Critique of the Smith Report from the JONP

Since there has been such a lot of discussion on the recently produced photos from the court documents, I thought the following comment by reader “DT” from the Journal of Nuclear Physics might be interesting regarding the report written by Rick A. Smith (expert witness for Industrial Heat) for readers here to read and discuss, since he includes some very specific calculations.

DT
April 8, 2017 at 5:17 AM

“Dr Andrea Rossi:
Surely you have realized that the “expertise” of Mr Smith, super-expert-consultant of IH in the litigation, is a fraud. It is totally based on two issues, both wrong:
1- he says that a COP higher than 1 is against the principles of thermodynamic
2- he says the pumps of the E-Cats had a flow rate of 36 liters per hour and gives evidence of this fact by a photo of the label of a Prominent pump installed on the E-Cat.

“As a matter of fact, the cases can only be two: either Mr Smith is not an expert, and in this case the issue is over, or he is giving voluntary false information in change of money. In fact, it is impossible that an expert ignores that:

“1- the thermodynamic principles must be applied to a specific system and in the case of the E-Cat the system is nuclear, not chemical, therefore it is possible that the COP is higher than one, because the chemical energy at the input induces nuclear energy: the three thermodynamic principles are fully respected because of the Einstein equation.

“2- the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to 20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW.
Not to mention other enormous errors, like for example the fact that the superheating of the steam must be made as he says: this guy does not even know how boilers work, or, most likely, lies in change of money.

“Besides, somebody has to explain to him that the steam at 103 Celsius at room P is dry by physics laws. Plus, in the documents published by the Court is clearly described that along the steam line there was a trap to check if water was contained in the steam.”

 

  • ” a COP higher than 1 is against the principles of thermodynamic ”

    Is it possible for an engineer to not know that ‘nuclear fission plants’ (which has a COP above 1) works
    and that they are distributed all over North America?

    No, it is not.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nuclear or chemical binding energy, it does not matter. With the same logic they could argue that a coal-burning stove cannot work.

      • Exactly.

      • clovis ray

        From what I know there is a hell of a lot of difference
        Chemical has a limit to how much heat it will produce. So has nuclear until it melts down like the japan reactor that has contaminated the hole pacific region.

  • ” a COP higher than 1 is against the principles of thermodynamic ”

    Is it possible for an engineer to not know that ‘nuclear fission plants’ (which has a COP above 1) works
    and that they are distributed all over the world.

    No, it is not.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nuclear or chemical binding energy, it does not matter. With the same logic they could argue that a coal-burning stove cannot work.

      • Exactly.

      • clovis ray

        From what I know there is a hell of a lot of difference
        Chemical has a limit to how much heat it will produce. So has nuclear until it melts down like the japan reactor that has contaminated the hole pacific region.

    • clovis ray

      Have a link to that statement that nuclear is over unity. Because I don’t believe you.
      There has never been a over unity machine developed. To date. With the exception of the E-cat.

  • Curbina

    The flow rate issue I thought had been put To rest time ago, I agree entirely that pumps have flows determined by the pressure at which the pump works. My concern is with the lack of data register And the absurdity of the manual reading of a perfectly automatizable flow meter. This IMHO is not proof of fraud, but imperdonable in an endeavour that wants To be taken seriously.

  • Curbina

    The flow rate issue I thought had been put To rest time ago, I agree entirely that pumps have flows determined by the pressure at which the pump works. My concern is with the lack of data register And the absurdity of the manual reading of a perfectly automatizable flow meter. This IMHO is not proof of fraud, but imperdonable in an endeavour that wants To be taken seriously.

  • clovis ray

    Like I said smith is not very smart, and a lie is hard to defend,so more lies or alternatively truths.lol

  • Nicolas Chauvin

    Accounting for the energy to heat the water to 100°C and to heat the steam to the working temperature adds about 20% to the output energy (we don’t know the steam working temperature).
    And with the correction of the water flow from the pumps, the output energy estimation is close to Penon’s numbers.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Nicholas,

      We know the measured steam temperature as +103C and the measured steam pressure as 0.0 barg or 1 atmo, which will also be very close to the back pressure on the 24 condensate at the inlet end of the 4 Tiger slabs. As the condensate has a head above that of the pumps, they would have been operating under a negative back pressure, ie inlet pressure is greater than pumping back pressure of around 0.1 barg.

  • Dr. Mike

    Smith made no claim that the the COP could not be greater than one. Certainly some of his assumptions are wrong. My guess is he will correct his final conclusions if he testifies in court. I see the most important statements in his report were those that state there was no evidence of a heat exchanger ever being in the mezzanine (no plugged holes in the concrete walls and floors for pipes and electrical conduit). It seems that the heat exchanger was invented to cover the fact that the JM Products black box was shown to not actually using any steam heat. I don’t believe a jury is going to believe Rossi’s testimony about the construction of the heat exchanger if he is unable to remember the name of the person that helped him build this heat exchanger. It may be very difficult for Rossi to establish any credibility in testimony in front of a jury after IH’s attorney grills him about setting up JM Products as a phantom customer.

    • clovis ray

      Ah, the way I see it is once the product went through the wall
      It was no longer realament. As for as penon was concerned. It looks to me if smith is in with Darden it just another grasp at the straw.
      What i’my wondering is what they will offer before trial.

      • Dr. Mike

        Clovis,
        If you look closely at Smith’s report, you will find it very consistent with the assumptions that he made based on the information he had when he wrote the report. It will be Rossi’s laywer’s job to point out where those assumptions are wrong. If you compare his expert report to the Wong expert opinion, you will find that Smith’s report is based on his observations and the data that he saw verses Wong’s calculation for the heat dissipation for a heat exchanger for which he never saw. Smith was paid by Darden’s team (each side hires their own experts), but Darden is not grasping at straws. With the deceit of Rossi’s phantom customer and possible lack of ability to demonstrate that he fully transferred his IP to IH, don’t be surprised if IH doesn’t get a judgment for a return of a substantial portion of the $11.5M already paid to Rossi and perhaps some additional damages.

        • clovis ray

          It won’t be smith verses wong it will be smith verses penion .
          There will not be a transferror of I/p for partial payment.
          I will be highly suprised because A.R. has already offered them their money back and that and was turned down. And if I don’t miss my guess I/h will pay much much more for damages.

    • Engineer48

      Dr Mike,

      The visual evidence from the dry wall opening, the 4×4 support frame, the rubber vibration marks on the floor and the window without glass all support the existence of the upper story heat exchanger.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa50b15bc5ee5d357e42968ab5b06f9aefd054b286dded4e7d026d9f1522e059.png

      Will be real interesting to see Smith prove the existence of a direct connection between the steam riser and the internal condensate holding tank. Without proof of that connection, his whole EXPERT conjecture about how the condensate flowed is a pure invented wannabee dream. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73cec74ddb34f507f62a35b000c71479de91d2142768b889d6e4fda466cea410.png

      The only point about the trial that means anything is the COP being >= 6 as IH owes Rossi a lot of money.

      Murray and Jed’s campaign to say the flow meter number were not accurate due to the flow meter pipe not being full of water is disproved by Smith as at the location, at the bottom of the condensate head, it would always be full of water. Very hard to believe that Murray and Jed did not know where the flow meter was located and that the plant needed at least a 2.5 mte condensate head to operate.

      Now we know, thanks to Smith’s images and those of others, that the flow meter was full of condensate and thus it’s data was accurate. Then knowing the measured steam pressure and steam temperature, the steam quality is known, the amount of energy it contains is known and flow the flow meter data, it is shown that the plant did produce the 1MW and that the steam temp was above 100C. Then knowing the electrical energy consumed, the COP is known and ANY value >= 6 and IH needs to pay Rossi.

      Everything else is just fluff and spin by the IH EXPERTS and other IH commentators.

      So IH loses.

      • Josh G

        E48, I curious: Google street view photos taken during the test (April 2015) clearly show the windows intact where there should be a heat exchanger. How would you explain that? Or how do you think he will be able to explain it to a jury?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Josh,

          I do go out of my way to provide photographic evidence when I make claims. Please do the same.

          Here we have what I found from Google Street View:

          February 2014, clearly there are window panes:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/297a1635abdabe667eec8670d42a1f5dcd2d1cfa2ffe6bce018cee38baedcb8f.png

          April 2015, clearly there are no window panes but probably a fly screen to keep bugs and mossies out:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2eaf327f14fea0a327ca368f085d8853f0f7772b7ce0d7fe02590cbba2d54cf.png

          June 2016, clearly the window panes are back:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bfd294a61e9da1db0467f0b07e3d92277a3db39e0c92803f0ca63b5c853ad87d.png

          • Josh G

            E42, I asked that question as someone who was genuinely puzzled by the picture, which was published on LENR Forum and also linked to here in another thread (which is why I didn’t feel the need to link to them). Actually, I wasn’t puzzled so much as convinced that it was good evidence that Rossi was lying.

            I asked you because I respect your views. And I’m glad that I did, because I can see that you’re right. I was initially under the impression that the fans were supposed to have been actually mounted to the window frame, but now I understand the alleged setup better — the heat exchange apparatus was mounted in the room itself, not on the window.

            And I can also see that although the window in 2015 looks to be intact, they are not the same reflective glass panes. Here is another picture that shows the screens even better, and it appears that he also removed the glass panes in the window above the door (and I suppose also the third window behind the tree). So it seems that all the windows in the second floor were open to the air for heat dissipation.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af651fadfc7e011e48347e3500bf58838f2b513fa3cac7bfa5333210439fb55d.jpg

            You can see the screens very well by comparing the windows above the door to 7861 (Rossi’s facility) to 7859 (next door to the right).

            EDIT: That pic is from April 2015

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            Yes I saw that as well but decided not to push that point. Glad to see your sharp eye picked it up.

            There is a black mesh behind the windows that stops most of the sun and bugs entering the upper story while allowing the heat exchanger heat to pass through.

            It is not Rossi who is not telling the truth.

  • Dr. Mike

    Smith made no claim that the the COP could not be greater than one. Certainly some of his assumptions are wrong. My guess is he will correct his final conclusions if he testifies in court. I see the most important statements in his report were those that state there was no evidence of a heat exchanger ever being in the mezzanine (no plugged holes in the concrete walls and floors for pipes and electrical conduit). It seems that the heat exchanger was invented to cover the fact that the JM Products black box was shown to not actually using any steam heat. I don’t believe a jury is going to believe Rossi’s testimony about the construction of the heat exchanger if he is unable to remember the name of the person that helped him build this heat exchanger. It may be very difficult for Rossi to establish any credibility in testimony in front of a jury after IH’s attorney grills him about setting up JM Products as a phantom customer.

    • clovis ray

      Ah, the way I see it is once the product went through the wall
      It was no longer realament. As for as penon was concerned. It looks to me if smith is in with Darden it just another grasp at the straw.
      What i’my wondering is what they will offer before trial.

      • Dr. Mike

        Clovis,
        If you look closely at Smith’s report, you will find it very consistent with the assumptions that he made based on the information he had when he wrote the report. It will be Rossi’s laywer’s job to point out where those assumptions are wrong. If you compare his expert report to the Wong expert opinion, you will find that Smith’s report is based on his observations and the data that he saw verses Wong’s calculation for the heat dissipation for a heat exchanger for which he never saw. Smith was paid by Darden’s team (each side hires their own experts), but Darden is not grasping at straws. With the deceit of Rossi’s phantom customer and possible lack of ability to demonstrate that he fully transferred his IP to IH, don’t be surprised if IH doesn’t get a judgment for a return of a substantial portion of the $11.5M already paid to Rossi and perhaps some additional damages.

        • clovis ray

          That would be a wonderful senerrio for I/H .but not going to happen .Dr.Rossi has already offered that.and was turned down remember.come on Dr. You know well that you do not turn over the complete ip for partial payment.. And the good Dr. Is way smarter than that. The customer is erealament .

        • clovis ray

          It won’t be smith verses wong it will be smith verses penion .
          There will not be a transferror of I/p for partial payment.
          I will be highly suprised because A.R. has already offered them their money back and that was turned down. And if I don’t miss my guess I/h will pay much much more for damages.

    • Engineer48

      Dr Mike,

      The visual evidence from the dry wall opening, the 4×4 support frame, the rubber vibration marks on the floor and the window without glass all support the existence of the upper story heat exchanger.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa50b15bc5ee5d357e42968ab5b06f9aefd054b286dded4e7d026d9f1522e059.png

      Will be real interesting to see Smith prove the existence of a direct connection between the steam riser and the internal condensate holding tank. Without proof of that connection, his whole EXPERT conjecture about how the condensate flowed is a pure invented wannabee dream. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73cec74ddb34f507f62a35b000c71479de91d2142768b889d6e4fda466cea410.png

      The only point about the trial that means anything is the COP being >= 6 as IH owes Rossi a lot of money.

      Murray and Jed’s campaign to say the flow meter number were not accurate due to the flow meter pipe not being full of water is disproved by Smith as at the location, at the bottom of the condensate head, it would always be full of water. Very hard to believe that Murray and Jed did not know where the flow meter was located and that the plant needed at least a 2.5 mte condensate head to operate.

      Now we know, thanks to Smith’s images and those of others, that the flow meter was full of condensate and thus it’s data was accurate. Then knowing the measured steam pressure and steam temperature, the steam quality is known, the amount of energy it contains is known and flow the flow meter data, it is shown that the plant did produce the 1MW and that the steam temp was above 100C. Then knowing the electrical energy consumed, the COP is known and ANY value >= 6 and IH needs to pay Rossi.

      Everything else is just fluff and spin by the IH EXPERTS and other IH commentators.

      So IH loses.

      • Josh G

        E48, I curious: Google street view photos taken during the test (April 2015) clearly show the windows intact where there should be a heat exchanger. How would you explain that? Or how do you think he will be able to explain it to a jury?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Josh,

          I do go out of my way to provide photographic evidence when I make claims. Please do the same.

          Here we have what I found from Google Street View:

          February 2014, clearly there are window panes:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/297a1635abdabe667eec8670d42a1f5dcd2d1cfa2ffe6bce018cee38baedcb8f.png

          April 2015, clearly there are no window panes but probably a fly screen to keep bugs and mossies out:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2eaf327f14fea0a327ca368f085d8853f0f7772b7ce0d7fe02590cbba2d54cf.png

          June 2016, clearly the window panes are back:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bfd294a61e9da1db0467f0b07e3d92277a3db39e0c92803f0ca63b5c853ad87d.png

          • Josh G

            E42, I asked that question as someone who was genuinely puzzled by the picture, which was published on LENR Forum and also linked to here in another thread (which is why I didn’t feel the need to link to them). Actually, I wasn’t puzzled so much as convinced that it was good evidence that Rossi was lying.

            I asked you because I respect your views. And I’m glad that I did, because I can see that you’re right. I was initially under the impression that the fans were supposed to have been actually mounted to the window frame, but now I understand the alleged setup better — the heat exchange apparatus was mounted in the room itself, not on the window.

            And I can also see that although the window in 2015 looks to be intact, they are not the same reflective glass panes. Here is another picture that shows the screens even better, and it appears that he also removed the glass panes in the window above the door (and I suppose also the third window behind the tree). So it seems that all the windows in the second floor were open to the air for heat dissipation.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af651fadfc7e011e48347e3500bf58838f2b513fa3cac7bfa5333210439fb55d.jpg

            You can see the screens very well by comparing the windows above the door to 7861 (Rossi’s facility) to 7859 (next door to the right).

            EDIT: That pic is from April 2015

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            Yes I saw that as well but decided not to push that point. Glad to see your sharp eye picked it up.

            There is a black mesh behind the windows that stops most of the sun and bugs entering the upper story while allowing the heat exchanger heat to pass through.

            It is not Rossi who is not telling the truth.

          • Bruce__H

            It does look like screening

          • Josh G

            Yes, although I suppose it’s possible that it was installed behind glass panes. But the picture of the “intact windows” from 2015 is not as devastating to Rossi as I initially thought.

          • Bruce__H

            Screening in front of intact windows doesn’t make much sense to me. These aren’t the kind of window you can open whenever you want.

            I think that the issue of the reality of the heat exchanger is going to stand or fall on the basis of the thermal imaging evidence. I think IH did acquire such evidence during the 1 year test. I saw it in one of the exhibits from last week. I’ll take a look for it sometime today.

          • Another Dr Mike

            Better if the images are from the same time of the day. They are not. Compare the shadows. In my opinon you can not conlude anything from them.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Nicholas,

    We know the measured steam temperature as +103C and the measured steam pressure as 0.0 barg or 1 atmo, which will also be very close to the back pressure on the 24 condensate at the inlet end of the 4 Tiger slabs. As the condensate has a head above that of the pumps, they would have been operating under a negative back pressure, ie inlet pressure is greater than pumping back pressure of around 0.1 barg.

  • Engineer48

    One of Smith’s biggest failing is not understanding that as steam condenses inside the heat exchanger, it’s volume drops 1,600 times and creates a partial vacuum that would pull the 0.0 barg superheated steam into the heat exchanger.

    I was amazed when an EXPERT either ignored this fact of physics and heat exchangers or did not know how heat exchangers work and what happens to steam when it condenses out as water.

    It would appear Smith has never seen what happens when trapped steam condenses and it’s volume drops 1,600 times:
    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c0d_1377441595

    • Gerard McEk

      E356, just some questions, reading about the vacuum condensing steam can produce: Is it possible that you use this phenomenon to reduce he pressure in the whole system such that water would evaporate at a much lower temperature? Would the calculation of produced heat dramatically change in case there would be vacuum in the system?
      I make this remark because the pressure indicator constantly showed 0,0 Barg (assuming it would not indicate a negative – below 1 Bar absolute – pressure).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Steam only condenses made to liquid water when it has transferred or lost the heat that has made it steam to other matter.

        The entire steam circuits of the ECat are insulated to stop steam energy loss and steam condensation, except the primary / secondary of the heat exchanger where the energy in the superheated steam primary is transferred to the fluid in the secondary of the heat exchanger.

        For condensate, liquid water, to leave the primary of the heat exchanger and to be pumped back to the ECat internal holding tank, that heat transfer process must have happened as did the 1,600 times reduction in volume and the generation of the partial vacuum in the primary of the heat exchanger.

        All of which Smith seems to not understand.

        • Gerard McEk

          Sorry for naming you wrong above, Engineer 48, my thoughts must have been elsewhere…
          If I read your answer above well, the difference is marginal because the evaporation energy is independent of the temperature of the water. The only difference will be that the energy needed to heat the water to the evaporation temperature will be less in case of a vacuum. Correct?

          • Engineer48

            HI Gerald,

            The superheated steam only causes a localised vacuum in the area where it loses heat to the surrounding piping as in the cold secondary of the heat exchanger.

            This pressure loss does not occur system wide but only in a very localised spot, which then draws in more superheated steam to warm up that spot. However if the secondary of the heat exchanger does draw away that heat energy, the localised heat loss spot maintains the localised partial condensation generated partial vacuum and draws further superheated steam to it. Thus the flow is maintained.

          • Gerard McEk

            Hi E48, yes, I know how that works. You must be aware that pressures at the outlet of a steam turbine are below atmospheric. If the main condensate pump maintains a low enough pressure at its inlet, the whole steam system can be below 1 atmosphere. That is where my previous question comes from. So if you assume the steam system at a vacuum of say 0.8 atmo (absolute), how much would the influence the COP (on average 86) negatively, roughly?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Yup turbine outlets are sub atmo due to condensation inside the turbine but hopefully not too much as too much condensate inside a spinning turbine is NOT GOOD NEWS and it can destroy a turbine.

            What we know is the superheated steam temp at the ECat outlet pipe is +103C and the superheated steam pressure is 0.0 barg. As I understand the Tiger and heat exchanger system, I see no issues with those ECat outlet numbers.

            Of course both do vary as the system thermal gain and thermal load varies.

            For the COP measurement, only the thermal energy gain vs electrical energy input is important.

            For the ECat reactor, the superheated steam thermal output should balance the thermal energy loss inside the heat exchanger, with the partial vacuum drawing in the superheated steam.

            Of course there will be a pressure differential from one end of the steam pipe that feeds the JM Black Box to the other. So far no one has offer up that information but I’m sure Rossi has measured it as he tuned the dynamics of the ECat & JM Black Box system to a more optimal environment.

            As Rossi says in one of his statement. “More Knobs To Tune”. Yup that is the engineering I understand and enjoy.

  • Engineer48

    One of Smith’s biggest failing is not understanding that as steam condenses inside the heat exchanger, it’s volume drops 1,600 times and creates a partial vacuum that would pull the 0.0 barg superheated steam into the heat exchanger.

