition on behalf of JM in context, which I think was only fair.
            AR has an opportunity to amend his statement, let’s see if he does.
            You will know that IH’s lawyers will be going over every deposition with a fine tooth comb.

          • radvar

            “I gave you a chance”
            “I think was only fair”
            “You might want to”
            “You were doing a reasonable job”
            “he should surely not have mentioned”
            “maybe you’ll find something”
            “We are letting a judge decide that”

            I appreciate that you just have a lot of difficulty pronouncing the “so what?”

            Actually, there is a very significant inference that can be derived from your choice of words. It’s important, and you should look for it. All the posts are right here on this page. It’s very meaningful. It has a lot of consequences. It’s a big deal. Just read the text carefully.

            Sorry I can’t say what I think the consequence is.

          • BillH

            So what?

          • radvar

            You were doing a reasonable job. I gave you a chance, which I think was only fair. Maybe you’ll find something interesting. You might want to.

          • radvar

            Not trying to blame BillH. This whole thing started when BillH made note of Rossi’s remark and Ged and LENR G asked BillH why he thought it made any difference to the case. BillH has consistently avoided responding to that question.

            I’ve been smiting trolls and defending against FUD on this site since 2012, so my response was more or less reflexive. I don’t think BillH is a troll, and I’m not convinced that he intended to create FUD, however, considering what happens at LENR Forum, better safe than sorry.

            The fact that I personally don’t like commenting styles that — I perceive to be — attempting to invoke authority, while being directive toward other commenters, condescending, deflective, and resistant to self-examination doesn’t help. Reminds me too much of too many of my former bosses.

            And BTW, we’re now into the meta-meta-meta-meta-meta discussion:
            – the original contract discussion
            – – the depositions about the contract
            – – – BillH’s comments about the deposition material
            – – – – Ged and LENR G’s comments about BillH’s comments
            – – – – – My exchanges with BillH about the exchanges between Ged, LENR G and Bill H
            – – – – – – Your comments about my exchanges with BillH

            But peeling back a few layers, I would still like to hear anyone’s reasons why Rossi’s comments might impact the case. That was the original “so what?”

          • BillH

            OK, so, having taken time to reflect and read all of the documents as far back as 3-mar-2016 the definitive answer is that I’m not going to answer the “So, what?” question! Because what Rossi said is either True, False or needs further explanation, each of which lead to different outcomes. I don’t wish to put a weapon in the IH’s lawyers hands by being more explicit, they are getting paid to do their job.

            In any case, this could all be overtaken by events as IH has petitioned against Rossi, Penon and Fabiani for the destruction of evidence.

        • BillH

          Document 167-2 Exhibit 1 makes interesting reading, a summary of Darden’s thoughts from 2014.

  • BillH

    Thanks for pointing this document out. It actually contains more information than the final report. It still shows that he thought he was reporting on 111 reactors though(plus 1 spare, his arithmetic is correct this time) so I’m still not sure how we ended up at 31 reactors. Perhaps it was a 2MW plant.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Even if not quite 2 MW, implementing redundancy would be the first thing to think about whenever high reliability is required.

      • BillH

        I think it’s safe to say that if you equate performance with reliability then all available reactors should have been used to maintain the output at 1MW,
        since this wasn’t done…

      • GiveADogABone

        I always find this topic confusing because you are never sure whether people are quoting maximum or root mean square current and voltage [1:]. I remember it as a domestic 13amp plug at 240volts allows a maximum load of 3.12kilowatts.

        Pro rata 26amp at 120volts allows 3.12kw
        Pro rata 92.56amp at 120 volts allows 92.56*3.12/26=11.1kw
        These are clearly rms. If the current is shared across three phases, instead of just one phase, the power remains the same.

        [1:] http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-in-ac-circuits.html
        AC power :
        Power = (Vmax x Imax)/2
        for a sinusoidal waveform

        rms (root mean square) voltage and current are Vmax/(2^0.5) and Imax/(2^0.5)

        W(watts) = Vrms x Irms

  • BillH

    Here is a page detailing the pressure gauge used:-
    http://www.keller-druck.com/home_e/paprod_e/leo1_e.asp
    I’m not sure if it helps, but according to Penon all the data except for the flow rate, was recorded to a logger every 10 second.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Did anyone check out this site (seems to require an account)?

    https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/

    Some of the images are apparently free, for others you would have to pay. I am not sure about the resolution (Google StreetView is certainly better).