    I was amazed when an EXPERT either ignored this fact of physics and heat exchangers or did not know how heat exchangers work and what happens to steam when it condenses out as water.

    It would appear Smith has never seen what happens when trapped steam condenses and it’s volume rapidly drops 1,600 times:
    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c0d_1377441595

    Cool video.

    BTW the Red Grundfos pump would produce enough vacuum to initially suck the 0.0 barg superheated steam from the ECat steam riser and into the primary of the heat exchanger in the JM Black Box, where it condenses, produces more vacuum and the Red Grondfos pump is maybe no longer needed, depending on the amount of condensate arriving from the upper story secondary heat exchanger.

    I really find it so difficult to understand why Smith does not know this about steam? Very strange.

    • Gerard McEk

      E356, just some questions, reading about the vacuum condensing steam can produce: Is it possible that you use this phenomenon to reduce he pressure in the whole system such that water would evaporate at a much lower temperature? Would the calculation of produced heat dramatically change in case there would be vacuum in the system?
      I make this remark because the pressure indicator constantly showed 0,0 Barg (assuming it would not indicate a negative – below 1 Bar absolute – pressure).

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerard,

        Steam only condenses, changes into liquid water, when it has transferred or lost the heat that has made it steam to other matter.

        The entire steam circuits of the ECat are insulated to stop steam energy loss and steam condensation, except the primary / secondary of the heat exchanger where the energy in the superheated steam primary is transferred to the fluid in the secondary of the heat exchanger.

        For condensate, liquid water, to leave the primary of the heat exchanger and to be pumped back to the ECat internal holding tank, that heat transfer process must have happened as did the 1,600 times reduction in volume and the generation of the partial vacuum in the primary of the heat exchanger.

        All of which Smith seems either not to understand or ignores it.

        • Gerard McEk

          Sorry for naming you wrong above, Engineer 48, my thoughts must have been elsewhere…
          If I read your answer above well, the difference is marginal because the evaporation energy is independent of the temperature of the water. The only difference will be that the energy needed to heat the water to the evaporation temperature will be less in case of a vacuum. Correct?

          • Engineer48

            HI Gerald,

            The superheated steam only causes a localised vacuum in the area where it loses heat to the surrounding piping as in the cold secondary of the heat exchanger.

            This pressure loss does not occur system wide but only in a very localised spot, which then draws in more superheated steam to warm up that spot. However if the secondary of the heat exchanger does draw away that heat energy, the localised heat loss spot maintains the localised partial condensation generated partial vacuum and draws further superheated steam to it. Thus the flow is maintained.

          • Gerard McEk

            Hi E48, yes, I know how that works. You must be aware that pressures at the outlet of a steam turbine are below atmospheric. If the main condensate pump maintains a low enough pressure at its inlet, the whole steam system can be below 1 atmosphere. That is where my previous question comes from. So if you assume the steam system at a vacuum of say 0.8 atmo (absolute), how much would the influence the COP (on average 86) negatively, roughly?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerald,

            Yup turbine outlets are sub atmo due to condensation inside the turbine but hopefully not too much as too much condensate inside a spinning turbine is NOT GOOD NEWS and it can destroy a turbine.

            What we know is the superheated steam temp at the ECat outlet pipe is +103C and the superheated steam pressure is 0.0 barg. As I understand the Tiger and heat exchanger system, I see no issues with those ECat outlet numbers.

            Of course both do vary as the system thermal gain and thermal load varies.

            For the COP measurement, only the thermal energy gain vs electrical energy input is important.

            For the ECat reactor, the superheated steam thermal output should balance the thermal energy loss inside the heat exchanger, with the partial vacuum drawing in the superheated steam.

            Of course there will be a pressure differential from one end of the steam pipe that feeds the JM Black Box to the other. So far no one has offer up that information but I’m sure Rossi has measured it as he tuned the dynamics of the ECat & JM Black Box system to a more optimal environment.

            As Rossi says in one of his statement. “More Knobs To Tune”. Yup that is the engineering I understand and enjoy.

        • Another Dr Mike

          An Enthalpy/entropy chart (Mollier graph) would be very helpful I think. It is often used in steam processes. Have you created one for the ecat process?

  • Oystein Lande

    A comment to DT’s claim above of “the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure:”

    Well, actually -no. The statement above is right for a centrifugal pump, but for positive dipsplacement pumps, like the prominent diaphragm pump in this case, the flow rate is a function of the motor speed (pump speed) only.

    And the stated outlet pressure, is the maximum discharge pressure the pump can produce ( function of motor power, mech. design etc)

    • Engineer48

      Hi OL,

      Prominent specifies the pump volume as a guaranteed MIN of 32 L/Hr at 2 barg back pressure and 36 L/Hr at 1 barg back pressure.

      My calculated pump back pressure is either very close to zero or negative due to the condensate head pressure on the pump inlet being more than the back pressure inside the Tigers with a outlet steam pressure of 0.0 barg.

      Just maybe as the back pressure would be around 0 barg, the volume would increase the same amount as from 2 barg to 1 barg or 4 L/Hr to around 40 L/Hr.

  • Oystein Lande

    A comment to DT’s claim above of “the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure:”

    Well, actually -no. The statement above is right for a centrifugal pump, but for positive dipsplacement pumps, like the prominent diaphragm pump in this case, the flow rate is a function of the motor speed (pump speed) only.

    And the stated outlet pressure, is the maximum discharge pressure the pump can produce ( function of motor power, mech. design etc)

    • Engineer48

      Hi OL,

      Prominent specifies the pump volume as a guaranteed MIN of 32 L/Hr at 2 barg back pressure and 36 L/Hr at 1 barg back pressure.

      My calculated pump back pressure is either very close to zero or negative due to the condensate head pressure on the pump inlet being more than the back pressure inside the Tigers with a outlet steam pressure of 0.0 barg.

      Just maybe as the back pressure would be around 0 barg, the volume would increase the same amount as from 2 barg to 1 barg or 4 L/Hr to around 40 L/Hr.

      Stroke length increases as the back pressure decreases, so the pump flow does increase as back pressure drops.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have still a problem with the reported pressure of 1 barG in the outlet. If one fills a closed system with water and evaporates parts of the latter, the pressure would rise enormously (think of a steam machine). In order to maintain atmospheric pressure one would have to release most of the steam into the environment. Comments?

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      ECat outlet steam pressure is reported as 0.0 barg or 1 atmo.

      As steam condenses in the heat exchanger in the JM Black Box and reduced it’s volume 1,600 times, it forms a partial vacuum and easily draws the 0.0 barg ECat superheater steam into the heat exchanger primary.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Sorry, I meant 0 barG. But that makes things even worse. It seems that at least in the startup phase a lot of steam would have to be released. A system that works with phase change at atmospheric pressure should ideally be open on the ‘hot’ end, as we have seen in AR’s old ‘chimney’ reactors.

        • Engineer48

          Hi AM,

          The superheated steam when it initially expands 1,600 times will most certainly push some of the expanding superheated steam up the steam riser, out the steam pipe and into the heat exchanger, where it will find a cold secondary and condense, transferring heat energy, dropping local pressure and thus drawing more 0.0 barg superheated steam into the heat exchanger so it can transfer more heat into the secondary liquid.

          The condensed steam then becomes liquid water condensate and flows down hill, through the full flow meter, back into the condensate holding tank and condensate risers that generate the condensate head to feed the Tigers condensate intakes.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The only way how that could work would be starting with a partial vacuum. I do not think that they did it that way. One remote possibility might be a relief valve, but anyway one would have noticed large amounts of escaping steam at times.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            The superheated steam will expand to fill the entire volume of the superheated steam space, including the ECat steam risers, the tubing between the ECat and the JM Black Box and the primary of the heat exchanger where it will find cold metal, transferring heat into it, locally condensing and forming a local partial vacuum. Which will then draw further superheated steam to that spot.

            So easy to start where the superheated steam will condense. It starts where the surrounding piping causes the local steam temp to drop below superheat.

            Just need a secondary with fluid below superheat temp to cause localised energy transfer into the colder secondary fluid, condensation of the superheat steam in the primary circuit and partial vacuum formation in the primary that draws more superheated steam to it.

            It is all about thermal equalisation.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Let’s say you reach equilibrium (with 0 barG not possible without either releasing steam once after startup or starting with a partial vacuum), how do you want keep it stable if the energy output of the reactors varies over time? Pressure would vary correspondingly, but according to Penon’s report it was constant.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            It is unknown to me the sensitivity of the steam pressure sensor. I doubt the steam pressure did not vary but maybe not enough to be significant on the steam pressure sensor chosen.

            The energy output of the Tigers is controlled by the computer system, which is why if one Tiger goes off line, the thermal output stays constant.

            I look at the Tiger as variable gain thermal amplifiers, that can be controlled as one does an audio amp, to adjust the gain to keep output constant.

            I expect each Tiger can do more like 500kW or double the overall COP, but probably not with a fuel load designed to last 350 days at 250kW.

            Also by adjusting the volume of the gravity feed condensate flow to be very high or almost all the flow required at 250kW, if additional power is required from Tiger X, the topping up pumps can increase flow to supply the extra condensate volume needed to boost kW output.

            The Tiger based ECat system is a clever design that has capacity not fully understood by many. Clever boys Rossi and his team.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have still a problem with the reported pressure of 1 barG in the outlet. If one fills a closed system with water and evaporates parts of the latter, the pressure would rise enormously (think of a steam machine). In order to maintain atmospheric pressure one would have to release most of the steam into the environment. Comments?

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      ECat outlet steam pressure is reported as 0.0 barg or 1 atmo.

      As steam condenses in the heat exchanger in the JM Black Box and reduced it’s volume 1,600 times, it forms a partial vacuum and easily draws the 0.0 barg ECat superheater steam into the heat exchanger primary.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Sorry, I meant 0 barG. But that makes things even worse. It seems that at least in the startup phase a lot of steam would have to be released. A system that works with phase change at atmospheric pressure should ideally be open on the ‘hot’ end, as we have seen in AR’s old ‘chimney’ reactors.

        • Engineer48

          Hi AM,

          The superheated steam when it initially expands 1,600 times will most certainly push some of the expanding superheated steam up the steam riser, out the steam pipe and into the heat exchanger, where it will find a cold secondary and condense, transferring heat energy, dropping local pressure and thus drawing more 0.0 barg superheated steam into the heat exchanger so it can transfer more heat into the secondary liquid.

          The condensed steam then becomes liquid water condensate and flows down hill, through the full flow meter, back into the condensate holding tank and condensate risers that generate the condensate head to feed the Tigers condensate intakes.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The only way how that could work would be starting with a partial vacuum. I do not think that they did it that way. One remote possibility might be a relief valve, but anyway one would have noticed large amounts of escaping steam at times.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            The superheated steam will expand to fill the entire volume of the superheated steam space, including the ECat steam risers, the tubing between the ECat and the JM Black Box and the primary of the heat exchanger where it will find cold metal, transferring heat into it, locally condensing and forming a local partial vacuum. Which will then draw further superheated steam to that spot.

            So easy to start where the superheated steam will condense. It starts where the surrounding piping causes the local steam to lose energy, drop temp to below superheat and condense.

            Just need a secondary with fluid below superheat temp to cause localised energy transfer into the colder secondary fluid, condensation of the superheat steam in the primary circuit and partial vacuum formation in the primary that draws more superheated steam to it.

            It is all about thermal equalisation.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Let’s say you reach equilibrium (with 0 barG not possible without either releasing steam once after startup or starting with a partial vacuum), how do you want keep it stable if the energy output of the reactors varies over time? Pressure would vary correspondingly, but according to Penon’s report it was constant.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            It is unknown to me the sensitivity of the steam pressure sensor. I doubt the steam pressure did not vary but maybe not enough to be significant on the steam pressure sensor chosen.

            The energy output of the Tigers is controlled by the computer system, which is why if one Tiger goes off line, the thermal output stays constant.

            I look at the Tiger as variable gain thermal amplifiers, that can be controlled as one does an audio amp, to adjust the gain to keep output constant.

            I expect each Tiger can do more like 500kW or double the overall COP, but probably not with a fuel load designed to last 350 days at 250kW.

            Also by adjusting the volume of the gravity feed condensate flow to be very high or almost all the flow required at 250kW, if additional power is required from Tiger X, the topping up pumps can increase flow to supply the extra condensate volume needed to boost kW output.

            The Tiger based ECat system is a clever design that has capacity not fully understood by many. Clever boys Rossi and his team.

          • Another Dr Mike

            A question not really related to this but…. when you write that the thermal output is constant it raises one question. In Europe I think that an appliance that is tested outside a laboratory has to be approved by the authorities or comply with EU directives. Is that not necessary in the US to comply with some similar regulation or rules?

  • Oystein Lande

    The report above claims the 1MW plant had 24 feed pumps, but where there not 48 pumps?

    Some 46 pumps are required to produce 1MW steam power at 32 liter/hr pr. Pump.

    • Engineer48

      Hi OL,

      There were 24 topping up pumps that provided SOME of the required volume. The other volume was provided by a direct feed from the condensate riser.

      The pumps had a higher volume than 32 L/Hr as that is the rate with a back pressure of 2 barg. I estimate their effective volume was probably in excess of 40 L/Hr for a total of 27,600 L/Day with the other 8,400 L/Day or 2,100 L/Day per Tiger made up via direct raw condensate flow into the Tigers.

      Please note the dual condensate flows into each Tiger being both pumped and gravity feed condensate flows:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4c835995484ef1ff1b18ee93f1c70943704726c62063fa3acf3068d57c569ee.png

      • Oystein Lande

        Again: the feed pumps are positive displacement pumps. Output on positive displacement pumps do NOT vary with outlet pressure, only with pump speed (motor speed)

        So 24 “topping up” pumps could only provide maximum half the total rate required for the1MW plant. The remaining rate must come from somewhere else.

        • Engineer48

          Hi OL,

          Here is the data on the pumps.

          It shows 32 L/Day at 2 barg and 36.2 L/Day at 1 barg.

          So for this pump, the flow rate is sensitive to back pressure. Note the stroke length increases as the back pressure decreases.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45e0fdf4d861eef22f6fa78b443fc9372d8a9e012f653f352f15a1cbab0077a9.png

          Each Tiger has TWO sources of condensate:

          1) Gravity feed condensate flow from the condensate riser, manually adjusted by an inline value, the Yellow adjusters in the lower image.

          2) On/Off intermittent topping up flow from the 6 x Prominent pumps that is sensitive to the water level inside the Tiger via a inline water pressure sensor, the black boxes on the pipes from the riser to the Tiger condensate inlets.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6c917e0926b2a25a84bb080b6cd111ceca33e594f2e8880878b39818aa942d6.png

          • Oystein Lande

            The 13% increase in capacity must be related to increased efficiency of the pump at lower head, i.e. Less leak in inlet/discharge valves, not change in stroke length.

          • Engineer48

            Hi OL,

            Oops not stroke length increase but ml/stroke increase as back pressure decreases. My bad.

            It is an energy balance. Constant input stroke energy / less back pressure against the stroke energy = more volume / energy delivered to the outlet.

  • Oystein Lande

    The report above claims the 1MW plant had 24 feed pumps, but where there not 48 pumps?

    Some 46 pumps are required to produce 1MW steam power at 32 liter/hr pr. Pump.

    • Engineer48

      Hi OL,

      There were 24 topping up pumps that provided SOME of the required volume. The other volume was provided by a direct feed from the condensate riser.

      The pumps had a higher volume than 32 L/Hr as that is the rate with a back pressure of 2 barg. I estimate their effective volume was probably in excess of 40 L/Hr for a total of 27,600 L/Day with the other 8,400 L/Day or 2,100 L/Day per Tiger made up via direct raw condensate flow into the Tigers.

      Please note the dual condensate flows into each Tiger being both pumped and gravity feed condensate flows:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4c835995484ef1ff1b18ee93f1c70943704726c62063fa3acf3068d57c569ee.png

      • Oystein Lande

        Again: the feed pumps are positive displacement pumps. Output on positive displacement pumps do NOT vary with outlet pressure, only with pump speed (motor speed)

        So 24 “topping up” pumps could only provide maximum half the total rate required for the1MW plant. The remaining rate must come from somewhere else.

        • Engineer48

          Hi OL,

          Here is the data on the pumps.

          It shows 32 L/Day at 2 barg and 36.2 L/Day at 1 barg.

          So for this pump, the flow rate is sensitive to back pressure. Note the stroke length increases as the back pressure decreases.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45e0fdf4d861eef22f6fa78b443fc9372d8a9e012f653f352f15a1cbab0077a9.png

          Each Tiger has TWO sources of condensate:

          1) Gravity feed condensate flow from the condensate riser, manually adjusted by an inline value, the Yellow adjusters in the lower image.

          2) On/Off intermittent topping up flow from the 6 x Prominent pumps that is sensitive to the water level inside the Tiger via a inline water pressure sensor, the black boxes on the pipes from the riser to the Tiger condensate inlets.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6c917e0926b2a25a84bb080b6cd111ceca33e594f2e8880878b39818aa942d6.png

          • Oystein Lande

            The 13% increase in capacity must be related to increased efficiency of the pump at lower head, i.e. Less leak in inlet/discharge valves, not change in stroke length.

          • Engineer48

            Hi OL,

            Oops not stroke length increase but ml/stroke increase as back pressure decreases. My bad.

            It is an energy balance. Constant input stroke energy / less back pressure against the stroke energy = more volume / energy delivered to the outlet.

      • Bruce__H

        Hi Engineer,

        I find this all interesting and I think we should approach all of these questions in a spirit of cooperation to find out what is what at the Doral site. I hope I have been courteous to you. But still I don’t understand how you see the external condensate reserve tank tank working. Would you please draw on your flow schematic the external tank and indicate how it figures in to the flow pattern as you see it?

      • Another Dr Mike

        What are topping up pumps? Are they connected in line or parallel with the ordinary pumps. That affects either the flow or the pressure. And why not ordinary pumps that are suitable for the flow, and finally… what is the overall pressure drop in the system inclding pipes, heat exchangers and the internal flow of the e-cats?

  • Engineer48

    Put the three window views together into a single image for better comparison:

    Sure looks like in April 2015, there were no windows panes installed, but maybe a bug screen or sun cloth filter hanging behind the open windows to stop solar heating and bugs getting inside:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c88907915364518c5b7d74a923acaa8a9276b319733e124110f42ad9b11d67e.png

    • Not so sure.

      • Engineer48

        Mats,

        Read this:
        http://disq.us/p/1hpgudm

        The window panes are missing as Rossi claims.

        Not good for Smith or IH.

        Plus Mats there are marks on the floor where something that vibrated a lot stood and had rubber vibration isolation pads under it that formed resonate patterns on the floor based on standing waves set up in the walls around the fans and heat exchangers from the noise.

        Remember the vibration in the walls around the heat exchangers when you were in Bolonga in 2011? This would be around the same level of vibration.

        • The thing is that in the April 2015 picture there are no reflections in any window, probably because of the position of the sun at the moment of the picture being taken.

  • Engineer48

    Put the three window views together into a single image for better comparison:

    Sure looks like in April 2015, there were no windows panes installed, but maybe a bug screen or sun cloth filter hanging behind the open windows to stop solar heating and bugs getting inside:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c88907915364518c5b7d74a923acaa8a9276b319733e124110f42ad9b11d67e.png

  • Bruce__H

    Here is some weird information I discovered about the Prominent GammaL2 pumps used on the Tiger/BF uinits. Teh info come from the PRominent site …

    http://www.prominentxtranet.com/pdf/GammaL2.pdf

    The thing is that the pumps in Rossi’s configuration seem to be installed backwards! Or, at least, backwards according to my understanding of how the Tigers were installed in the Doral plant.

    I had assumed that the draw side for the pump was the top connector that pokes vertically up above it at the back and that the discharge was directly backwards into the Tigers. But looking at the literature on the pumps it seems that this is wrong. For the ECCO 0232 model, which is what we are dealing with according to the tag Smith photographed the discharge is vertically up and the inlet is from below. There is no flow going out the back.

    Huh?

    According to my understanding of the way the Tiger/BFs are hooked up this would mean that the pumps are discharging straight back into the condensate supply. I don’t get it! I now think that the incoming water for the pumps must come from those tubes you see behind the pumps which seem to be connected to the condensate line at floor level.

    None of this makes sense to me.

    For those wanting to help figure this out, please note that the relevant pump configuration appear to be the the one shown in the leftmost diagram in the panel of 3 on the second page of the pdf file I linked to. Note that just above the middle diagram in the same panel is the information that the 0232 model does not have the “degassing” option that would result in an output that project directly backwards. Later in the document (page 7) come an asterisked note that the 0232 does not have a bleed valve. This is why I think the model fitted on the Tigers has the fittings shown in the leftmost diagram.

  • Engineer48
  • Engineer48
  • Josh G

    Yes, although I suppose it’s possible that it was installed behind glass panes. But the picture of the “intact windows” from 2015 is not as devastating to Rossi as I initially thought.

    • Bruce__H

      Screening in front of intact windows doesn’t make much sense to me. These aren’t the kind of window you can open whenever you want.

      I think that the issue of the reality of the heat exchanger is going to stand or fall on the basis of the thermal imaging evidence. I think IH did acquire such evidence during the 1 year test. I saw it in one of the exhibits from last week. I’ll take a look for it sometime today.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    It is correct that the outlets of the pumps are leading upward. It looks as if the water inlets of the reactors are on their top. This would make sense if there was a not immersed zone since it might reduce the temperature differences, and therefore material stress.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Pump intake is from the bottom and discharge from the top.

    The inlets are feed from horizontal headers at floor level via plastic tubing.

    The pump discharge is straight up, into the overhead headers and then left and down into the raw condensate inlet pipe.

    Each condensate pipe has a manually adjustable flow value, Yellow butterfly wings, that sets the raw / uncontrolled condensate flow into each Tiger. That flow is around 80% of the required flow and the rest is achieved by the topping up pumps that are controlled by the pressure sensors fitted to each condensate inlet pipe as per the attached system schematic.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2409460a62d70bf24cf33c6cf43b29f1ef15f94b4a45ad837ea821417b722bff.png

    On the floor are 4 headers that each have 6 outlets that supply the 6 Prominent pumps plus the front most header also supplies the condensate combo vent and supply riser.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d98a948daf46209a346d4800e35e822ea51edadafd49e7bb6194cb2f5b634a92.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60de46bbb651a9f3638df4a93f4a880689bbebd3d973
    aac0580cbd5daf3070a5.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8b5c4058b2c1e1ccc3cb9bd0c3b7e55b0b31384c9441410df702c0633b406f45.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f09ee16574e36044f3d87ef120c3462657a273453541b1c9932fb69ed8eebf54.png

  • Anyone knows what the rules are for presenting evidence that hasn’t been brought up earlier, when the case goes up in court in June?

    • GiveADogABone

      Reading this you might think it was a blanket ban, except perhaps with the agreement of all parties, including the judge. Maybe you have to wait for an appeal.

      http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery.html
      Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It’s designed to prevent “trial by ambush,” where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there’s no time to obtain answering evidence.

      Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial.

      Often a witness’s deposition will be taken by the opposing side and used to discredit the witness’s testimony at trial if the trial testimony varies from the testimony taken during the deposition. (A lawyer might ask a witness at trial, “Are you lying now or were you lying then?”)

      • In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.

      • Stephen

        Have the white pipes in the ceiling of this picture already been considered?

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/894c06548ad272114e6a198abc659d519f6a5259389267253a1fcb6d2b964950.jpg

        Are they the same ones that were connected to the 4 pipes that were on the wall in the other pictures? But are not seen in this one.

        In this picture one they appear connected to a pipe in the back left corner and wall.

        I’m not sure if this picture was taken before or after the E-Cat plant was put in operation. But the gap to the second floor is there so I suspect it could be after.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          What do you think are those dark squares in the walls below the concrete ‘beams’? Could they be openings that belong to a venting system?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            After looking at the left side, I dismiss this idea. It would also make no sense from a static point of view. Maybe they are just short steel girders which are painted with a rust inhibitor.

        • Steve D

          A few considerations in general are roof rain drainage and also any remnants of the previous occupants fit out. Apart from that clever investigative is research is going on here. Hope we’ll see a plant plumbing diagram from Rossi.

      • radvar

        This relates to my question, what is the status of the rest of the photos, the hundreds that I assume Rossi took?

        • radvar

          Perhaps I misunderstood, however, the link provided by GADAB not say that the parties have to disclose all the evidence that they might introduce at trial.

          So, what are the chances that Rossi, Mr. Self-Promotion R Us, did not take hundreds of photos?

          I mean seriously. Does anyone think that the photos we’ve seen are the only photos that exist? Assign a probability to that.

          And then if Rossi were not obliged to disclose them, why would IH not ask for them during discovery?

          Has any trace of such an inquiry shown up in any of the evidence so far submitted? “Mr. Rossi, do you have other pictures of the facility, plant, and so on?”

          Did Rossi ever say “Nope, what you’ve seen is what you get.”?

          I do not wish to impute motives to people, however, it’s not that hard to figure out why both Rossi and IH would not want the photos in evidence.

          However, if the photos exist, then the entire case starts to look like a game of chicken.

      • Omega Z

        I may lie now and then…
        LOL

      • wizkid

        ha ha! Wish it was, but alas, nothing on top anymore. Let the good times roll. At least the radio stations still play the same music.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That’s not a radio station – that’s your skipping gramophone

          • Toussaint françois

            I’ll be releived when this litigation is over . Rossi is ruining his health in this ordeal

          • wizkid

            Your right Bob, no playlist here. It sure is. No wonder it’s so scratchy. You should’a seen my buddy Tom when he used DC on that big old circus animal. You kids ‘r supposed to show us baldies kindness too, remember? 2 Kings 2:23. But the kicker is in version 24…

            Hope your upcoming replication works out, that would clear the air!

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll do the best job the crowd tells us to!

            Good thing is – people will be able to criticise us as we go

    • Josh G

      Go ask Abd. Double dare you. (-;

      • BTW do we know if Abd works for IH or not?

        • Josh G

          Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.

        • SG

          I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.

            I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)

            One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.

    • There is the screen capture of a video taken during Penon’s visit that appears to show nothing going through the doorway.

      But clearly those four holes in the beige box were used for something and it’s reasonable to conclude they were for something round like pipes or hoses. And somewhat less clearly there appear to be hints of things going into and placed in the mezzanine. There are also four white pipes running across the ceiling. Not to mention the horizontal silver pipe that emerges from the JMP side — we still don’t know what that was hooked up to and that goes right out of the roof.

      What one video caught on a particular day may not tell the whole story. Perhaps the setup was configurable.

  • Anyone knows what the rules are for presenting evidence that hasn’t been brought up earlier, when the case goes up in court in June?

    • GiveADogABone

      Reading this you might think it was a blanket ban, except perhaps with the agreement of all parties, including the judge. Maybe you have to wait for an appeal.

      http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery.html
      Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It’s designed to prevent “trial by ambush,” where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there’s no time to obtain answering evidence.

      Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial.

      Often a witness’s deposition will be taken by the opposing side and used to discredit the witness’s testimony at trial if the trial testimony varies from the testimony taken during the deposition. (A lawyer might ask a witness at trial, “Are you lying now or were you lying then?”)

      • In fact, I don’t interpret it as a blanket ban. Rather that most of the evidence is presented during discovery. But it doesn’t exclude some evidence to be presented in court, as long as it doesn’t contradict earlier depositions or testimonials, I guess.

      • Omega Z

        I may lie now and then…
        LOL

    • Josh G

      Go ask Abd. Double dare you. (-;

      • BTW do we know if Abd works for IH or not?

        • Josh G

          Not sure but I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support it other than his quixotic behavior on IH’s behalf. But I stopped following things for quite awhile until the mid-March filings. So not sure.

        • SG

          I think he claimed that he has been paid to blog by somebody, but not IH.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I suppose I should correct this. I have not been “paid to blog” by anybody. I was collecting documents and putting them in the filespace for the newvortex list, and an attorney, not connected with IH at all, offered to pay my PACER expenses. I have received a total of $50 so far, I may ask for more, and another person, also not connected with IH other than being long-term interested in LENR, has offered additional support, enough that I will probably be able to go to Miami to cover the trial if it happens. Enough to cover my travel, I may still need more to cover details like hotel.

            I later started the blog when I was temporarily banned on LENR Forum, and then got serious about it when the newvortex archive became unusable (a yahoogroup problem) and LF banned me “permanently.” (Fun question: for what?)

            One of the functions of the blog is to build analytical resources, as distinct from endless debate that goes nowhere, i.e., Blog Normal. This is intended long-term for general cold fusion issues, but is currently being used for Rossi v. Darden.

  • I think there’s a list of advisors to IH somewhere. Anyone remember where it is?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      214-23, p. 7.

  • I think there’s a list of advisors to IH somewhere. Anyone remember where it is?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      214-23, p. 7.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, it’s nuclear. Major Kong would have been able to explain why it doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics but he’s no longer with us.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edi2Wkr5YI

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, it’s nuclear. Major Kong would have been able to explain why it doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics but he’s no longer with us.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edi2Wkr5YI

  • Stephen

    Have the white pipes in the ceiling of this picture already been considered?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/894c06548ad272114e6a198abc659d519f6a5259389267253a1fcb6d2b964950.jpg

    Are they the same ones that were connected to the 4 pipes that were on the wall in the other pictures? But are not seen in this one.

    Edit: if you look at the position of the ceiling lights the pipes it possible to see in the 4 pipe picture that the pipes are next to the beam next to the light which is two roof beams back from the white pipes in this picture.

    In this picture one they appear connected to a pipe in the back left corner and wall.

    I’m not sure if this picture was taken before or after the E-Cat plant was put in operation. But the gap to the second floor is there so I suspect it could be after.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      What do you think are those dark squares in the walls below the concrete ‘beams’? Could they be openings that belong to a venting system?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        After looking at the left side, I dismiss this idea. It would also make no sense from a static point of view. Maybe they are just short steel girders which are painted with a rust inhibitor.

    • Steve D

      A few considerations in general are roof rain drainage and also any remnants of the previous occupants fit out. Apart from that clever investigative is research is going on here. Hope we’ll see a plant plumbing diagram from Rossi.

      • Bruce__H

        Good point abut the plumbing diagram from Rossi. In my opinion the whole point of the Doral test was that it made sure that a lot depended on the plumbing.

  • Stephen
  • Stephen

    Another interesting brightened picture of the window.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b2f67b33e9f632852171b5d65227b6af1d444b90fac6bcd132b233740da1c96.jpg

    The “horizontal pipe” looks like something in the room. And is visible in both top “Windows”.

    The “box shaped artifact” looks like a square of dark and light dashed lines with a small square in the middle. Does anyone recognize what it is? Could it be a sensor of some kind?

    Edit: At a guess if the window pane is 100 cm x 80 cm if the square artifact is a real object it woul be about 30 cm x 50 cm or so.

    I don’t think it’s a picture artifact as the dashes do not line up with other distortions.

    There also seems to be a bright object to the right of the “curtain” or what ever it is at the left hand side of the window and behind the square object. The bright object appears when I played with the brightness of the original picture but is too indistinct to identify

  • Bruce__H

    SMITH vs ENGINEER48

    Rick Smith and Engineer48 have provided 2 vastly different proposals as to how water and steam flowed in the ecat and JMP plants during he 1 year test. I contrasted them a couple of days ago but lots of work has been done now. So here is an update of these proposals.

    SMITHWORLD
    First for Smith. He thinks that the red pump in the JMP box drove hot water in a circle between the JMP and ecat sides of the facility. He points out that the pump has enough capacity to account for the entire 1500 l/h flow that Rossi says indicates 1 MW power generation. Smith’s flow goes into the ecat box through the famous condensate return pipe with its even more famous flowmeter. On emerging from the pipe the next thing the water does is go up the “steam” risers in the ecat plant and then head right back to the JMP side and the red pipe thus closing a loop. The flowmeter has to be submerged in this scenario.

    Meanwhile, some of the flow is diverted from the steam riser / condensate return pipe system and flows at atmospheric pressure into an internal condensate return tank ion the floor of the ecat plant. How this is done is unknown but it is a sure thing that the condensate return pipe, the base of the steam riser, and the internal return tank are all side by side and largely encased in insulation. It is my belief that Smith has poked around and found an internal junction that is not on Penon’s flow schematic but that is just surmise on my part. At any rate, in Smith’s scheme the water in the tank is the sucked out by the pumps mounted on the Tigers (the pumps can lift water 6.5 feet according to their specs)and injected into the Tiger/BF units to be heated. Once heated the water rejoins the main flow in the steam riser.

    I still don’t see anything unphysical about this. It is all possible. The only 2 dubious things are 1) the direct connection between the condensate return pipe and the steam riser that Smith asserts and 2) the diversion of water from the pressurized steam riser (pressurized by the red pump on the JMP side) to the 1 atm return tank. There is an absence of direct evidence for these but they are both possible.

    ENGINEERWORLD
    In Engineer 48’s scheme the pattern of flow, particularly in the ecat plant, is different. The starting point in the JMP box is much the same though. Engineer says eithe the red pump or a head of condensate returning from the 2nd story pressurizes a flow of water down the condensate return pipe to drive a submerged flowmeter. But now this time the condensate after entering the return tank on the floor of the ecat container, is still under pressure and so is driven up condensate pipes to a level 2.5 meters and then flows straight into the Tigers. This main flow bypasses the pumps and explains why the pumps don’t have to be relied upon to carry the entire flow (which was one of Smiths’s big complaints)

    The problem with this is that Engineer’s proposal is either unphysical or has direct photographic evidence contradicting it. Here is why. 1) The unlagged vertical pipe standing beside the Tigers is not connected to the condensate pipe the runs along the floor near the Tigers. You can see this in pictures as I have pointed out to Engineer.
    The condensate pipe feeds the pumps but not the vertical pipe, and it is the vertical pipe that is supposed to carry the main flow of condensate into the Tigers according the Engineer. I suspect that vertical pipe is a drain but I don’t really know. 2) Engineer cannot explain passages in Penon’s report that describes how a water filled reservoir tank sitting just outside the ecat box feed the internal condensate return tank by gravity. You can see the external reservoir in almost any photo of the ecat plant. Its top is about 5 feet off the ground of the Doral facility which makes it 2-3 feet above the floor of the ecat plant. Since the reservoir and the internal plant are connected by gravity, when the connection between them is open their surfaces will be the same level. That means that the surface of the water in the internal condensate return tank is 2-3 fee above the floor of the ecat plant and not 2.5 meters above it. Engineer needs that 2,5 meter head of water to feed the Tigers. I don’t see how it can exist physically.

    On the basis of the foregoing, Engineer’s proposal simply doesn’t work. Smith’s is still possible and awaits evidence.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      BTW the ‚gravity theory’ was mine, not E48’s. Certainly it could be wrong. But I do not see the external reservoir as an obstacle as long as the loop was closed, or open only at the highest point. Decisive is IMO not the height of the external tank, but the water level in the ‘serpentine’. Most likely that level was not high enough to provide enough pressure to feed all the E-Cat modules. But the rest could be done by the Prominent pumps.

      My further idea was that a significant part of the energy required for maintaining circulation was produced by the reactors themselves. The hot steam would rise due to its lower density, leading to permanent thermal convection. Of course, all this is speculative.

      The ‘red pump theory’ is probably wrong since according to Bass most of the time the water was diverted around the filter box (see 207-48, p. 44f. / PDF page 7). This would imply that the pump was usually off.

      • Bruce__H

        I actually didn’t think that the gravity theory was Engineer’s. I just meant to convey that Engineer’s theory of flow between the JMP black box and the ecat plant didn’t depend on whether the pressure is from a pump or a head of water.

        How do you think that the external reservoir feeds the internal tank? My picture, derived from Penon’s description in his ERV report and from Barry West’s deposition, is that the two are directly connected and that when the level in the internal tank drops, a floating valve opens the connection and allows the external reservoir to fill it back up. This has two consequences. First of all it means that a water surface exists in the internal tank, and secondly it means that the water level in the internal tank is lower than the water level in the reservoir. But take a look at the external reservoir. Here for instance (where the reservoir sits in a wooden cradle outside the ecat plant) …

        https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casedoc/sn85804314/IPC20150505114510/4/webcontent

        The top of the reservoir is only at knee height for someone standing inside the ecat plant. How could this reservoir be used to fill the internal tank if the internal tank is under a pressure head many feet higher created in the JMP black box? It can’t happen.

        Try taking one of the flow diagrams that Engineer has been displaying (one of the ones that shows both the JMP side and the ecat side) and sketching in on the right hand side the external reservoir. Try and see if you can find a way to make it feed the internal tank by gravity. I don’t think you will be able to find a way unless you raise the external reservoir height much higher than than it obviously is.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          As far as I understood it, the external tank was connected to the return line of the JMP plant. If there was a high enough water column in the ‘serpentine’ (higher than the water level in the internal tank), the external tank would receive enough pressure to fill the internal one.

          On that photo I cannot see a connection between the tank and the ‘customer’ area, but there could be a pipe leading through the red container. Anyway, as has been said, without knowing all relevant details it is only possible to speculate. And even with more information it would be difficult to find the correct answers.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            BTW such a system would be prone to backflow if not accurately designed. I hope there was an appropriate mechanism to prevent that. (The Defkalion disaster is still floating around in my head…)

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t see how the external reservoir / internal tank system would be susceptible to backflow. I think that the internal tank could be susceptible to overflow and according to Barry West they did have trouble with this.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            If for some reason the water level in the section after the flow meter is higher than in the section before, the water will flow backward. Except if there is a backflow protection. Some flow meters have an integrated one.

            In Defkalion’s case the steam from the reactor caused a backpressure which let the meter’s wheel turn in the wrong direction. The instrument reported a high flow while the flow rate was virtually zero.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            From their data sheets, all the pumps and flow meter have back flow protection. The Prominent pumps have 2 back flow valves.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Good to hear!

          • Bruce__H

            The direct, gravity fed, connection between the outside reservoir and the internal water tank is diagrammed and described verbally by Penon in his final ERV report (see pages 39-40 of document 236-43).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/988bdd8378d8e7ff080c2533bddf173eb9ce84025605da52615aac0a850cc95f.jpg

            The diagram plainly shows the external reservoir as connected to the internal tank by a short piece of pipe that goes through the wall of the ecat plant and enters the internal tank.

            Here is how Penon describes the situation …

            ” The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank into the internal tank by gravity.”

            I think that is pretty explicit. I don’t see how the situation described by Penon is consistent with Engineer’s ideas.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            There are several clearly visible Condensate risers that are part of the Condensate feed system.

            One such riser, about 2.5 mte high is seen in the right of Smith’s image. There are more. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce3363ee036976a79333fefb8e34a5fa85083f20958598a56dee4758f0f233e1.png

            Plus as the Condensate height exiting the heat exchanger in the JM Black Box is much higher than the internal condensate holding tank, the natural fluid level would be well above the top of the condensate holding tank.

            Maybe that external tank was at the height of the Condensate riser tops? Then it would flow into the condensate system via gravity.

            In the end gravity wins as fluid seeks it’s own level.

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Engineer. Here is a picture of the external reservoir tank sitting in its wooden cradle just outside the ecat plant.

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/05/new-image-of-the-e-cat-plant-on-trademark-application/

            Its top is comparable in height to the visible top of the internal reservoir.

            I note that according to their specs these Prominent pumps can draw a 6.5 foot column of water. I think that is about the height of the tops of the vertical condensate pipes above the surface of the water in the internal tank.

          • Bruce__H

            Having the JMP side of the condensate return pipe being much higher than the top of the internal holding tank (are you sure though? — it doesn’t look like that to me although I can’t really tell) is actually consistent with both your theory and Smith’s. You both think that the returning water was pumped. You think it was pumped into a sealed tank and then up the condensate pipes and Smith think it was pumped up the steam riser.

            The only scenario it isn’t consistent with so far is Penon’s. Mr Rossi has never supplied a hydraulic schematic so we don’t know if your observations are consistent with your observation.

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Engineer,

            I would like to ask you again to consider the issue of the external reservoir that feed the internal holding tank. According to Penon this is a gravity feed.

            Take a look at the height relationship between the external tank (shown sitting in the wooden cradle that Barry West describes) and the ecat box.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0315358c9eb904098bbaaac264f6506e6f8d7edd1c0baa15ba975f5641008928.jpg
            I can’t see how the top of the reservoir would be anything like 2.5 metrers above the floor of the ecat box. Can you? It think it is more like 2 feet above the floor of the ecat box. If the internal tank has a 2.5 meter head of water on it then how could this reservoir feed it by gravity?