    Coordinates of the address in Doral:

    Latitude 25deg 48’ 55’’ N
    Longitude 80deg 19’ 29’’ W

  • GiveADogABone

    While we are on the subject of power supplies:
    IH make much of the overlap of the FLP and E-cat power curves at certain times. They think this is evidence of fraud. I think that it is evidence of a second power meter for the E-cat.

    I suggest this more strongly than before because we now know that there were big fans running continuously in the upstairs room for cooling a makeshift heat exchanger. I suggest these fans had a very similar power consumption as the E-cat. There is no room for E-cat, heat exchanger fans and air conditioners within the FLP curve.

    Perhaps it does not matter anyway :-
    215-01 : Joe Murray – Summary of Opinions
    1: Comparison of Power Sold by FLP and Power Reported Absorbed
    From 215-03 :
    3: Measured average electrical power in : p258
    Q. Do you have any evidence that the [power] data has been manipulated?
    A. No, I don’t.

    So the power consumption of the E-cat is not an issue for the court, it would appear. What Penon stated in the ERV report stands.

  • GiveADogABone

    A first ‘back of an envelope’ calc of fan power to shift 1MW of heat :-
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html
    Air @60C 1.067kg/m^3
    Cp 1.009 kJ/kg K

    Systemair Fan
    6500 m^3/h @550watts

    dt air 70-30=40C
    Ht Tx = 1.009*40*6500*1.067 = 280916 kJ/h = 77.75kJ/s = 77.75 kw for 550watts of electrical power.

    • GiveADogABone

      At 250,000m^3/h, the Systemair fan would need 0.55*250,000/6500 = 21.15kw.
      A bigger fan ought to be more efficient?
      I wonder if they had speed control?

  • Stephen

    An interesting observation:

    If I understood correctly each generator unit consumes between 1.1 kW and 2.5 kW for heating and other power needs.

    So the Tiger modules containing 15 generator units would each consume between 16.5 kW and 32.5 kW. And the Tiger module containing 16 generator units would consume between 17.6 kW and 35 kW.

    The total power consumed for heating etc would then be:

    Between 67.1 kW and 132.5 kW if all units in all 4 Tigers were being used.

    Between 49.5 kW and 100 kW if one Tiger is Off and all units in 3 Tigers were used.

    If we take the first case this would be consistent with a COP of between about 7.6 and 15 if 1MW is out put. Which is close to the original specified COP for the device. And also similar to some of the COPs mentioned by IH in some tests on some device.

    Curiously though according to the data the actual power useage was closer to 10 kW. And the actual COP correspondingly much higher.

    One possibility is that the 1.1 to 2.5 kW refers to each Tiger rather than each unit but I don’t think that is the case from the text.

    I suppose this could mean a number of things but I wonder if it tells us something about “steady state” and “self sustain mode”.

    Could it be that in one of these modes (maybe steady state) it only requires one of the devices in each Tiger to be powered. And the remaining 14 to 15 units are sustained by this single unit excess heat instead of requiring external heat?

    If so could Self sustain mode be one step further when the units continuously sustain each other.

    It seems to me this is how he has multiplied the actual COP up from 7.5 kW to closer to 100kW. And looks consistent with the data. And that the normal specified COP for the device is for 100% powered mode with no steady state or self sustain mode?

    Could this much lower than specified power usage be further proof that excess heat must have occurred?

    • BillH

      Since most of this detail isn’t in the final report it’s hard to say, but Bruce_H below did come across intermediate testing done by Penon on one of his site visits which indicated that some of the cores within the Frankies were actually powered down, i.e. they had no Current input. Interestingly Darden/Vaughn seemed to indicated that a subset of the reactors within the container might be used for “testing”, but this isn’t reflected in the actual test document as written by Penon.

      • BillH

        Reference document 214-33 Exhibit 33 starting around page 17 of 36.
        This document also shows much clearer diagrams of the steam and water lines than the one that appears in the final report.

        • Stephen

          Thanks for that document link BillH I have a feeling that some parts of that document could be a kind of gold mine if it can be correctly interpreted.

          The powering of individual units in BF1 to BF3 is interesting…

    • GiveADogABone

      It is an interesting thought that the high CoPs reported by the 1yr test are a product of the ‘Tiger’ (aka BF) unit internal design and the collaborative performance of the 16 modules inside. The inverse logic is that the 1yr test back up plant, with individual modules, was only capable of about CoP=6.

      That would explain why Rossi was determined not to use the backup plant, if he could possibly avoid it.