            You pride yourself on going by the picture evidence. So isn’t it inconsistent for you to ignore this evidence?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Regarding the middle paragraph, it is probably better to describe the process as follows: When the water is evaporated it gains a lot of energy. In the condenser (basically a kind of heat exchanger), only one part of that energy leaves the system. Another part is converted into mechanical energy (the volume will contract heavily) which guarantees that the stream can move forward. In an ideal case you might not even need a pump. This would be easy to test with some school-grade lab equipment.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Remember that Rossi said it was an ENDOTHERMIC reaction. So, what sort of endothermic reaction might be taking place in the black box? I’ll take a wild guess. http://people.uwplatt.edu/~sundin/114/image/l1419b.gif

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Remember that Rossi said it was an ENDOTHERMIC reaction. So, what sort of endothermic reaction might be taking place in the black box? I’ll take a wild guess. http://people.uwplatt.edu/~sundin/114/image/l1419b.gif

  • Bob Greenyer
    • radvar

      Doh! I see now the “beige box” is an transfer unit from the Customer Box to the four pipes imputed to go to the heat exchanger. First guess on the patches is they thought the pipes would line up that way and changed their minds.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      At least, the box indicates that there was ‘something’. One would not put it there just for fun.

    • Bruce__H

      The big problem is that we don’t know whether whatever was inside the beige box communicated with the inside of the JMP black box. The only photos we have of the inside of the black box are missing just that portion and those photos were taken by, I assume, Mr Rossi (the photos were acquired from JMP in the discovery process).

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Andreas Moraitis

      At least, the box indicates that there was ‘something’. One would not put it there just for fun.

      • Bruce__H

        One would put the box there to create exactly the impression that you now have. Particularly if millions of dollars were at stake. The problem is the 1-year time span between the end of the test and the photograph. There may be witnesses who could sort this out though.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I don’t think so. They would have added at least some voluminous pipes to impress the gallery.

          • Bruce__H

            They did. There is a set of 4 voluminous pipes hanging right above the beige box. They go up the wall and across the ceiling. It wouldn’t surprise me if they are each 15 cm diameter and collectively about 220 meters in length.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Saw them, but did not find them voluminous. To lure investors one would take much bigger ones.

          • Another Dr Mike

            15 cm with or without insulation? I suggest at least 20 mm insulation. The the pipes either are approx 20 cm or more each with insulation or approx 10 cm without insulation

          • Bruce__H

            They don’t look to me as though they have any insulation

    • Bruce__H

      The big problem is that we don’t know whether whatever was inside the beige box communicated with the inside of the JMP black box. The only photos we have of the inside of the black box are missing just that portion and those photos were taken by, I assume, Mr Rossi (the photos were acquired from JMP in the discovery process).

  • Yirkha

    As posted on lenr-forum, there are clear reflections on both windows in April 2015 (the same road construction work going on, the same brownish screens).
    https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8158163,-80.3255134,3a,20.7y,62.12h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shv38nj3pqahdlCQMr2aQmw!2e0!5s20150401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

  • Alan Fletcher

    Hi, good ECW folks. I’ve mostly been posting lenr-forum.com, so this is a bit of a drive-by posting.

    I found some interesting fine-print on the Prominent Gamma-L : http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/20110330_5617_prominent-equipment-catalogue-2011.pdf page 1-5

    “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate” …

    “Several” is more than “Two” …

    DT : I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. (Note: here, “bar” is “gauge”)

    I rate “Three” as “several”, so it looks as though the prominents could deliver the required 60 lph, compared to their rated 30.

    So a secondary (hidden?) pump is not needed. Nor is E48’s dual-flow with its associated problems. However, it’s not clear what all the other plumbing around the big frankies is for.

    Having found this information I went back to the very first eCat demo where Levi was criticized (Hi, Mats!) https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/12/and-heres-the-opposite-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/#comment-4694 for claiming that the LMI J56D was delivering more than its rated spec.

    (See image at http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg )

    But it’s also a diaphragm pump, and has the same characteristic. Its manual https://www.lmi-pumps.com/lmi-Manuals-flomotionNew/157983_1615n.pdf warns :

    If you are pumping downhill or into low or no system pressure,
    a back pressure/anti-syphon device such as LMI’s Four Function
    Valve should be installed to prevent overpumping or syphoning.

    (My posts are around https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=55459#post55459 if you want to respond there).

    • Andreas Moraitis

      What do you think about thermal convection as an auxiliary ‘motor’ to drive circulation (see my reply to Bruce_H below)?

      • GiveADogABone

        http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/about-us/news/articles/2013/understanding-boiler-ciculation.aspx
        Boilers generate steam using different methods to circulate the steam-water mixture through the evaporator tubes. These methods include natural circulation (Figures 1, 2a–2c), forced circulation (Figure 3a), and a once-through design.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          With other words, the thermal energy from the reactors could have contributed significantly to the flow. If so, the required pump capacity might have been far lower that supposed.

          • GiveADogABone

            Leaving the pumps out of it for a moment, take a column of water of a given height and a column of steam of the same height. What is the pressure at the bottom of each column? density*g*h provides the answer and they are a factor of about 1600 apart.

            Allow the water to slowly leak out of the water column from the bottom and replace it with the same amount of water at the top. The column of water stays at the same height. Make the added water from the same steam as is in the steam column by cooling it and condensing it. The water column becomes a small pump with an outlet pressure that depends on the height of the water column.

            If the water column is high enough, it could supply enough pressure at the BF feed pump suction to force water into the boiler on its own. So, yes, the BF boiler could feed itself if the height difference between the boiler and the condensing heat exchanger is large enough.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Exactly.

          • GiveADogABone

            If you are happy with that, we could go the next step and join the two columns at the top, well above the height of the water column (an inverted ‘U’).

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html
            Abs Pressue Boiling Pt C
            0.3 69.13
            0.4 75.89
            0.5 81.35
            0.6 85.95
            0.7 89.96
            0.8 93.51
            0.9 96.71
            1 99.63

            There has to be a lower pressure in the top of the ‘U’ than at the BF outlet in order to flow the steam. Therefore the condensing temperature in the heat exchanger is less. How low does the temperature go? We know the return water flow to the E-cat is at the 70C level.

            If no further cooling is possible, then a pressure of 0.3 bar in the top of the ‘U’ would give the 70C. That would require about a 7m column of water to match it and that is not available. A pressure of 0.7 bar at the top of the ‘U’ gives a temperature of 90C. There MUST be some sub-cooling heat exchanger. I think that that is the unlagged pipes in the black box.

            You also now know why Rossi has made the steam main from smaller pipes that you might expect. It throttles the steam flow to give a lower pressure in the top of the ‘U’.

    • GiveADogABone

      There is a ‘Rossi says’ in the header article of this thread :-
      [Rick Smith] says the pumps of the E-Cats had a flow rate of 36 liters per hour and gives evidence of this fact by a photo of the label of a Prominent pump installed on the E-Cat.

      I take it this is Rossi’s reply :-
      Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour.

      As a clarification, the pressure under consideration is not absolute or gauge; it is the differential pressure across the pump suction and discharge; the delta p if you like. The flowed output of the pump can be stabilised by a backpressure valve or a control system.

      I see that Prominent statement as compelling evidence of another failed assertion in Rick Smith’s evidence. I am sure Prominent could provide a letter to the court to confirm that is the case, to support Rossi’s statement.

    • Hi Alan, I never listened much to the discussions on the maximum flow of that pump since I measured the flow myself at several tests. Since I prefer trusting experimental data I figured the specs were wrong or interpretable in some way, as you now explain. I can provide the test report if you tell me what date it was (except for Januari 14, 2011, when I didn’t take measurements).

  • Alan Fletcher

    Hi, good ECW folks. I’ve mostly been posting lenr-forum.com, so this is a bit of a drive-by posting.

    I found some interesting fine-print on the Prominent Gamma-L : http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/20110330_5617_prominent-equipment-catalogue-2011.pdf page 1-5

    “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate” …

    “Several” is more than “Two” …

    DT : I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. (Note: here, “bar” is “gauge”)

    I rate “Three” as “several”, so it looks as though the prominents could deliver the required 60 lph, compared to their rated 30.

    So a secondary (hidden?) pump is not needed. Nor is E48’s dual-flow with its associated problems. However, it’s not clear what all the other plumbing around the big frankies is for.

    Having found this information I went back to the very first eCat demo where Levi was criticized (Hi, Mats!) https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/12/and-heres-the-opposite-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/#comment-4694 for claiming that the LMI J56D was delivering more than its rated spec.

    (See image at http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg )

    But it’s also a diaphragm pump, and has the same characteristic. Its manual https://www.lmi-pumps.com/lmi-Manuals-flomotionNew/157983_1615n.pdf warns :

    If you are pumping downhill or into low or no system pressure,
    a back pressure/anti-syphon device such as LMI’s Four Function
    Valve should be installed to prevent overpumping or syphoning.

    (My posts are around https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=55459#post55459 if you want to respond there).

    • Andreas Moraitis

      What do you think about thermal convection as an auxiliary ‘motor’ to drive circulation (see my reply to Bruce_H below)?

      • GiveADogABone

        http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/about-us/news/articles/2013/understanding-boiler-ciculation.aspx
        Boilers generate steam using different methods to circulate the steam-water mixture through the evaporator tubes. These methods include natural circulation (Figures 1, 2a–2c), forced circulation (Figure 3a), and a once-through design.

        The E-cat test used once-through circulation inside the BFs and natural circulation to drive the condensate flow. The steam flowed because the steam pressure in the mezzanine heat exchanger was less than the steam pressure in the BFs.

        If the Grundfos pump in the black box had run all the time, that would have been forced circulation of the condensate but depositions state the pump was not used, except for a short experimental period.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          With other words, the thermal energy from the reactors could have contributed significantly to the flow. If so, the required pump capacity might have been far lower that supposed.

          • GiveADogABone

            Leaving the pumps out of it for a moment, take a column of water of a given height and a column of steam of the same height. What is the pressure at the bottom of each column? density*g*h provides the answer and they are a factor of about 1600 apart.

            Allow the water to slowly leak out of the water column from the bottom and replace it with the same amount of water at the top. The column of water stays at the same height. Make the added water from the same steam as is in the steam column by cooling it and condensing it. The water column becomes a small pump with an outlet pressure that depends on the height of the water column.

            If the water column is high enough, it could supply enough pressure at the BF feed pump suction to force water into the boiler on its own. So, yes, the BF boiler could feed itself if the height difference between the boiler and the condensing heat exchanger is large enough.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Exactly.

          • GiveADogABone

            If you are happy with that, we could go the next step and join the two columns at the top, well above the height of the water column (an inverted ‘U’).

            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html
            Abs Pressue Boiling Pt C
            0.3 69.13
            0.4 75.89
            0.5 81.35
            0.6 85.95
            0.7 89.96
            0.8 93.51
            0.9 96.71
            1 99.63

            There has to be a lower pressure in the top of the ‘U’ than at the BF outlet in order to flow the steam. Therefore the condensing temperature in the heat exchanger is less. How low does the temperature go? We know the return water flow to the E-cat is at the 70C level.

            If no further cooling is possible, then a pressure of 0.3 bar in the top of the ‘U’ would give the 70C. That would require about a 7m column of water to match it and that is not available. A pressure of 0.7 bar at the top of the ‘U’ gives a temperature of 90C. There MUST be some sub-cooling heat exchanger. I think that that is the unlagged pipes in the black box.

            You also now know why Rossi has made the steam main from smaller pipes that you might expect. It throttles the steam flow to give a lower pressure in the top of the inverted ‘U’.

    • Bruce__H

      Yup. I wouldn’t trust DT’s word on the 90 l/h figure unless Frank Acland knows who he is and can vouch that he has no axe to grind. I expect that IH will now order some of these pumps and experiment with them.

    • GiveADogABone

      There is a ‘Rossi says’ in the header article of this thread :-
      [Rick Smith] says the pumps of the E-Cats had a flow rate of 36 liters per hour and gives evidence of this fact by a photo of the label of a Prominent pump installed on the E-Cat.

      I take it this is Rossi’s reply :-
      Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour.

      As a clarification, the pressure under consideration is not absolute or gauge; it is the differential pressure across the pump suction and discharge; the delta p if you like. The flowed output of the pump can be stabilised by a backpressure valve or a control system.

      I see that Prominent statement as compelling evidence of another failed assertion in Rick Smith’s evidence. I am sure Prominent could provide a letter to the court to confirm that
      “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate” …
      is the case, to support Rossi’s statement.

      • Bruce__H

        As always … an informative post from you GADAB!

        I’k like to see if I have this straight. The “backpressure’ is formed from the differential between the pressures at the inlet and outlet of the pump. So we set up one of these pumps to draw liquid vertically upwards up by 4 feet before being pumped out to the atmosphere then the pressure corresponding to the 4 feet of draw has to be added to the differential. Is that right?

        Also … is there a distinction between discharge rate and “feed rate”?

        • GiveADogABone

          the 4 feet of draw has to be added to the differential. Is that right?

          No. the 4 feet draw IS ALREADY part of the differential. If you put a pressure gauge on the suction side of the pump and another gauge on the discharge side while the pump is running, then the difference is what makes the pump do work. The difference in the two (hopefully accurate gauge readings) is the differential pressure.

          is there a distinction between discharge rate and “feed rate”?

          A subtle one, yes.The Prominent pumps can have two OR three pipe connections. Suction, discharge and the third one is the venting flow which is about 10% of the main discharge, IF the pump in question is a venting model. Otherwise and excluding leaks, feed and discharge are equal.

          • Bruce__H

            Thanks for the reply. I think I see what you mean but to make certain let me rephrase using you pressure gauge example.

            Let’s put pressure gauges on the input an output of the pump configuration I suggested before (input 4 feet above the water source and outlet just spewing water out to the open air). For convenience make these pressure gauges not absolute but relative to ambient pressure. Then the outlet pressure will be 0 barg and the inlet pressure will be -0.117 barg (I think) so the differential and so the “backpressure” is 0 – (-0.117) = 0.117 bar. Is that right?

            And if we now take the same pump and make it pump into the bottom of a column of water 33 feet high (i.e, pressure at bottom = 1 barg) then the backpressure is 1 – (-0.117) = 1.117 bar. Is that right too?

          • GiveADogABone

            Then the outlet pressure will be 0 barg and the inlet pressure will be -0.117 barg (I think) so the differential and so the “backpressure” is 0 – (-0.117) = 0.117 bar. Is that right?
            Yes

            a column of water 33 feet high (i.e, pressure at bottom = 1 barg) then the backpressure is 1 – (-0.117) = 1.117 bar. Is that right too?
            Right too

            I like the fact that you have not attempted to put an a or g after bar for the differential pressure.

            An extra: What pressure does a pressure gauge scaled in barg read at -0.117barg?
            Does it read -.117 barg or 0 barg. I do not mean should read; I mean actually read. The point I make is that many of the gauges do not do negative numbers. Now take a look at the ERV report data and bearing in mind the mezzanine heat exchanger operates at what is called a partial vacuum, what do you make of the steam pressure readings? What does your conclusion do to the steam superheat margin?

          • Bruce__H

            I enjoy our discussions. I love learning new stuff! I’m a neuroscientist (recently emeritus) so a lot of this is new for me.

          • Bruce__H

            Regarding your “extra”.

            I get your point that a pressure gauge scaled in barg could read 0 in a quite a stable fashion if there is a partial vacuum. And I further understand that you are saying there could be a partial vacuum at the ecat outlet where the pressure gauge was located.

            My understanding, though, is that the measuring device Penon chose to use was measuring absolute pressure. This has been a source of puzzlement to me because I don’t understand how he reports in what is apparently barg units. Maybe the conversion is just done in spreadsheet afterwards. I wish he would say. The instrument itself has the ability to be zeroed such that the readings visible on its face are relative to the reading at some point in time. But this is not really barg and would be influenced by subsequent changes in the local atmospheric pressure in Doral. One would then expect to see this variation reflected in succeeding measurements. And if the reading on the gauge are zeroed (you push a button on the gauge itself) I don’t know what this means for the digital output of the device. Is that zeroed too? I think all this has been partly discussed somewhere but I don’t know how deeply they went into it.This

          • Bruce__H

            I have a question about the ecat/heat exchange circuit. How low can the pressure at the exchanger end be? As the pressure drops the boiling point of water goes down so at some point the steam will stop condensing. Can you figure out the pressure from that? Engineering toolbox says that water boils at about 72C if the pressure is about 0.35 bara. Sinvce the condensate is supposed to be about 70C does that mean the the pressure in the exchanger cannot be less than about 0.35 bara?

    • Hi Alan, I never listened much to the discussions on the maximum flow of that pump since I measured the flow myself at several tests. Since I prefer trusting experimental data I figured the specs were wrong or interpretable in some way, as you now explain. I can provide the test report if you tell me what date it was (except for Januari 14, 2011, when I didn’t take measurements).

  • Alan DeAngelis

    GiveADogABone may be the one to ask. I think he crunched the numbers for a Fischer-Tropsch reaction.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    BTW the ‚gravity theory’ was mine, not E48’s. Certainly it could be wrong. But I do not see the external reservoir as an obstacle as long as the loop was closed, or open only at the highest point. Decisive is IMO not the height of the external tank, but the water level in the ‘serpentine’. Most likely that level was not high enough to provide enough pressure to feed all the E-Cat modules. But the rest could be done by the Prominent pumps.

    My further idea was that a significant part of the energy required for maintaining circulation was produced by the reactors themselves. The hot steam would rise due to its lower density, leading to permanent thermal convection. Of course, all this is speculative.

    The ‘red pump theory’ is probably wrong since according to Bass most of the time the water was diverted around the filter box (see 207-48, p. 44f. / PDF page 7). This would imply that the pump was usually off.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Regarding the middle paragraph, it is probably better to describe the process as follows: When the water is evaporated it gains a lot of energy. In the condenser (basically a kind of heat exchanger), only one part of that energy leaves the system. Another part is converted into mechanical energy (the volume will contract heavily) which guarantees that the stream can move forward. In an ideal case you might not even need a pump. This would be easy to test with some school-grade lab equipment.

  • SG

    But not on the left two panes, as is being pointed out over on the lenr forum.

  • A picture emerged recently of the beige box that had not only the four holes on top, but also what appear to be four larger holes (big enough for insulated steam pipes) that had been filled on the side of the box closest to this doorway opening.

    When I re-reviewed this doorway picture I noticed on the floor on the left side of the entry that there is a pipe sized area that is unworn… as if something had been placed there so that shoes never had a chance to soil it. The clean/dirty line is well-defined.

    There is also a faint silver line on the gray platform just outside the door that seems to indicate that the bottom pipe (or whatever it was) went at an angle that would have it meet the fourth pipe opening (now sealed) just about exactly in the beige box on the floor below.

    It looks to me like Rossi ran four steam pipes up to the mezzanine, stacking them on one another on the left side of the entryway (as we look out toward the warehouse).

    Also note that the black marks on the left jam don’t start until about four pipe diameters up.

    Speculation and circumstantial evidence… but thought I’d see if other agree or could add any additional observations or deductions.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8601efb390d55667e149c4decc5b91dd28bb95a314ddcacb185ecd29123dc558.png

    • Here’s the view of the beige box where you can see the four no longer used holes on the side that aim toward the door.

      Also an interesting strip of discoloration on the top piece of wood.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac8c6b5ccf5f2a62fe68d9930bb6eb99023ba3564ef3860056eb4b22b161bcc4.png

      • Another Dr Mike

        Are you talking about the four holes close to the wall on the lower left part of the image. Try to put steam pipes with insulation into these holes, pipe and 20 mm insulation aoround each pipe. It will not fit these holes.

        • No, the ones facing us. The holes are now covered or patched.

    • Bruce__H

      Smith’s counterargument is a photo showing no pipes going up through the mezzanine door as of 9AM the morning after the 1-year test was finished (page 10 of doc 235-10).

      • Stephen

        It’s a pitty but we don’t really see the bottom of the door way in those pictures because of the grey wall.

        The door way is 22 inches by 78 inches. Which is very long and narrow. I think we see less than 78 inches unfortunately. We certainly don’t see the bottom of the wooden frame.

        It’s a shame the bottom few inches are missing.

        I wonder if other parts of the “video” show it?

        It’s a shame the critical data is missing while it is used as contrary evidence. a bit like the missing section between the pipes inside the JMP container also a pitty.

        • Bruce__H

          It is a shame about the missing section between the the pipes in the JMP container. But that is all Mr Rossi’s doing.

          • Why is that Rossi’s doing?

          • Bruce__H

            The pictures of the inside of the JMP black box were obtained in discovery from JMP. Murray and Smith were never allowed inside the black box or to look inside it.

            This is in the document where Smith is explaining to the court why he had to file a supplement to his original report. I’ve lost the reference for the moment but will look for it.

          • So why would Rossi omit a picture of that key spot?

            1 – Bypass system is imaginary
            2 – Bypass system components re-purposed, no longer representative so omitted to avoid headaches
            3 – Honest mistake as he pivoted around to take pics
            4 – He did take a picture of it but omitted it from discovery to use later at trial (this would violate the spirit of discovery)
            5 – The area includes something sensitive

            Anything else?

            Both the bypass and heat exchanger are described under oath. But any physical evidence of both is strangely missing. If Rossi can’t fix the perception that these elements of the system were made up afterward in order to make it look like he was dealing with more heat than he actually was then he might be sunk. At this point if I were on the jury I’d have to discount Rossi’s explanations of these elements as unsubstantiated and quite possibly fictional.

          • Bruce__H

            Our views of all this are pretty close. I would point out that choice 3 is simultaneously compatible with some of the others.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Image 11 and image 12 were taken by IH and shown to Rossi during his questioning.

            He stated that between them are the valves and pipes to control the steam that goes to the upper store heat exchanger.

            Yet Smith shows them as if connected together. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1aa99e2b12be7f8ef24e2f8f82ea120b57be97d160f4cc48ab596a03e92b8e6.png

          • Bruce__H

            Images 11 and 12 were obtained by IH in discovery. They were supplied by JMP. See doc 235-5. Neither Smith, nor Murray were allowed to look inside the black box (which is turning out to be appropriately named).

            The questioning of Rossi was to try and figure out how the two images fit together.

        • Bruce__H

          You are right about the bottom of the door.

      • There is the screen capture of a video taken during Penon’s visit that appears to show nothing going through the doorway.

        But clearly those four holes in the beige box were used for something and it’s reasonable to conclude they were for something round like pipes or hoses. And somewhat less clearly there appear to be hints of things going into and placed in the mezzanine. There are also four white pipes running across the ceiling. Not to mention the horizontal silver pipe that emerges from the JMP side — we still don’t know what that was hooked up to and that goes right out of the roof.

        What one video caught on a particular day may not tell the whole story. Perhaps the setup was configurable.

        • Bruce__H

          You are right. This was taken during one of Penon’s visits.

          The problem with the beige box is we don’t know if it was there during the 1-year test. It could have been constructed after Feb 2016. That would be like the set of 4 large pipes that can currently be seen going up the wall and across the ceiling. Those were definitely installed after Feb 2016 as is evident in many photographs.

          • I find the idea that a magnificent charlatan would fake something so elaborate but then forget to make it look like the hot air went into the mezzanine…

            …and then lie about it under oath when the silver pipe on the back wall could have been used as the plausible nugget of a tall tale instead… ridiculous.

            So I conclude we should avoid jumping to conclusions. The pieces don’t fit right yet. We’re missing something.

          • Bruce__H

            Well it does look like the the hot air went into the mezzanine. After all there are 4 covered-over holes is the beige box pointing right at it.

            The pipes starting a couple of feet above the beige box and climbing up the wall and across the ceiling look to me to be about 15 cm in diameter. Together they probably comprise a good part of 220 metres long. The silvery pipe against the back wall doesn’t fit that description.

          • I suppose you’re being sarcastic, but yes the holes are suggestive as are the markings on the floor.

            In his depositions under oath, Rossi laid waste to many of his previous positions. Like I said earlier, he was an open book. He didn’t sugarcoat the JMP situation nor his sales or partnership status. But yet we’re supposed to imagine that he made up a whole heat exchanger out of thin air. I don’t buy it.

            The window pane evidence is pretty convincing, but I’m not buying the extreme alternative position that there was nothing in the mezzanine. There is evidence he was doing something with the heat.

          • Anotber Dr Mike

            Assume 1-2 percent heat loss from the entire setup. It is 10-20 kW heat flow into the room. Where is the cooling?

          • I don’t understand your question.

          • Another Dr Mike

            1 MW heat from the ecat. 1-2 percent heat loss from the pipes etc is nothing unusual. The insulation is of course not perfect….so how is that heat loss handled. A really hot room or some cooling appliance keeping the temperature down?

          • That’s like asking for the derivative of an imaginary number. You can go ahead and do it but you’re going to get nothing out of it.

          • Bruce__H

            What is the evidence he was doing something with the heat?

          • – Insulated black box
            – Insulated pipes and serpentine pipe structure in black box
            – Deposition claiming processing of platinum sponge and then graphene; products sold back to Leonardo
            – Deposition indicating external heat exchanger
            – Beige box with pipe sized holes aimed at mezzanine (and also holes in top for vertical pipes, post 1 MW test)
            – Mezzanine floor and porch floor showing marks indicating something consistent with pipes and large heat exchanger
            – 4 pipes running across ceiling
            – Silver pipe along back wall running from JMP area up to ceiling and roof vent

          • Bruce__H

            Here is Wong’s photo of the 2nd storey room.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54f2a63cd2b0ad296e572e02f42ac8473911317fc9c2ecc707724dfc33cddcd9.jpg

            If the dark square showing on the floor is suppose to be evidence of the heat exchanger, shouldn’t it be closer to the window? And since the entire Leonardo facility at Doral is 12.25 metres wide (measured via google earth). isn’t the dark square to small? If the heat exchanger used 10 metre lengths of pipe shouldn’t it extend to within a metre or less of the side wall?

          • Seriously? You want to start debating pipe lengths?

            The stains are definitely suggestive that something substantial was there. What was there? If it’s just a scam why was anything there at all?

          • Bruce__H

            Who occupied the facility before Rossi?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Wong gives the dimensions as follows (197-01, p. 5):

            „Approx. 10 m (length) X 6.5 m (width) X 1 m (height)”

            The edge that goes parallel to the street could well be 6.5 m long if one assumes that the structure was centred on that axis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            Google Earth measurement suggests the upper story is square, approx 12 x 12 mtr, not including the 6 window section that sticks out a bit to the West.

            Pipes are 10 mtr long, with 180 deg joiners that would extend the overall 10 mtr pipe lengths to 11 mtrs with 0.5 mtr radius 180 deg joiners on each end.

            With the 2 fans and support piping, there would not be a lot of free floor space, which suggests the 10 mtr long pipe section were a design choice to fit the heat exchanger in the available space.

            6.5 x 10 x 1 mtr is a BIG box in a 12 x 12 mtr space.

          • Bruce__H

            Using google earth I get for the dimensions of the room just a shade under 12 meters wide (the dimension parallel to the street) by 11 meters deep. So 12 x 11 rather than 12 x 12.

            I am measuring the depth of the room from the street-side wall (not including the window bay over the building entrance) to the plumbing stacks. I think that the plumbing stacks sit just outside the mezzanine room.

          • Bruce__H

            The room appears to be 12 metres wide by about 10 metres deep (judging by landmarks on the roof). If the short side of the heat exchanger was parallel to the street, as you suggest, then the long side probably not fit into the room and even if it did the marks on the floor would extend all the way to the window.

          • Stephen

            I wonder if the 4 pipes could be the “repurposed pipes” from the original heat exchanger?

            Wasn’t there a similar amount of piping for that?

          • Bruce__H

            Exactly

  • There are very big interests for buisness in this domain.
    Any or some oil or nuclear company could have introduce their troyan horses around Darden.
    Darden and Rossi are not specialists in bad practices and court fights.
    Then Darden and Rossi have to fight against these big interests.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    As far as I understood it, the external tank was connected to the return line of the JMP plant. If there was a high enough water column in the ‘serpentine’ (higher than the water level in the internal tank), the external tank would receive enough pressure to fill the internal one.

    On that photo I cannot see a connection between the tank and the ‘customer’ area, but there could be a pipe leading through the red container. Anyway, as has been said, without knowing all relevant details it is only possible to speculate. And even with more information it would be difficult to find the correct answers.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      BTW such a system would be prone to backflow if not accurately designed. I hope there was an appropriate mechanism to prevent that. (The Defkalion disaster is still floating around in my head…)

  • Stephen

    It’s a pitty but we don’t really see the bottom of the door way in those pictures because of the grey wall.

    The door way is 22 inches by 78 inches. Which is very long and narrow. I think we see less than 78 inches unfortunately. We certainly don’t see the bottom of the wooden frame.

    It’s a shame the bottom few inches are missing.

    I wonder if other parts of the “video” show it?

    It’s a shame the critical data is missing while it is used as contrary evidence. a bit like the missing section between the pipes inside the JMP container also a pitty.

  • Nik Agmk

    I am convinced that “1MW plant measurements” is total fake not by abovementioned issues but just by looking at steam temperature&pressure data. Rossi will lose in court.
    Probably its no use to mention here Bernoulli’s principle.

    • lkelemen

      probably it’s no use to mention here Troll’s first law

      • Steve Swatman

        oh you, i like you, succinct!

    • GiveADogABone

      Could you be more specific?
      Daniel, Jaques, Johann, Johann II, Johann III, Nicolaus I, Nicolaus II, Jacob, Jacob II and a reference to said principle would be good.

  • I find the idea that a magnificent charlatan would fake something so elaborate but then forget to make it look like the hot air went into the mezzanine…

    …and then lie about it under oath when the silver pipe on the back wall could have been used as the plausible nugget of a tall tale instead… ridiculous.

    So I conclude we should avoid jumping to conclusions. The pieces don’t fit right yet. We’re missing something.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I don’t think so. They would have added at least some voluminous pipes to impress the gallery.

  • wizkid

    Is this relevent?

    In 1970 a machine shop built a 4’x 4′ stainless steel solar collector for me ($100 total) with a forced path for the water to rise and the flow to work without any pump … without any pump! … into a storage container, a 55 gallon close drum. The temperature only got up to 140 F but I was happy to heat 50 gallons of water with a home made solar collector. The solar panel “pumped” the water based on heat rises … as shown below:

    ———————————————-
    and output to the 50 gallon top hose here
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    with input from the 50 gallon bottom hose here
    ———————————————-
    Heat rises. Heat pumps water. I tested it
    in 1970 when my hair was 12 inches long.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It is normal, but a closed system where phase change happens is more difficult to assess.

  • wizkid

    Is this relevent?

    In 1970 a machine shop built a 4’x 4′ stainless steel solar collector for me ($100 total) with a forced path for the water to rise and the flow to work without any pump … without any pump! … into a storage container, a 55 gallon close drum. The temperature only got up to 140 F but I was happy to heat 50 gallons of water with a home made solar collector. The solar panel “pumped” the water based on heat rises … as shown below:

    ———————————————-
    and output to the 50 gallon top hose here
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    with input from the 50 gallon bottom hose here
    ———————————————-
    Heat rises. Heat pumps water. I tested it
    in 1970 when my hair was 12 inches long.

    • James Thomas

      It must be down to the floor by now.

      • wizkid

        ha ha! Wish it was, but alas, nothing on top anymore. Let the good times roll. At least the radio stations still play the same music.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That’s not a radio station – that’s your skipping gramophone

          • Toussaint françois

            I’ll be releived when this litigation is over . Rossi is ruining his health in this ordeal

          • wizkid

            Your right Bob, no playlist here. It sure is. No wonder it’s so scratchy. You should’a seen my buddy Tom when he used DC on that big old circus animal. You kids ‘r supposed to show us baldies kindness too, remember? 2 Kings 2:23. But the kicker is in version 24…

            Hope your upcoming replication works out, that would clear the air!

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll do the best job the crowd tells us to!

            Good thing is – people will be able to criticise us as we go

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It is normal, but a closed system where phase change happens is more difficult to assess.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If for some reason the water level in the section after the flow meter is higher than in the section before, the water will flow backward. Except if there is a backflow protection. Some flow meters have an integrated one.

    In Defkalion’s case the steam from the reactor caused a backpressure which let the meter’s wheel turn in the wrong direction. The instrument reported a high flow while the flow rate was virtually zero.

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      From their data sheets, all the pumps and flow meter have back flow protection. The Prominent pumps have 2 back flow valves.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Good to hear!

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Image 11 and image 12 were taken by IH and shown to Rossi during his questioning.

    He stated that between them are the valves and pipes to control the steam that goes to the upper store heat exchanger.

    Yet Smith shows them as if connected together. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1aa99e2b12be7f8ef24e2f8f82ea120b57be97d160f4cc48ab596a03e92b8e6.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    There are several clearly visible Condensate risers that are part of the Condensate feed system.

    One such riser, about 2.5 mte high is seen in the right of Smith’s image. There are more. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce3363ee036976a79333fefb8e34a5fa85083f20958598a56dee4758f0f233e1.png

    Plus as the Condensate height exiting the heat exchanger in the JM Black Box is much higher than the internal condensate holding tank, the natural fluid level would be well above the top of the condensate holding tank.

    Maybe that external tank was at the height of the Condensate riser tops? Then it would flow into the condensate system via gravity.

    In the end gravity wins as fluid seeks it’s own level.

  • GiveADogABone

    Could you be more specific?
    Daniel, Jaques, Johann, Johann II, Johann III, Nicolaus I, Nicolaus II, Jacob, Jacob II and a reference to said principle would be good.

  • I suppose you’re being sarcastic, but yes the holes are suggestive as are the markings on the floor.

    In his depositions under oath, Rossi laid waste to many of his previous positions. Like I said earlier, he was an open book. He didn’t sugarcoat the JMP situation nor his sales or partnership status. But yet we’re supposed to imagine that he made up a whole heat exchanger out of thin air. I don’t buy it.

    The window pane evidence is pretty convincing, but I’m not buying the extreme alternative position that there was nothing in the mezzanine. There is evidence he was doing something with the heat.

  • So why would Rossi omit a picture of that key spot?

    1 – Bypass system is imaginary
    2 – Bypass system components re-purposed, no longer representative so omitted to avoid headaches
    3 – Honest mistake as he pivoted around to take pics
    4 – He did take a picture of it but omitted it from discovery to use later at trial (this would violate the spirit of discovery)
    5 – The area includes something sensitive

    Anything else?

    Both the bypass and heat exchanger are described under oath. But any physical evidence of both is strangely missing. If Rossi can’t fix the perception that these elements of the system were made up afterward in order to make it look like he was dealing with more heat than he actually was then he might be sunk. At this point if I were on the jury I’d have to discount Rossi’s explanations of these elements as unsubstantiated and quite possibly fictional.

  • GiveADogABone

    the 4 feet of draw has to be added to the differential. Is that right?

    No. the 4 feet draw IS ALREADY part of the differential. If you put a pressure gauge on the suction side of the pump and another gauge on the discharge side while the pump is running, then the difference is what makes the pump do work. The difference in the two (hopefully accurate gauge readings) is the differential pressure.

    is there a distinction between discharge rate and “feed rate”?

    A subtle one, yes.The Prominent pumps can have two OR three pipe connections. Suction, discharge and the third one is the venting flow which is about 10% of the main discharge, IF the pump in question is a venting model. Otherwise and excluding leaks, feed and discharge are equal.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Saw them, but did not find them voluminous. To lure investors one would take much bigger ones.

  • Steve Swatman

    oh you, i like you, succinct!

  • Stephen

    I wonder if the 4 pipes could be the “repurposed pipes” from the original heat exchanger?

    Wasn’t there a similar amount of piping for that?

  • Bruce__H

    Does someone want to try estimating from photographs the diameter and total length of the piping currently attached to the wall and ceiling above the “beige box” on the JMP side? I’m wondering how these dimensions compare to the pipes for the 2nd storey heat ex changer (15cm diameter and 220m in length).

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bruce,

      For sure those pipes are from the upper story heat exchanger, which Rossi claims had 22 sections of 10 mtr long by 0.15m wide pipes. The diameter matches the 4 piper running up the wall and across the roof.

      I calculated that the roof position was aligned with the roof vent and exhaust fan, so they could dump excess from inside the Black Box out the roof exhaust fan.

      I DO NOT believe there pipes were used during the 1 year test as they are not visible in the various images from that period. They are NEW WORK that was built from the pipes used in the upper story heat exchanger.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ada9af2977ad23772ac56eed21eecbfbc8198ba5a711acccd501803183398740.png

      • Andreas Moraitis

        „I DO NOT believe there pipes were used during the 1 year test as they are not visible in the various images from that period.“

        In addition, it seems unlikely that they have been part of the 2nd story heat exchanger system. It would not make much sense to lead the pipes first to the ceiling and then a few meters back downward.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          But of course the material could have been recycled from of the original installation in the mezzanine.

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            Yes the wall and ceiling pipes fit the 150mm diameter Rossi claimed for the upper story heat exchanger piping and THEY ARE BLACK. Which aids radiation efficiency.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            In one of the depositions AR says that they had planned to install offices in the 2nd floor. For that purpose he would have needed to remove the heat exchanger and to install an alternative system. I wonder if we would see any changes on the roof in a more recent aerial picture.

        • Engineer48

          Hi AM,

          Yup.

          I also believe those pipes were not involved in the 1 year test nor in delivering steam to the upper story heat exchanger.

          However the 6 inch diameter shiny pipe that crosses the warehouse and exits out the roof vent is of interest as that pipe was installed BEFORE the ECat and JM Black Box were connected together and after Rossi took over control of the warehouse. So it was installed as part of what ever was happening in the JM space.

      • Bruce__H

        Hi Engineer,

        From the roof plan, can you determine the dimensions of the 2nd storey room? I know that the entire Leonardo facility is just over 12 metres across, but how deep is the room? Does it go to just before the little plumbing stacks one sees poking up near the office AC?

  • I don’t understand your question.

  • I have a (probably) stupid question.

    The overhead shots of these units show spewage of some kind from the “skylight.” But IH claimed that things was airtight. Are those things skylights, vents or what? Can they be opened and closed at will? What is that stuff that surrounds them on the roof?

    I don’t get it. I mean all it takes is one decent vent to the outside and the warehouse can be brought down to a reasonable temperature. Wouldn’t Rossi just pop this open if he could?

    (Note that the pic is from before JMP moved in).

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/385c50d1fe755fb18be5bf8b54190194633d9d48abf479b49417d871fec2bdfe.png

    • Obvious

      The long stain is many years old. It seems to have appeared between 2007 and 2010.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LengG,

      Rossi’s unit, 7861, is the 3rd from the right or North side. You are marking up 7857, the 5th unit from the North / right end.

      • I didn’t mark it up… this is just an image circulating. Just looks like one of the map apps tagged the fifth unit from the right with the shop name, etc.

  • I have a (probably) stupid question.

    The overhead shots of these units show spewage of some kind from the “skylight.” But IH claimed that thing was airtight. Are those things skylights, vents or what? Can they be opened and closed at will? What is that stuff that surrounds them on the roof?

    I don’t get it. I mean all it takes is one decent vent to the outside and the warehouse can be brought down to a reasonable temperature. Wouldn’t Rossi just pop this open if he could?

    (Note that the pic is from before JMP moved in).

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/385c50d1fe755fb18be5bf8b54190194633d9d48abf479b49417d871fec2bdfe.png

    • Obvious

      The long stain is many years old. It seems to have appeared between 2007 and 2010.

      • I know the stains predated the E-Cat test. But it makes those things look like vents. Are they vents? Were they vents and are now only skylights?

    • Engineer48

      Hi LengG,

      Rossi’s unit, 7861, is the 3rd from the right or North side. You are marking up 7857, the 5th unit from the North / right end.

      • I didn’t mark it up… this is just an image circulating. Just looks like one of the map apps tagged the fifth unit from the right with the shop name, etc.

    • Bruce__H

      Water staining? If the flashing on the skylights contains zinc or something then it might leach out and stain the surrounds.

  • GiveADogABone
  • CWatters

    I agree there are several problems with the report but what about the claim that the system drew power from the grid on a day when there was a long power cut? I haven’t seen a massive UPS in any of the photos.

    • cashmemorz

      If massive as would be required, then it would have to be outside the building so as to avoid adding massive extraneous heat of such power source to the interior of test and production area. Out back. Any photos of the area around the back during time of year long test…

    • Obvious

      I digitized the recently released FPL daily meter data, and found no day that had the power off for the whole day. The days of April 6 or 7 (depends on ERV, Fabiani, or Rossi) where the power was supposedly off, the electrical consumption reported by FPL was typical of all other days around those dates.
      The power may have been off for a period that cuts across parts of two days. We would need the hourly data, if there is any, to work out what happened on the reported power outage day.

  • CWatters

    I agree there are several problems with the report but what about the claim that the system drew power from the grid on a day when there was a long power cut? I haven’t seen a massive UPS in any of the photos.

    • cashmemorz

      Something that Rossi might have considered for a long term test. If he didn’t want something like a grid power outage to cut into his test. If massive, like diesel UPS, as would be required, then it would have to be outside the building so as to avoid adding massive extraneous heat of such power source to the interior of test and production area. Out back. Any photos of the area around the back during time of year long test? Or cables going from E-Cat container to back door.