      It is noteworthy that when one BF unit came off line in the test, the remaining three BF units in service continued to deliver high CoPs.

      What would have happened if the roles of backup and main were reversed? Would IH have accepted CoP just above six without a big falling out?

      There are immediately obvious IP issues here. The backup plant with 51 modules was obsolete kit, with its IP exposed in patents and worth little. The additional IP of the BF units was the high value component and I guess that is what IH lacked (until they came up with the money?)

      • Stephen

        Yup it’s interesting I’ve just been re-reading your past threads about the ECat from last year after reviewing this document. Lots of interesting stuff was covered back then especially your exchanges with Engineer 48.

        • GiveADogABone

          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/21/rossi-for-1mw-plant-test-maximum-possible-input-300kw-average-output-1-mw/
          What was the maximum electricity input available to the 1MW E-Cat plant during the year long test?
          Answer: 300 kW

          If the test plant was running at CoP=4 (the minimum required for payment under the Licence Agreement), then the electrical power requirement would have been 250kW for 1MW of heat. Hence the need for a 300kW power supply. For 51 modules in the backup plant that would be 4.9kW per module.

          The measured power during the test using the BF units was more like 10kW total, so 2.5kW per BF. From 214-33, as pointed out by BillH, page 29 contains a power diagram for the test. The 3-phase, 300kW power supply supplied only the main modules and the PCE830 power meter only recorded the 3-phase module power. The single phase power supply coming from the secondary supply to the E-cat supplied the pumps, computers, control boards & sensors, lights and data-switches.

          You state, ‘One possibility is that the 1.1 to 2.5 kW refers to each Tiger’. I agree 2.5kW per ‘Tiger’ (aka BF) as above.

          • Stephen

            Yup I think he found away to improve on the original configurations in the Tiger design by grouping the 15 or 16 units in 1 module to take advantage of some parameter maybe heat or maybe something else to support to process in this configuration.

            To me it looks like the advantage of the Tiger configuration is that each Tiger is self contained and self sustaining in some way. But I’m speculating of course.

      • Bruce__H

        Barry West’s testimony is that the individual-reactor units were shut down because they were shorting to ground and couldn’t be fixed. So really, it is the Tigers that are acting as backups here after the primary system couldn’t get off the ground.

        • GiveADogABone

          An interesting idea that Rossi was forced to use the BF units for the test. Clearly, the Licence Agreement expected CoPs at the 10 level. The production of CoPs at the 100 level from the outset, as shown by the ERV report, seems to have started a train of events that ran out of control.

          • GiveADogABone

            You are right about the BF internals. We need a ‘Rossi says’ for that.

          • BillH

            AR apparently bought 10Kg of Platinum sponges, they would be worth quite a lot of money, I wonder where they went?

            http://www.specialtymetals.com/blog/2014/4/9/3-things-you-probably-never-knew-about-platinum-sponges

          • Mike Rion

            If you read further it seems it was only a quote he received from Johnson Mathey, which was never finalized as a purchase. Instead he bought a particular filter from a JM distributor, which he mined for a few ounces of the Platinum material that he needed for experimentation.

          • BillH

            I’ll recheck that, it seemed like a nice portable pension fund.

          • BillH

            Document 245-24, while not conclusive, there doesn’t appear to be a cancellation email.

    • wpj

      Sorry, but everyone knows that Penon is a blabbering idiot as Jed (and DW) says so and so it has to be true.

      IH were also very generous to him in not correcting him when he stupidly believed that this was a one year test as per the agreement (page 22 of 214-33).

      He deserves to take all those independently calibrated pieces of equipment and put them somewhere dark.

    • Omega Z

      The input variance is the difference between “powered state” and “self sustain state”. Even self sustain requires power input, but at a substantially lower setting. 100KW/10KW their abouts.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    235-10 contains tons of new photos and other information. This will take some time to analyze.

    • BillH

      Indeed. Much more detailed than his first report having had access to the plant.

    • GiveADogABone

      235-10 : p23/4
      ‘In Mr. Penon’s report, he is reporting alleged steam temperatures that are slightly superheated’
      True!

      ‘The construction of the BF units precludes the use of internal superheaters.’
      Wrong!

      ‘All the heating elements of the BF units are submerged in water, which means that they can only generate saturated “steam”.’
      Wrong!

      ‘there are no heating elements above the alleged water line, there can be no internal superheat.’
      Wrong on both counts!