    • Obvious

      I digitized the recently released FPL daily meter data, and found no day that had the power off for the whole day. The days of April 6 or 7 (depends on ERV, Fabiani, or Rossi) where the power was supposedly off, the electrical consumption reported by FPL was typical of all other days around those dates.
      The power may have been off for a period that cuts across parts of two days. We would need the hourly data, if there is any, to work out what happened on the reported power outage day.

  • That’s like asking for the derivative of an imaginary number. You can go ahead and do it but you’re going to get nothing out of it.

  • Seriously? You want to start debating pipe lengths?

    The stains are definitely suggestive that something substantial was there. What was there? If it’s just a scam why was anything there at all?

  • Engineer48

    Something to consider.

    The 2 images Smith presented, showing the opening in the dry wall, taken from the ECat side of the grey wall NO NOT show the entire length of the opening. Specifically they do not show the lower potion of the opening.

    Which suggests it is not correct to suggest no cables could have entered the upper floor and not be seen in the images.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81c3124489aed74f23edcf99ef939ee3d2ba5b5a4e73dcd3ca7d199e621462e4.png

    I determined the lower opening position by measuring the vertical height of the dry wall panels and extending that length down from the visible join line.

    If the steam line from the JM Black Box to the upper story was the same single feed and outer diameter as that from the ECat to the JM Black Box, say 300mm dia with a 150mm dia pipe, 12 inch and 6 inch, that pipe, with insulation, it would easily fit through the bottom right side of the opening and still not be visible in the Smith images.

  • Engineer48

    Something to consider.

    The 2 images Smith presented, showing the opening in the dry wall, taken from the ECat side of the grey wall NO NOT show the entire length of the opening. Specifically they do not show the lower potion of the opening.

    Which suggests it is not correct to suggest no cables could have entered the upper floor and not be seen in the images.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81c3124489aed74f23edcf99ef939ee3d2ba5b5a4e73dcd3ca7d199e621462e4.png

    I determined the lower opening position by measuring the vertical height of the dry wall panels and extending that length down from the visible join line.

    If the steam line from the JM Black Box to the upper story was the same single feed and outer diameter as that from the ECat to the JM Black Box, say 300mm dia with a 150mm dia pipe, 12 inch and 6 inch, that pipe, with insulation, would easily fit through the bottom right/North side of the opening and still not be visible in the Smith images.

    • Bruce__H

      Correct. I think Smith does not realize this. I believe he made the same mistake I did and thinks that the small rectangular structure is the railing for the porch just outside the mezzanine whereas it is just the upper portion of the railing.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    For sure those pipes are from the upper story heat exchanger, which Rossi claims had 22 sections of 10 mtr long by 0.15m wide pipes. The diameter matches the 4 piper running up the wall and across the roof.

    I calculated that the roof position was aligned with the roof vent and exhaust fan, so they could dump excess from inside the Black Box out the roof exhaust fan.

    I DO NOT believe there pipes were used during the 1 year test as they are not visible in the various images from that period. They are NEW WORK that was built from the pipes used in the upper story heat exchanger.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ada9af2977ad23772ac56eed21eecbfbc8198ba5a711acccd501803183398740.png

    • Engineer48

      Decided to cross check Dr. Wong’s calcs:

      Total pipe area 100 m^2

      10 m x 22 pipes = 220 total length x circumference (0.15 * 3.24259) = 103.7 m*2 plus 10% for the 180 deg joins at the ends of the pipes = 114 m^2 of radiating surface area.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd59c31bf7ca1154cf6179f0061682a97105f426cd5df1ddeb520502a76ee0f6.png Dr. Wong use a conservative value of 100 m^2.

      Heat exchanger box volume = 6 m^3.

      12 mtr long (to enclose 180 deg curved ends, 0.8 m high (0.1 mtr insulation top and bottom) x 6.3 mtr wide (0.1 mtr insulation on both sides). Volume is then 12 x 0.8 x 6.3 = 60.48 m^3, which agrees with Dr. Wong’s value.

      As long as the fans did deliver the specified volume of air into the heat exchanger enclosure / tunnel, it seems Dr. Wong is correct that such a volume of air would have easily removed 1MW of heat from the upper story heat exchanger. Assuming of course there was a way for the heated air leaving the heat exchanger tunnel / box to escape the upper story

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „I DO NOT believe there pipes were used during the 1 year test as they are not visible in the various images from that period.“

      In addition, it seems unlikely that they have been part of the 2nd story heat exchanger system. It would not make much sense to lead the pipes first to the ceiling and then a few meters back downward.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        But of course the material could have been recycled from of the original installation in the mezzanine.

        • Engineer48

          Hi AM,

          Yes the wall and ceiling pipes fit the 150mm diameter Rossi claimed for the upper story heat exchanger piping and THEY ARE BLACK. Which aids radiation efficiency.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            In one of the depositions AR says that they had planned to install offices in the 2nd floor. For that purpose he would have needed to remove the heat exchanger and to install an alternative system. I wonder if we would see any changes on the roof in a more recent aerial picture.

      • Engineer48

        Hi AM,

        Yup.

        I also believe those pipes were not involved in the 1 year test nor in delivering steam to the upper story heat exchanger.

        However the 6 inch diameter shiny pipe that crosses the warehouse and exits out the roof vent is of interest as that pipe was installed BEFORE the ECat and JM Black Box were connected together and after Rossi took over control of the warehouse. So it was installed as part of what ever was happening in the JM space.

    • Engineer48

      Interesting comment, highlighted, by Smith:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/076f267ea5d5deb8d56b24470af8328f36e3741c7b318bf452278b63555dfb9a.png

      Did he fail to notice the large electrical cable entering the top of the South side of the dry wall?

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1318008e969c20504c255e3641d8c9f4a8b56df0ffdf3e88a80ab5a2aacd9940.png

      Would sure seem there was some reason to run that electrical cable into the upper story? Maybe to power two fans?

      • GiveADogABone

        Rick Smith states ‘heat transfer requires a temperature diffference’
        BULLS’ MANURE

        Conduction, convection, radiation and mass transfer is the way I learnt it fifty years ago and I doubt the fundamentals of thermal engineering have changed since then. Wikipedia prefers to use the word advection instead of mass transfer.

        The Daubert test requires correct statements about the physical laws used to support expert opinion. Now I suppose I have to go find where he has used the missed mass transfer/advection to his advantage. And so we go on and ….

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
        The fundamental modes of heat transfer are:
        Advection
        Advection is the transport mechanism of a fluid from one location to another, and is dependent on motion and momentum of that fluid.
        Conduction or diffusion
        The transfer of energy between objects that are in physical contact. Thermal conductivity is the property of a material to conduct heat and evaluated primarily in terms of Fourier’s Law for heat conduction.
        Convection
        The transfer of energy between an object and its environment, due to fluid motion. The average temperature is a reference for evaluating properties related to convective heat transfer.
        Radiation
        The transfer of energy by the emission of electromagnetic radiation.

        • Engineer48

          HI GADAB,

          Apparently Smith is unaware on made no comment on:

          1) condensation inside the heat exchanger will generate ALL the pressure differential needed to draw the ECat steam into the heat exchanger.

          2) single flow one pipe superheaters are a reality. External superheaters are not necessary.

          3) the flow meter was full of water and should have generated accurate flow values.

          4) the Prominent pumps will, at their operational environment with the Tigers, pumps a lot more L/Hr than the MIN of 32 L/Hr with a 2 bar back pressure.

          5) there are heavy electrical cables running up the plant side of the dry wall. More than large enough to power 2 fans on the upper story.

          6) there is a large roof vent and exhaust fan over the JM area that he failed to photograph or make comment on.

          7) that in his image of the cutout in the dry wall, the lower 0.5 mtr was not visible and the same size steam pipe from the ECat reactor would not be seen if it was there.

          8) made no comment on the 150mm dia shiny new pipe that could send something to vent out the roof.

          9) and as GADAB pointed out, has made several errors in explaining physics.

  • Engineer48

    Decided to cross check Dr. Wong’s calcs:

    Total pipe area 100 m^2

    10 m x 22 pipes = 220 total length x circumference (0.15 * 3.24259) = 103.7 m*2 plus 10% for the 180 deg joins at the ends of the pipes = 114 m^2 of radiating surface area.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd59c31bf7ca1154cf6179f0061682a97105f426cd5df1ddeb520502a76ee0f6.png Dr. Wong use a conservative value of 100 m^2.

    Heat exchanger box volume = 6 m^3.

    12 mtr long (to enclose 180 deg curved ends, 0.8 m high (0.1 mtr insulation top and bottom) x 6.3 mtr wide (0.1 mtr insulation on both sides). Volume is then 12 x 0.8 x 6.3 = 60.48 m^3, which agrees with Dr. Wong’s value.

    As long as the fans did deliver the specified volume of air into the heat exchanger enclosure / tunnel, it seems Dr. Wong is correct that such a volume of air would have easily removed 1MW of heat from the upper story heat exchanger. Assuming of course there was a way for the heated air leaving the heat exchanger tunnel / box to escape the upper story

  • Engineer48

    Interesting comment, highlighted, by Smith:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/076f267ea5d5deb8d56b24470af8328f36e3741c7b318bf452278b63555dfb9a.png

    Did he fail to notice the large electrical cable entering the top of the South side of the dry wall?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1318008e969c20504c255e3641d8c9f4a8b56df0ffdf3e88a80ab5a2aacd9940.png

    Would sure seem there was some reason to run that electrical cable into the upper story? Maybe to power two fans?

    • GiveADogABone

      Rick Smith states ‘heat transfer requires a temperature diffference’
      BULLS’ MANURE

      Conduction, convection, radiation and mass transfer is the way I learnt it fifty years ago and I doubt the fundamentals of thermal engineering have changed since then. Wikipedia prefers to use the word advection instead of mass transfer.

      The Daubert test requires correct statements about the physical laws used to support expert opinion. Now I suppose I have to go find where he has used the missed mass transfer/advection to his advantage. And so we go on and ….

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
      The fundamental modes of heat transfer are:
      Advection
      Advection is the transport mechanism of a fluid from one location to another, and is dependent on motion and momentum of that fluid.
      Conduction or diffusion
      The transfer of energy between objects that are in physical contact. Thermal conductivity is the property of a material to conduct heat and evaluated primarily in terms of Fourier’s Law for heat conduction.
      Convection
      The transfer of energy between an object and its environment, due to fluid motion. The average temperature is a reference for evaluating properties related to convective heat transfer.
      Radiation
      The transfer of energy by the emission of electromagnetic radiation.

      • Engineer48

        HI GADAB,

        Apparently Smith is unaware on made no comment on:

        1) condensation inside the heat exchanger will generate ALL the pressure differential needed to draw the ECat steam into the heat exchanger.

        2) single flow one pipe superheaters are a reality. External superheaters are not necessary.

        3) the flow meter was full of water and should have generated accurate flow values.

        4) the Prominent pumps will, at their operational environment with the Tigers, pumps a lot more L/Hr than the MIN of 32 L/Hr with a 2 bar back pressure.

        5) there are heavy electrical cables running up the plant side of the dry wall. More than large enough to power 2 fans on the upper story.

        6) there is a large roof vent and exhaust fan over the JM area that he failed to photograph or make comment on.

        7) that in his image of the cutout in the dry wall, the lower 0.5 mtr was not visible and the same size steam pipe from the ECat reactor would not be seen if it was there.

        8) made no comment on the 150mm dia shiny new pipe that could send something to vent out the roof.

        9) and as GADAB pointed out, has made several errors in explaining physics.

  • Engineer48

    Higher res roof images than Google. Can view from 4 directions (slant angle views) and scroll around. Good site. Has archived images as well. I adjusted the lat and lon of the pointer to be on the roof of 7861 NW 46th Doral..

    http://www.miamidade.gov/propertysearch/views/pictometry/pictometry.html?latitude=25.81607&longitude=-80.325

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac51733b013a0321cb996811c7e45386199addb6157cff291ee196a567a421c3.png

    • LT

      Can you explain the darker coloring in the right lower quarter of the picture going from left to right.
      From other pictures of the total roof of the building it is the only place which has this dark coloring
      (maybe from condensed water flowing to the right ?)

      • Engineer48

        Hi LT,

        Appears to be a condensation leak from an A/C unit on the roof of 7859, the unit to the bottom / South in this image.

  • Engineer48

    Higher res roof images than Google. Can view from 4 directions (slant angle views) and scroll around. Good site. Has archived images as well. I adjusted the lat and lon of the pointer to be on the roof of 7861 NW 46th Doral..

    http://www.miamidade.gov/propertysearch/views/pictometry/pictometry.html?latitude=25.81607&longitude=-80.325

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac51733b013a0321cb996811c7e45386199addb6157cff291ee196a567a421c3.png

    • LT

      Can you explain the darker coloring in the right lower quarter of the picture going from left to right.
      From other pictures of the total roof of the building it is the only place which has this dark coloring
      (maybe from condensed water flowing to the right ?)

      • Engineer48

        Hi LT,

        Appears to be a condensation leak from an A/C unit on the roof of 7859, the unit to the bottom / South in this image.

  • Björn-Ola

    Why can’t Rossi provide photos of the installation and people testifying about the installation? Is there any reason waiting to show the evidence?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bjorn,

      Killer / knockout punch in court?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        That would be risky since there could be a summary judgment that immediately finishes the case. Also, as far as I have heard, normally you cannot present new photos or other documents after the discovery phase. However, verbal testimony during the trial will be allowed.

        I do not know if the court would ask for additional documents even if the deadline has already been crossed. On April 20th there will be a hearing, among others about the “spoliation of evidence” claim. So perhaps the judge could then demand more information.

        One remote possibility: Plaintiffs do not want to present all what they have because Defendants might then try to settle. And that would not be in Plaintiffs’ interest in case that they primarily want their license back.

        • Engineer48

          Hi AM,

          Leonardo has already cancelled / terminated the IH license due to several breeches, including not paying the $89m.

          Knowing and working with Italians, if Rossi loses, IH will get nothing. Rossi and Leonardo will “Go To The Mattresses”.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I do not think that they could cancel it unilaterally. My guess was that the court could perhaps invalidate it since the 89M have not been paid. But this is only speculation. Actually, you would have to ask a lawyer (and if you ask two lawyers you will get three opinions).

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            Contract had default clauses that defined what happens if a breech occurs. Basically IH self terminated the license by fulfilling several of the breeches. All Leonardo did was to officially inform IH of the breeches. Probably gave them time to rectify.

            Believe IH would need to approach the court and ask it to set aside the breeches and Leonardo notification of termination, so they could continue to enjoy the material they licensed from Leonardo.

            BTW the termination conditions are very bad for IH, basically saying it or any of it’s licensees (IH licenses) can not compete with Leonardo nor can any of the execs in IH work in the LENR field.

  • Engineer48

    Prominent 0232 pump flow rate vs back pressure:
    https://www.prominent.com/resources/OperatingInstructions/English/1655/987604-BA-G-042-03-15-EN-Niederdruckpumpe-gamma-L-EN.pdf

    I extended the back pressure vs flow rate chart down to 0.0 bar, which suggest a MIN flow rate of 43 L/Hr at 0 bar back pressure. OK still not enough for 24 of these pumps to do 36,000 L/Day but it is getting closer.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2de0d6bb546a15dea8b2f786fc350d68db98d80e9df0fb37794106ba753a261.png

  • Engineer48

    Prominent 0232 pump flow rate vs back pressure:
    https://www.prominent.com/resources/OperatingInstructions/English/1655/987604-BA-G-042-03-15-EN-Niederdruckpumpe-gamma-L-EN.pdf

    I extended the back pressure vs flow rate chart down to 0.0 bar, which suggest a MIN flow rate of 43 L/Hr at 0 bar back pressure. OK still not enough for 24 of these pumps to do 36,000 L/Day but it is getting closer.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a2de0d6bb546a15dea8b2f786fc350d68db98d80e9df0fb37794106ba753a261.png

    • Bruce__H

      Part of the backpressure on at least some of the pumps is from their vertical distance down to the height of the water in the internal condensate holding tank floor since they had to suck up water from this level.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Well there were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. One can be seen at the right of the 1st image and one behind Rossi ion the 2nd.

        There are there for a reason which I suspect mat be to boost the condensate holding volume and to cause all the pumps to have a positive inlet pressure, to increase the pump flow rate as much as possible.

        You can’t just ignore the 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. They are plumbed in and are a part of the condensate system.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a44b08a8c49c459b1af4bda42b05f29ecd859ba8f370441479069f987fcaa0d0.png

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

        • Bruce__H

          I agree. I’m not ignoring it. As I pointed out previously, the specs on the pumps say that they are capable of drawing inlet water 6.5 feet. If the surface of the water in the internal water tank is, say, 2 feet above the floor then that means the pumps are capable of lifting water 8.5 feet above the floor. How high is the ceiling of the ecat container?

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          You said “You can’t just ignore the 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. They are plumbed in and are a part of the condensate system.”. I agree, and I have done my best to answer this and other points you raise without ignoring anything. I have been respectful of your ideas although I disagree with many of them.

          You, on the other hand have been ignoring my questions about the external reservoir for the past 5 days even though I have posed it 5 separate times. And you have ignored my observations and questions about the circulation pattern into the vertical pipe beside the Tiger/BF assembly for the past 2 days even though that too has been in play for the past 2 days.

          Can we not have a dialog on these points?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bjorn,

    Killer / knockout punch in court?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That would be risky since there could be a summary judgment that immediately finishes the case. Also, as far as I have heard, normally you cannot present new photos or other documents after the discovery phase. However, verbal testimony during the trial will be allowed.

      I do not know if the court would ask for additional documents even if the deadline has already been crossed. On April 20th there will be a hearing, among others about the “spoliation of evidence” claim. So perhaps the judge could then demand more information.

      One remote possibility: Plaintiffs do not want to present all what they have because Defendants might then try to settle. And that would not be in Plaintiffs’ interest in case that they primarily want their license back.

      • Engineer48

        Hi AM,

        Leonardo has cancelled / terminated the IH license due to several breeches, including not paying the $89m.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I do not think that they could cancel it unilaterally. My guess was that the court could perhaps invalidate it since the 89M have not been paid. But this is only speculation. Actually, you would have to ask a lawyer (and if you ask two lawyers you will get three opinions).

          • Engineer48

            Hi AM,

            Contract had default clauses that defined what happens if a breech occurs. Basically IH self terminated the license by fulfilling several of the breeches. All Leonardo did was to officially inform IH of the breeches. Probably gave them time to rectify.

            Believe IH would need to approach the court and ask it to set aside the breeches and Leonardo notification of termination, so they could continue to enjoy the material they licensed from Leonardo.

            BTW the termination conditions are very bad for IH, basically saying it or any of it’s licensees (IH licenses) can not compete with Leonardo nor can any of the execs in IH work in the LENR field.

  • GiveADogABone

    I have just been reading 252: dated 10 April 2017 (today being 11 April) :-
    PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DAUBERT MOTION TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS
    CONCLUSION
    Plaintiff’s Daubert motion should be granted, and the testimony and reports of Murray and Smith should be excluded.

    If this motion is upheld, and I struggle to see how it cannot on technical grounds, where then for IH’s case?

    • Josh G

      Exhibit A in 252-1 is a letter sent by Rossi’s attorney in December 2015 (prior to the end of the test). It basically says that it looks like IH is trying to back out of the agreement and they better not. Thus it is ludicrous to suggest, as people such as Dewey Weaver have, that IH was “surprised” by Rossi’s lawsuit. They should have seen it coming a mile away.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Josh,

        What Weaver didn’t tell the truth???????????????

        • Josh G

          Shocking, right? There is also a snippet from Murray’s deposition in the text of the 252 motion itself that IH asked to inspect the plant just after completion of the test in Feb 2016 because IH was expecting to be sued.

      • GiveADogABone

        If you read 252: the lawyers start off by pointing out all the missed deadlines for Smith/Murray. I am not an american lawyer but I can well imagine that, if upheld, would kick the Smith/Murray material out of court on its own.

        • Josh G

          After I read the initial Daubert motions from both sides, it seemed to me that Rossi made a much better and convincing case to strike Murray and Smith than IH did to strike Wong. I didn’t read any of the subsequent Daubert filings except for this one, and I’ve go to say that Rossi’s lawyers are still making a very compelling case. I’m actually quite surprised by the way Jones Day is handling this. I don’t take them for amateurs. It’s almost as if they are deliberately acting in bad faith and flaunting the rules because they think they’re above the law. Do they know something that we don’t? I sure hope that isn’t true, but if this Daubert motion is rejected, it will sure seem like the judge is playing favorites…

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            Understand that if the QuarkX works as Rossi claims, EVERY thermal power plant owner on the planet will pay Rossi to rip out their fossil powered boilers and replace them with QuarkX boilers as the fuel saving alone will very easily pay the change over cost, significantly increase their ROI and stop their older plants from becoming stranded assets that are becoming too expensive to operate with carbon taxes.

            That market is probably worth several TRILLION dollars.

            So we are not talking small change here.

          • GiveADogABone

            Remember the LENR reactors are CO2 free and would get the same priority on the grid as the wind turbines. Massive incentive to change from coal and gas and the LENR is 24/7 generation with renewables subsidies as well.

          • Just wait till the environmental lobbyists, who risk losing their jobs (carefully supported by the oil industry), find out any potential uncertainty about rare radiation, e.g. muons, from the E-Cat. Expect resistance.

          • GiveADogABone

            The ‘green blob’ join forces with the satanic forces of the fossil fuel mob to stop the little upstart LENR? Bring it on! I’m all tooled up.

            Every shutdown coal and gas plant going cheap is a business opportunity. Got the grid, got the cooling water, even the turbine hall if it will still run. Don’t care about fuel supply routes. As for radioactivity, coal stations produce a surprisingly large amount.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It may work even without lobbyists. For example, when television was introduced, many people were afraid that they could be harmed by invisible rays coming out of the devices. Fortunately, these reservations turned out to be groundless. In other cases more caution would have been justified. Think of the X-ray apparatuses that one could find at every corner in the beginning 20th Century. Maybe the second story was somehow related to the first one. People had learned that ‘rays’ could be dangerous. Now imagine you tell them tomorrow that they should put something ‘nuclear’ into their basement. You would not need lobbyists to evoke serious doubts.

          • GiveADogABone

            Do they know something that we don’t?
            The billable hours are going to stop sooner than the rest of us realise?

          • Josh G

            Or maybe they know the judge will rule in their favor (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know-what-I-mean, know-what-I-mean?)

          • GiveADogABone

            I think you are in North Carolina, it’s different in Florida.

          • Josh G

            I’m not even in the US. But I do believe the justice system can be corrupted no matter where you are.

          • GiveADogABone

            Somebody described how IH in Raleigh and the N Carolina judiciary were well-connected. The solution was bring the case in Florida and ask for a jury trial.

          • Josh G

            Fine but it’s like a sports game with a biased/crooked ref. Doesn’t matter if a jury is deciding if the judge is constantly making bad rulings. But no evidence of that yet so we shall see…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          To be honest, I would not be pleased by a decision that results merely from the use of legal tricks, such as the appeal to missed deadlines. IMHO all open questions should be discussed and answered as far as possible. Otherwise, we might end up as badly informed as we are now when the litigation is over.

          • GiveADogABone

            We might get a Quark verification a lot sooner and Rossi might find a use for the money. As I understand the process, all evidence, witnesses and dispositions are known at the end of discovery and witnesses varying their testimony is an invitation to trouble. The physics of LENR is not going to be examined, just the calorimetry, so the probability of revelations in court seems very limited.

  • GiveADogABone

    I have just been reading 252: dated 10 April 2017 (today being 11 April) :-
    PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DAUBERT MOTION TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS
    CONCLUSION
    Plaintiff’s Daubert motion should be granted, and the testimony and reports of Murray and Smith should be excluded.

    If this motion is upheld, and I struggle to see how it cannot on technical grounds alone, where then for IH’s case?

    • Josh G

      Exhibit A in 252-1 is a letter sent by Rossi’s attorney in December 2015 (prior to the end of the test). It basically says that it looks like IH is trying to back out of the agreement and they better not. Thus it is ludicrous to suggest, as people such as Dewey Weaver have, that IH was “surprised” by Rossi’s lawsuit. They should have seen it coming a mile away.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Josh,

        What Weaver didn’t tell the truth???????????????

        • Josh G

          Shocking, right? There is also a snippet from Murray’s deposition in the text of the 252 motion itself that IH asked to inspect the plant just after completion of the test in Feb 2016 because IH was expecting to be sued.

      • GiveADogABone

        If you read 252: the lawyers start off by pointing out all the missed deadlines for Smith/Murray. I am not an american lawyer but I can well imagine that, if upheld, would kick the Smith/Murray material out of court on its own.

        • Josh G

          After I read the initial Daubert motions from both sides, it seemed to me that Rossi made a much better and convincing case to strike Murray and Smith than IH did to strike Wong. I didn’t read any of the subsequent Daubert filings except for this one, and I’ve go to say that Rossi’s lawyers are still making a very compelling case. I’m actually quite surprised by the way Jones Day is handling this. I don’t take them for amateurs. It’s almost as if they are deliberately acting in bad faith and flaunting the rules because they think they’re above the law. Do they know something that we don’t? I sure hope that isn’t true, but if this Daubert motion is rejected, it will sure seem like the judge is playing favorites…

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            Understand that if the QuarkX works as Rossi claims, EVERY thermal power plant owner on the planet will pay Rossi to rip out their fossil powered boilers and replace them with QuarkX boilers as the fuel saving alone will very easily pay the change over cost, significantly increase their ROI and stop their older plants from becoming stranded assets that are becoming too expensive to operate with carbon taxes.

            That market is probably worth several TRILLION dollars.

            So we are not talking small change here.

          • GiveADogABone

            Remember the LENR reactors are CO2 free and would get the same priority on the grid as the wind turbines. Massive incentive to change from coal and gas and the LENR is 24/7 generation with renewables subsidies as well.

          • Just wait till the environmental lobbyists, who risk losing their jobs (carefully supported by the oil industry), find out any potential uncertainty about rare radiation, e.g. muons, from the E-Cat. Expect resistance.

          • GiveADogABone

            The ‘green blob’ join forces with the satanic forces of the fossil fuel mob to stop the little upstart LENR? Bring it on! I’m all tooled up.

            Every shutdown coal, nuclear and gas plant going cheap is a business opportunity. Got the grid, got the cooling water, even the turbine hall if it will still run. Don’t care about fuel supply routes. As for radioactivity, coal stations produce a surprisingly large amount.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It may work even without lobbyists. For example, when television was introduced, many people were afraid that they could be harmed by invisible rays coming out of the devices. Fortunately, these reservations turned out to be groundless. In other cases more caution would have been justified. Think of the X-ray apparatuses that one could find at every corner in the beginning 20th Century. Maybe the second story was somehow related to the first one. People had learned that ‘rays’ could be dangerous. Now imagine you tell them tomorrow that they should put something ‘nuclear’ into their basement. You would not need lobbyists to evoke serious doubts.

          • GiveADogABone

            Do they know something that we don’t?
            The billable hours are going to stop sooner than the rest of us realise?

          • Josh G

            Or maybe they know the judge will rule in their favor (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know-what-I-mean, know-what-I-mean?)

          • GiveADogABone

            I think you are in North Carolina, it’s different in Florida.

          • Josh G

            I’m not even in the US. But I do believe the justice system can be corrupted no matter where you are.

          • GiveADogABone

            Somebody described how IH in Raleigh and the N Carolina judiciary were well-connected. The solution was bring the case in Florida and ask for a jury trial.

          • Josh G

            Fine but it’s like a sports game with a biased/crooked ref. Doesn’t matter if a jury is deciding if the judge is constantly making bad rulings. But no evidence of that yet so we shall see…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          To be honest, I would not be pleased by a decision that results merely from the use of legal tricks, such as the appeal to missed deadlines. IMHO all open questions should be discussed and answered as far as possible. Otherwise, we might end up as badly informed as we are now when the litigation is over.

          • GiveADogABone

            We might get a Quark verification a lot sooner and Rossi might find a use for the money. As I understand the process, all evidence, witnesses and dispositions are known at the end of discovery and witnesses varying their testimony is an invitation to trouble. The physics of LENR is not going to be examined, just the calorimetry, so the probability of revelations in court seems very limited.

  • Engineer48

    Smith flat out refuses to consider the existence of the claimed upper story heat exchanger.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c291f487eed1f0e04ae2c576383567253ec202b26c8173455ebdd1c2aed73b77.png

    Maybe just a bit biased?

    • GiveADogABone

      Unless IH could make the flooded steam pipe and partially filled flowmeter conjecture stick, they could not get the CoP down far enough.

      It is a bit strange when you take those two things together. the whole circuit runs flooded and the flowmeter is at the bottom of it but by some engineering miracle the flowmeter is only partially filled. I think Murray and Smith have reverse engineered their evidence to fit the desired conclusion. It does not work of course.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GADAB,

        Their conjectures tie up each other in a Gordian Knot.

        • GiveADogABone

          Exactly. Complex engineering only works the way the laws and physics and engineering allow. It is a numbers game at heart and the lawyers are powerless, whatever their hourly billing rate.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GADAB,

            Maybe EXPERTS play the same, “Lets Drag It Out As Long As Possible” billing game?

          • GiveADogABone

            or maybe a stonking great success fee

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            For sure Rossi has already made fall back plans. Probably several versions.

          • Again I like this way of seeing things: Some people are good at convincing other people about their opinion, but physics is not like politics, economics or law—physics just don’t care much about people. It just is. Fortunately.

      • Ged

        Apparently, they believe water flows uphill. Or maybe they just don’t believe in gravity and pressure and volume? I guess it goes to show, pay someone enough money and they will believe whatever you want them to.

  • Engineer48

    Smith flat out refuses to consider the existence of the claimed upper story heat exchanger.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c291f487eed1f0e04ae2c576383567253ec202b26c8173455ebdd1c2aed73b77.png

    Maybe just a bit biased?

    • GiveADogABone

      Unless IH could make the flooded steam pipe and partially filled flowmeter conjecture stick, they could not get the CoP down far enough.

      It is a bit strange when you take those two things together. the whole circuit runs flooded and the flowmeter is at the bottom of it but by some engineering miracle the flowmeter is only partially filled. I think Murray and Smith have reverse engineered their evidence to fit the desired conclusion. It does not work of course.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GADAB,

        Their conjectures tie up each other in a Gordian Knot.

        • GiveADogABone

          Exactly. Complex engineering only works the way the laws and physics and engineering allow. It is a numbers game at heart and the lawyers are powerless, whatever their hourly billing rate.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GADAB,

            Maybe EXPERTS play the same, “Lets Drag It Out As Long As Possible” billing game?

          • GiveADogABone

            or maybe a stonking great success fee

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            For sure Rossi has already made fall back plans. Probably several versions.

          • Again I like this way of seeing things: Some people are good at convincing other people about their opinion, but physics is not like politics, economics or law—physics just don’t care much about people. It just is. Fortunately.

      • Ged

        Apparently, they believe water flows uphill. Or maybe they just don’t believe in gravity and pressure and volume? I guess it goes to show, pay someone enough money and they will believe whatever you want them to.

      • Bruce__H

        Smith does not mention the flowmeter in his supplemental analysis. As far as I can see his idea of a pump on the JMP side being used to flood parts of the system on the ecat side means that the flowmeter is submerged.

  • Engineer48

    Here is a 25,000 CMH fan that consumes a max of 2.7 kW, which is probably at the rated max of 90,000 CMH. Noise is 50 – 68 dB.

    Guys on LENR Forum were talking HUGH power consumption, which is seems is not correct. I mean if 90,000 CMH = 2.2 kW, one would assume 25,000 CMH would consume a lot less than 2.2 kW.

    With an adjustable speed fan like this Rossi could adjust the fan speed as low as possible to obtain the necessary heat removal.

    https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/31-inch-25000-CMH-415V-3phase_60176683089.html

    So take 2 of these 31 inch wide 25,000 CMH fans, blowing into a tunnel 1 mtr high, 6.5 mtr wide & 12 mtr long. Seems an easy thing to build, power and operate.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/204663a2fee4cc0bcf926d1327cf9559624bff5194455a7c0c82bb35b24c02da.png

    • Ged

      Here’s a 43.1k CFM box fan that uses 5 hp (3.73 kw): https://www.industrialfansdirect.com/products/vi6019-x . And a 25.5k CFM fan that uses 2 hp (1.5 kW): https://www.industrialfansdirect.com/collections/exhaust-fans/products/vi5417-x

      So, the bare minimum of homework and there we go, FUD slain.

      • GiveADogABone

        Any allowance for driving the air over the tube bundles?

        • Ged

          Well, if you set this thing up as an air cooled heat exchanger, blowing it pulling the air directly over the tube bundles in counter current, you only need 23k CFM (39.1k CMH) at the most (~19k CFM at ideal conditions) to get rid of all 1 MW. So, it is very easy to do if they focus this airflow over the tube bundles.

          I don’t see a reason it couldn’t have been that way; the tubes could even be behind the fans as long as something was there to direct the air flow over them. The maximum CFM/CMH needed would depend on the engineering and how much of a delta T the air was undergoing due to that.

          • GiveADogABone

            I was just thinking that the fan capacity would be quoted for free airflow at inlet and outlet. There has to be a backpressure that lowers the capacity with boxes and tubes involved.

            The best way to pump air through a heat exchanger is to pump the coldest air. If the temperature rise is substantial, that produces a backpressure in its own right. You could see the effect on power station boilers because the furnace pressure was close to atmospheric. The fans that sucked hot exhaust gases were bigger than the fans that supplied inlet air.

          • Bruce__H

            Somewhere in one of the depositions someone says that the fans were pushing air over the tubes. I guess that has to be Wong or Rossi (I don’t think it was one of the attourneys)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            The tubes were in a box 1 x 6.5 x 12 mtr. Suggest there were 2 layers of 11 pipes.
            Each pipe was 10 mtr long with 22 pipes plus the 180 deg bends at the ends.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that the air flows quoted on the fans are for free flow. My guess is that IH will have someone (that is considered an expert calculate the minimum horsepower fan required to move air through the heat exchanger that Rossi claimed to have built. Smith in his report estimated that it would have taken 25 horsepower in the two fans to move the air through this heat exchanger, but I don’t think he would have had all the information needed to make this calculation, such as, the dimensions of the box containing the pipes and the cross sectional area occupied by the pipes. If Smith’s estimation is correct, just the energy used to run these two fans was more than the total energy billed by FP&L for any month period.
            Also, already there is a period of 10 or 11 days during the test where the daily energy supplied by FP&L was less than the energy claimed by Rossi for just running the reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Dr. Mike

            The tunnel cross sectional area was 6.5 m^2 (1 x 6.5 mtr) minus the area of the 0.15 mtr dia x 22 pipes being 0.0177 m^2 per pipe for a total cross sectional pipe area occupied of a little under 0.4 m^2. Free area in the tunnel was then 6.1m^2 or the pipes occupied 6% of the total area.

            Each fan, assuming 1 mtr dia fan area, has a circular area of 0.79 m^2 x 2 = 1.58 m^2 pushing their air into an area of 6.1 m^2 and 12 mtr long.

            What air resistance?

            25 HP? I call it Male Cow Manure.

          • Dr. Mike

            Was there a 6.1 m2 opening in the wall to the outside?

          • Ged

            Now that is the real crux of the issue. The feasibility of dealing with heat by exchanger is child’s play, but if it doesn’t appropriately vent anywhere, it is pointless.

          • GiveADogABone

            Cows are female where I come from but there is a chance of some cross-dressing

          • Obvious

            The Plant can use considerably more energy than was supplied for 15 days in a row, so why not some fans?

            And JMP can recieve more energy than made by the plant by 6 MWh per day for more than 30 days, so nothing is impossible…

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            The real problem is that Rossi had to talk to himself too often as in several e-mails to IH he states that after talking to the director of JM Products …….

          • Ged

            For how many CFM/CMH is Smith estimating? For as we can see, we can get far more than enough cooling (double what is needed for 1 MW by exchanger) for just 3.7 kW (5 hp)! 25 hp is total BS; just look at the fans I linked. That alone should throw up tons of red flags about Smith, too.

          • Ged

            I see what you are meaning now. That is hard to answer without all the design details, but this seems like a helpful little guide discussion: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/facilities/fan-selection/index.html I would think they would be fine with a reasonable static pressure, as fans don’t seem to be that sensitive to it, and if there is plenty of head room (20% should be more than enough) then there is definitely no issue.

          • Stephen

            Only that it’s been reported in various places as being endothermic. Although I fully agree it would need to be something pretty exotic and new to account for the amount of thermal energy absorbed and it’s required persistence.

            If such a thing exists it would be almost as remarkable as LENR itself. A heat sink like that would have all kinds of real world applications quite apart from what ever product is being produced.

            So I’m intrigued of course aren’t you? If it’s something else like just radiating heat outside the system then we will find out eventually. If it’s something new then I will be thrilled to see it.

          • GiveADogABone

            Methane and Fischer-Tropsch perhaps?

          • Stephen

            As in your comments here?

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/

            Great comments by the way…

            Would it still work with what we now know about the JMP plant and heat exchangers?

          • GiveADogABone

            Yes and yes.

          • US_Citizen71

            The industrial fans I looked at before always included a back pressure in their ratings be it 1″ of water or more. Without including a back pressure it would be like a car manufacturer only advertising the fuel efficiency of the vehicle going downhill. There will always be a back pressure.

  • Engineer48

    Here is a 25,000 CMH fan that consumes a max of 2.7 kW, which is probably at the rated max of 90,000 CMH. Noise is 50 – 68 dB.

    Guys on LENR Forum were talking HUGH power consumption, which is seems is not correct. I mean if 90,000 CMH = 2.2 kW, one would assume 25,000 CMH would consume a lot less than 2.2 kW.

    With an adjustable speed fan like this Rossi could adjust the fan speed as low as possible to obtain the necessary heat removal.

    https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/31-inch-25000-CMH-415V-3phase_60176683089.html

    So take 2 of these 31 inch wide 25,000 CMH fans, blowing into a tunnel 1 mtr high, 6.5 mtr wide & 12 mtr long. Seems an easy thing to build, power and operate.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/204663a2fee4cc0bcf926d1327cf9559624bff5194455a7c0c82bb35b24c02da.png

    • Ged

      Here’s a 43.1k CFM (73.2k CMH) box fan that uses 5 hp (3.73 kw): https://www.industrialfansdirect.com/products/vi6019-x . And a 25.5k CFM (43.3k CMH) fan that uses 2 hp (1.5 kW): https://www.industrialfansdirect.com/collections/exhaust-fans/products/vi5417-x

      So, the bare minimum of homework and there we go, FUD slain.

      Edit: And just to be thorough and round things out, here is 14.6k CFM (25k CMH) 42 inch fan that uses 3/4 HP (559 W): https://www.industrialfansdirect.com/collections/exhaust-fans/products/vi4214-x

      • GiveADogABone

        Any allowance for driving the air over the tube bundles?

        • Ged

          Well, if you set this thing up as an air cooled heat exchanger, blowing it pulling the air directly over the tube bundles in counter current, you only need 23k CFM (39.1k CMH) at the most (~19k CFM at ideal conditions) to get rid of all 1 MW. So, it is very easy to do if they focus this airflow over the tube bundles.

          I don’t see a reason it couldn’t have been that way; the tubes could even be behind the fans as long as something was there to direct the air flow over them. The maximum CFM/CMH needed would depend on the engineering and how much of a delta T the air was undergoing due to that.

          • GiveADogABone

            I was just thinking that the fan capacity would be quoted for free airflow at inlet and outlet. There has to be a backpressure that lowers the capacity with boxes and tubes involved.

            The best way to pump air through a heat exchanger is to pump the coldest air. If the temperature rise is substantial, that produces a backpressure in its own right. You could see the effect on power station boilers because the furnace pressure was close to atmospheric. The fans that sucked hot exhaust gases were bigger than the fans that supplied inlet air.

          • Bruce__H

            Somewhere in one of the depositions someone says that the fans were pushing air over the tubes. I guess that has to be Wong or Rossi (I don’t think it was one of the attourneys)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            The tubes were in a box 1 x 6.5 x 12 mtr. Suggest there were 2 layers of 11 pipes.
            Each pipe was 10 mtr long with 22 pipes plus the 180 deg bends at the ends.

          • Bruce__H

            This is the configuration that THHuxley made calculations for. He had the fans blowing transversely across the pipes however. He found that only 100kW dissipation.

          • Ged

            That is the worst possible design orientarion (edit: unless I am misunderstanding what is meant by transverse; if blowing through the pipes that would be a bad design, if with the pipes long axis in counter current that would be the way to go), but even so that result sounds very suspect and way too low. For what CFM was he working with, that 50k CMH (29.4 CFM)? You can cool any design down with enough CFM (within physical CFM generating constraints of course) unless there is no surface area exposed, even that horrid design assumption.

            Sadly, all this is guess work without pictures of the supposed thing, and right now there is no real evidence for it in the first place.