      ‘Are there external superheaters on the BF units?’
      No!

      Perhaps Mr Rick Smith would care to explain how a steam outlet pipe can be flooded when the boiler gauge glass shows a level at mid height?
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/12/quarkx-news-watch-thread/

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I have noticed that, too. There could be easily an internal superheater. I think that he is also wrong about the atmospheric pressure in the plant inlet, since Penon said that the circuit has been opened only once in a while in order to refill the auxiliary tank.

        However, the question how both a pressure differential and a surprisingly constant outlet pressure could fit together remains open. Steam velocity is also a problem. Even with a 4.5’’ ID pipe I get about 247 km/h for 1500 kg steam/h – maybe somebody wants to check. 100% steam would not have been required, but even an insignificant mistake might damage the credibility of the report.

    • GiveADogABone

      235-10: p19 Water Flow Issues

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html
      Coefficient of thermal expansion steel 12*10^-6 m/m C
      Length of pipe 30m
      dt=100-20=80C
      Expansion pipe from E-cat to black box = 30*80*12/10^6 = 0.0288m – 28.8mm. Call it 3cm.
      It looks to me like the ‘Serpentine heat exchanger’ is a set of flexibility bends to relieve the thermal expansion of the pipework from the E-cat to the black box.
      http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/steam-distribution/pipe-expansion-and-support.aspx
      Is a good read for the beginner.
      Hint: Turn Fig 10.4.9 on its side and clockwise and compare to Mr Smith’s diagram of the ‘Serpentine Ht Ex’. OK, add a few more bends to the fig.

      I would agree with Mr Smith that the ‘Serpentine heat exchanger’ is probably a water circuit driven by the Grunfos pump with a filter. It is a flushing and startup system. To keep temperatures uniform as you start up a once-through boiler system, you must flood the boiler and circulate the water to all parts.

      What you should never do is switch on the heaters in the BF units with the water at half a glass and let the water boil when other parts of the system are stone cold. Has Mr Smith ever worked on a once-through boiler power station? I have. You should heat and circulate the working fluid throughout the system to provide a steady, gentle ramp rate for metal temperatures (constrained 70C temperature changes reach yield stress like railway lines buckle in the hot sun). Annoyingly, I have read a startup procedure for the E-cat and I have now lost it among all the documents. The start-up procedure ends with a boil-back to normal operating level.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    You would have to increase the stroke rate beyond the maximum of 180/min (see http://www.prominentfluid.com.au/uploads/Files%202016/Manuals%202/Solenoid%20pumps/GALA%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf ). Not the most elegant solution since it would certainly reduce the lifetime of the pump.

  • GiveADogABone

    Websearch on ‘prominent gamma 23w’
    There is a photo of the data plate of a BF feed pump in the court evidence that states it is a 23w. These pumps appear to no longer be manufactured.

    The pump performance is dictated by stroke rate, stroke length and backpressure. 32L/h is the rating at high backpressure. The medium pressure rating is 36l/h. So what is the backpressure of the E-cat pumps?

    The target total flowrate is 1500kg/h, so 1500/24=62.5kg/h per pump which is well above 36l/h, so there is a query here. There is something we do not know. A modification to the pumps for very low backpressure operation is a contender for the solution perhaps?

  • GiveADogABone

    Type ‘superheat’ into the search box at the top of the ECW home page. That should get you to all the discussion. There is a ‘Rossi says’ that states the E-cat superheats.

    There is also a photo of an E-cat module with the top removed. The fins on the heat exchanger reach almost to the top of the steam space and when the E-cat operates at half-a-glass there is a length of fin above the internal water level. That length of fin above the water level is the superheater.

  • GiveADogABone

    http://www.multifan.co.uk/fans/
    Fans for installation in the wall of a glasshouse, tunnel or any other building where efficient high volume air extraction is required.
    Summary of wall fan specifications

    71cm diameter 900rpm 13,000m^3 600watts

    • Bruce__H

      Excellent! You are like a dog on a bone!

      So if each fan is 25,000 m^3 capacity (rather than 250,000 m^3 as I previously thought) then 2 fans would need something like 2.4 kW.

      • GiveADogABone

        In a glasshouse, the fan operates with no pressure drop in its circuit. If you are blowing through tube bundles you produce a pressure drop and that shifts the fan’s duty point. In other words more power needed but how much is an unknown.

        On a heat balance basis I have a crude estimate of about 70,000m^3/h. The calc is just above. Both points seem to push things close to 10kw.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.