          • Bruce__H

            I’m not sure it is the worst configuration. Some people seem to want to suggest that a contercurrent configuration is possible and I think that would indeed be better. But Rossi agreed that the pipes were connected in a “serpentine” manner and this means that a countercurrent arrangement is not possible.

            THHuxleynew is a clear writer and has put a lot of work into his analysis. I suggest that you go take a look.
            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=55228#post55228
            You can see if your questions are answered and even possibly find a mistake in his calculations. He intentionally makes sure there is enough information that anyone can repeat his calculations if they like. This is the right way to do things.

          • Ged

            Serpentine and counter current are not mutually exclusive however. They are unrelated concepts. Counter current simply means the sum flow of the water is opposite that of the air. A serpentine counter current is the most space effective design.

            We can do some calculations using the tools here too: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html and if we look at that along with the typical values for the heat transfer coefficient of air (some helpful situations are listed here including for air cooled heat exchangers: http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/overall_heat_transfer-table.htm ), the results are more than enough cooling potential (several MW max, with actual dependent on air speed aka CFM, of course) using the assumptions listed in this thread at least. Heat transfer is not the limiting factor as there is more than enough surface area.

            Edit: THHux entire analysis rests on this: “The total cross-sectional air-gap through which the blown air must pass inside the heat exchanger box is therefore 10m X 0.55m, and so the wind velocity over the cylinders is 14/(10*0.55) = 2.5m/s.”, created by the assumption the pipes are stacked 3 high, go completely from one side to the other (10 m pipes in a 10 m opening, so 6.5 m has to be length and 1 m height in his layout), and have seven one behind the other, plus an extra put in somewhere.

            Still, we don’t see the thing, so who knows if his layout is accurate. He could be right if it was horribly unoptimized, necessitating more CFM for same cooling potential of a proper build. But worst: who knows if it even existed.

            Edit2: also, even if I replicate his assumptions, I get nearly double his result at 165-200 kW (wiggle room for the coefficient, as he is taking basically the lowest forced air coefficient possible, while that 200 kW matches the empirical graph for his assumption set) with the engineering toolbox (he does additional stuff with diameter to lower his results which are not part of the convection equation, which is heat dissipation = transfer coefficient * surface area * difference in temperature). If you change his assumptions of layout, this drastically alters. Also, with his assumptions, even using a two times pipe diameter spacing for the piping between the 7 columns, only 2.8 m of the 6.5 m box length is used, oddly.

          • Bruce__H

            How would have a serpentine counter current arrangement with air blowing over pipes? Some sort of arrangement with baffles and a fan at each end?

          • Ged

            I think I have misunderstood your question?

            No, just have the water flowing from say north to south (oscillating east-west) and the air from south to north (you can have one fan at one end, or two smaller fans one at each end, all that matters is CFM however it is accomplished). The serpentining is independent of the counter current–the total flow vector of the water is still north to south even if it is detouring east-west repeatedly. This does not affect the counter current at all, but makes it more space efficient.

          • Bruce__H

            You are right. I don’t know what I was thinking!

            THHuxleynew’s calculations still accommodate this though. First, his case is for transverse airflow over the pipes which is what you get if you have countercurrent airflow over a serpentine arrangement. Second, he made some simplifying assumptions and ensured in each case that they were in the direction of higher efficiency of heat transfer. The relevant simplifying assumption in this case is to assume that the temperature gradient from pipe to air is the same throughout the whole exchanger. This gives a maximal driving force for heat exchange in all pipe segments and would produce a much more efficient exchange that would happen in reality.

            THHuxleynew’s result is that the cooling capacity of Rossi’s exchanger is still an order of magnitude less than 1 MW. He attributes the discrepancy of his results and those of Wong (Rossi’s thermodynamics expert) to Wong’s use of a heat transfer coefficient that assumes a high airspeed of 50m/s whereas the actual airspeed in Rossi’s heat exchanger would only be something like 2.5m/s.

          • Ged

            No worries, it is easy to get all turned around trying to discuss pipes and orientations! I got all mixed up with the transverse myself for a bit.

            Yes, I had to read his assumption description several times, but it seems clear he has it stacked with three layers of serpentining pipes (going completely from one side to the other), using the 10 meter length as the largest value for the opening. This is fine, but may not be the real arrangement (if there was one), and other thicker stacks or using the 6.5 meters, gives a lot more air speed and more cooling. Also, if the pipes had fins or baffles would radically change the outcome, which I’ll touch on below.

            However, after he calculates air speed he makes additional unsupported assumptions that appear completely incorrect to lower the heat transfer coefficient even more. Empirical determination and analytical solutions of the coefficient in these settings both give values much higher than what he used in the end, giving a dissipation rate at least double his result. This means the higher CFM values quotes in the deposition would indeed be enough for 1 MW dissipation (but Wong would still be wrong). I have found nothing that supports his additional lowering of the coefficient, and only lots of evidence that contradicts it. For instance, larger pipes are much better for heat transfer as they take up more space and cause more turbulant flow, which increases the heat transfer coefficient, yet he incorrectly decreases the coefficient with larger pipe diameter, which is backwards. In the end, all the equations come out to the same conclusion contrary to his when using his assumption set as the base.

            200 kW is still a lot less than 1 MW, and 1 MW with 50k CMH is only possible with a properly designed exchanger, hence the 1.8 MW exchanger we have previously seen for sale that uses 34k CFM of flow to get the job done. It’s all a matter of the design, for if there were baffles or fins on the pipes, that would greatly speed up the air flow by order of magnitude (and more depending on baffle/fin density and volume reduction), by inducing turbulance (which alone increases the heat transfer coefficient by localized faster speeds regardless of the bulk spees) and funneling air flow more (in that case Wong could be right). That simple change could take this from 200 kW to a little over a MW. Though I personally doubt it would have been thought of even if the exchanger is real, so it’s safe to assume naked pipes as he does (and Wong stays wrong unless someone shows this happened–Wong probably assumed this was the case).

            Thankfully, counter current with cross flow due to the serpentine does mean nearly 100% transfer of available cooling from end to end, so that is completely a correct assumption he makes and not overly generous. Of course, it does assume counter current was even used if there was an exchanger, and that it wasn’t rigged with concurrent. That would hurt transfer a lot, though the serpentine would still help, if that was done.

            Without actual photos, this is a fun academic problem but… the design could have been even worse than assumed for all we know, and yield even less than 100 kW. And anyways, he does over all a good job with the assumptions and calculations, other than the lowering of the coefficient below its directly calculated and empirical value, and it’s So refreshing to see someone working out the math and science for their ideas of what may have happened based on what little evidence we have, rather than just making claims.

          • Bruce__H

            THHuxleynew has definitely done things the right way. Even if he has made a mistake he reports his findings in a way that we can hope to figure out what they are.

            THHuxleynew use the online “Thermal Wizard” calculator from Siemens (https://www.thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/default.htm ) for calculating the heat transfer coefficient. To try his calculations yourself, go to Convection Calculators>Forced>Across Circular Rod in the menu on the left and fill in the dialog that comes with parameters from the physical problem (pipe diameter 0.15m, pile length 220m, pipe temp 100C, ambient air temp 30C, air speed 2.5 m/s). This gives a calculated heat transfer coefficient of 14 W/m^2_C and a total dissipation of 102 kW. This heat transfer coefficient is radically smaller that Wong’s and THHuxleynew accounts for that by asserting that the published coefficient value Wong used assumed a higher air flow. Of course this could also be due to a mistake in the calculator but Huxley uses the calculator to do a problem from a textbook and finds that it gets the textbook solution dead on.

            Really, all of out adventures here are due to Rossi’s test configuration being undetermined. As far as I can figure out he has never supplied anyone with a complete thermohydraulic plan for the Doral test facility. Not IH, not Penon … no one. I don’t see why it should be secret. It would have nothing to do with the mechanism by which his ecat invention works. It looks to me as though he does this solely so that he can introduce post hoc changes to his setup so that he can answer criticisms. It’s possible that the 2nd story heat exchanger may grow fins soon, I don’t know.

          • Ged

            Well, it is important to be aware that the wizard there has some very important assumptions going on, and we shouldn’t use it naively for this problem. Additionally, it appears the calculator can’t do highly turbulent flows (if the Reynolds number gets into the turbulent regime, the output errors, but the turbulent regime is where exchangers are supposed to operate, not when laminar) at least at default a, v, k values.

            It starts out with simplified assumptions which is why it works well for the simplistic world of a textbook problem–solving a textbook unfortunately does not mean it is correct for this case. If we use this wizard as is, it is assuming a non-enclosed pipe with no turbulance, nothing in front of or behind it, just floating in free space with perfect laminar–not an exchanger setup. You can see the type of flow it is using by looking at the Reynolds number it calculated, which is 2×10^4. The critical Re number for tubes and spheres above which flow transitions from laminar to turbulant is 2×10^5 (ref 1) (and higher means more turbulant), and thus for this wizard the flow is apparently perfectly laminar. It’s a correct value given the assumed free floating smooth pipe case, but not for an enclosed exchanger (compare to Re versus Nu and this h values in ref 2)

            That laminar condition greatly decreases the heat transfer coefficient (h) by creating a stagnant boundary layer and lowers the dissipation rate significantly (different equation powers and coefficients–though this wizard does have a nice dynamic equation range till turbulence takes over and it breaks). This is also why baffles and fins are used to induce high turbulence and change the equation even at lower Re numbers, as turbulent flow is the most efficient state for exchangers to work in.

            But the pipes in our assumed problem here are enclosed, and they are serpentine with one 10 m run behind another, because this is an exchanger and not a single free floating pipe. While one can argue convincingly that laminar flow may happen for the first perpendicular pipe run, as long as the others are within a few diameters they should get hit by some turbulent wake flow, which will also increase h per value of Re (see the effect for corregation on pipes and heat transfer in relation to Re and turbulence in ref 2). The walls of the enclosure make a boundary condition that should make some small turbulance for the top and bottom stacks since the pipes take up nearly half the cossectional area (and more surface roughness, more turbulance), so they should be spaced close enough for boundary layers to interact. The stacking of the pipes will also create turbulance between stacks if they are within a few diameters as the boundary flows and wakes interact. In short, a perfectly laminar situation with a low Nu and Re number is not realistic for this problem, even without fins or baffles, as there should be turbulence in this set up at these speeds that disrupts laminar flows. This is why empirical investigations of similar enclosed situations do not show quite such a low h value for this airspeed as the idealized case does with this wizard (and why references for heat exchangers have such relatively high h per flow, which is possibly what Wong drew from when he heard “exchanger” and thought of a properly designed one).

            Interestingly, the Re value for the wizard being above 1×10^4 means there there will be a wake behind the leading pipe even in this idealized case as I mentioned above (ref 1), as the number is too large for the thin film to wrap completely around the pipe. So, the subsequent pipes would be hit by turbulence according to this wizard too, unless the pipes are really widely spaced; that too should alert us that the wizard’s assumptions likely do not fit our problem. Instead, using this wizard, one would likely have to calculate each pipe run independently and adjust a, k, and v accordingly… Not easy at all, and a real pain that would require way more work than reward…

            Still, the supposed exchanger set up described here won’t be remotely extremely turbulant as one would want in a real exchanger, but at least it would not be perfectly laminar as the wizard uses for a single free pipe.

            In summary, the wizard appears to be outputing too low a value due to idealized assumptions (not its fault, it is just a wizard) that are not realistic for the case of an exchanger (ref 2 shows a much higher Nu and thus h for the Re value calculated by the wizard in the case of smooth piped exchanger). And taking a pipe run of 220 m for the wizard loses the information contained in the serpentine design by making the calculator assume it is a straight free floating pipe of 220 meters, when really the air sees an enclosed layout of 7 pipes of 10 meters consecutively in a stack of 3, in the current assumption base.

            None the less, we have the practical calculations and tools that say 200 kW, and the idealized laminar case of a single rod that comes to 100 kW, so we have a wonderful range constraint for this current design idea; and the two methods of calculating are not that far from each other.

            And I agree completely with you. We need evidence of this second story exchanger and how it was really built… especially cause it could suddenly be claimed to sprout fins. Though it still has no evidence for existing anyways and quite a bit of counter evidence.

            1. https://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC 388/Notes/Forced Convection.pdf

            2. https://www.hrs-heatexchangers.com/resource/comparison-laminar-turbulent-flow/

          • Bruce__H

            Superb reply. Thanks! it will probably take several days and some thinking and learning to make my way through it.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. It ha been a bit of an education for me but I now understand and agree with everything you are saying. When you talk of practical calculations and tools giving a figure of 200 kW what are your referring to? Is there a site I can look at.

            I note that THHuxleynew has also upped his estimate of dissipation (but not by much) becasue he realizes that the submenu of the Thermal Wizard that he was using for calculations does not include some components of the overall heat transfer.
            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=56119#post56119

            I like THHuxleynew. He is honestly curious about what is happening in Rossi’s setup.

          • Ged

            I agree, I am glad we have folks like him in the community doing the work and looking this over. It is awesome.

            And you can use the empirical graph of flowrate vs heat transfer coefficient of air at the engineering toolbox I linked earlier for the 200 kW figure (TTHux actually embedded that graph in the furst post of his you linked, though he didn’t use it). Using my other links for the heat transfer coefficient in an exchanger set up, one would get muuuch higher results than that, but the engineering toolbox seems a good compromise on known determined rates but not requiring a properly built exchanger like the other links assume. Since I do not believe a properly built exchanger would be the situation here.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            According to the diagram on this ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steel-pipes-heat-loss-d_53.html ) site, a 6’’ steel pipe would lose about 250 W/m at a temperature difference of 60 degrees (red line), which means 55kW for 220 m. But that’s for a pipe in ambient air without further ventilation. I would guess with a ventilator it should be possible to increase the heat transfer by more than the factor 2. So I am a bit sceptical about that 100 kW figure. Maybe you could ask him which result he gets if he ignores ventilation.

          • Ged

            And that is not for convective mass flow heat loss as we are talking about here, as you point out. So this is a better tool: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html

            Edit: using this and the piping as described (220 meters with 6″ diameter) and using a small heat transfer coefficient for the air of only 200 W/(m^2 K) (where 1000 is the usual top range for air), I get 1.69 MW of cooling by forced convection available to those pipes. Can probably better estimate the coefficient for the air using the CFMs (which are what determine that coefficient).

            Edit2: even if the surface of the pipes is 70 C, that is still slightly more than 1 MW of expected cooling by convection for those pipes.

            Edit3: This site lists the coefficient of heat transfer for an air cooled heat exchanger acting to cool water as 600-750 W/(m^2 K), so much larger than I used for the above (cooling and condensing steam being 700-850): http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/overall_heat_transfer-table.htm

          • Bruce__H

            Good questions. I’ll take a look. But you can look too! THHuxleynew’s clearly written description of his calculations is at https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=55228#post55228.

            Go there and see what you make of his analysis. He has worked hard and I think deserves to have his assumptions and conclusions considered seriously.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that the air flows quoted on the fans are for free flow. My guess is that IH will have someone (that is considered an expert calculate the minimum horsepower fan required to move air through the heat exchanger that Rossi claimed to have built. Smith in his report estimated that it would have taken 25 horsepower in the two fans to move the air through this heat exchanger, but I don’t think he would have had all the information needed to make this calculation, such as, the dimensions of the box containing the pipes and the cross sectional area occupied by the pipes. If Smith’s estimation is correct, just the energy used to run these two fans was more than the total energy billed by FP&L for any month period.
            Also, already there is a period of 10 or 11 days during the test where the daily energy supplied by FP&L was less than the energy claimed by Rossi for just running the reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Dr. Mike

            The tunnel cross sectional area was 6.5 m^2 (1 x 6.5 mtr) minus the area of the 0.15 mtr dia x 22 pipes being 0.0177 m^2 per pipe for a total cross sectional pipe area occupied of a little under 0.4 m^2. Free area in the tunnel was then 6.1m^2 or the pipes occupied 6% of the total area.

            Each fan, assuming 1 mtr dia fan area, has a circular area of 0.79 m^2 x 2 = 1.58 m^2 pushing their air into an area of 6.1 m^2 and 12 mtr long.

            What air resistance?

            25 HP? I call it Male Cow Manure.

          • Dr. Mike

            Was there a 6.1 m2 opening in the wall to the outside?

          • Ged

            Now that is the real crux of the issue. The feasibility of dealing with heat by exchanger is child’s play, but if it doesn’t appropriately vent anywhere, it is pointless.

          • GiveADogABone

            Cows are female where I come from but there is a chance of some cross-dressing

          • Obvious

            The Plant can use considerably more energy than was supplied for 15 days in a row, so why not some fans?

            And JMP can recieve more energy than made by the plant by 6 MWh per day for more than 30 days, so nothing is impossible…

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            The real problem is that Rossi had to talk to himself too often as in several e-mails to IH he states that after talking to the director of JM Products …….

          • Ged

            For how many CFM/CMH is Smith estimating? For as we can see, we can get far more than enough cooling (double what is needed for 1 MW by exchanger) for just 3.7 kW (5 hp)! 25 hp is total BS; just look at the fans I linked. That alone should throw up tons of red flags about Smith, too.

          • Ged

            I see what you are meaning now. That is hard to answer without all the design details, but this seems like a helpful little guide discussion: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/facilities/fan-selection/index.html I would think they would be fine with a reasonable static pressure, as fans don’t seem to be that sensitive to it, and if there is plenty of head room (20% should be more than enough) then there is definitely no issue.

          • US_Citizen71

            The industrial fans I looked at before always included a back pressure in their ratings be it 1″ of water or more. Without including a back pressure it would be like a car manufacturer only advertising the fuel efficiency of the vehicle going downhill. There will always be a back pressure.

  • Engineer48

    Lets consider the new shiny 6 inch diameter pipe that vents to the roof:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1318008e969c20504c255e3641d8c9f4a8b56df0ffdf3e88a80ab5a2aacd9940.png

    What if the heater air from the box with the superheated steam heat radiator was directed into that pipe and then vented out the roof as high velocity very hot air, not saturated or superheated steam? No windows required to be removed.

    IE,
    Air from the warehouse enters via the opening cut in the dry wall, then enters the dual fans, is then forced through the 1 x 6.5 x 12 mtr box that contains the 22 x 10 mtr long black pipes that carry the superheated steam. Then the hot air coming from the outlet of the box is directed into the shiny metal pipe that vents to the roof?

    So the heat as very hot high speed air, exits via the roof vent? No open windows needed. Just need a very shiny new metal 6 inch dia duct from the upper story to the roof vent.

    • Josh G

      Rossi stated clearly and unambiguously in one of his depositions that the heat was vented through that middle second floor window.

      • GiveADogABone

        The venting through the middle window is significant and could be done for a reason: recirculation. The wind blowing along the face of the building could go one way or the other. You then chose which window to suck through based on not getting your own back. Of course the doorway at the rickety stairs is also a suction duct.

        • Stephen

          Especially if the back doors are always open

        • Josh G

          If only the window had been open…

          • Ged

            That is an enormous issue. Evidence has made sense till that.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Josh,

        Yup, when the room gets too hot open a window.

        HOWEVER there may be other ways, such as the shiny duct to the roof, to vent heat.

        It was put there for a reason.

        • Josh G

          So they were running the heat exchanger all the time and only untaped the window panes when it started to get too hot?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            That may be the case. The windows may be a secondary way to get rid of the heat.

          • Josh G

            After reading through his depositions I no longer believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Your talents would be best used elsewhere, such as helping MFMP with their testing protocols for their upcoming tests.

    • Stephen

      Could the silver pipe be there for contingency and safety… i.e. In case of need the steam could be vented directly out the top of the building?

      • Stephen

        In effect we have 3 cases.

        1. JMP plant inactive or failing.. All energy apart from other losses needs dissipation through heat exchanger.

        2. JMP Plant active depending on thermal use and obviously the endothermic efficiency only remaining unused thermal energy if any requires dissipation. Perhaps this requires only limited use of the heat exchanger if at all.

        3. Any possible emergency or contingency. If necessary the steam should be able to be vented… perhaps through the silver pipe.

        It seems to me the plant is designed with these contingencies in mind.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Stephen,

        Yup. For sure it could do that.

        • GiveADogABone

          I have often wondered where the discharge pipe of the E-cat safety valves went.

    • Dr. Mike

      If my calculations are correct, the velocity of the air in the 6′ diameter pipe would be about 800m/sec to achieve a flow of 50,000M3/hr as is needed to remove the 1MW of heat in the heat exchanger. It would probably take a >100 horsepower fan to be able to drive air through the the 6″ pipe at this velocity.

      • GiveADogABone

        How do you get the steam up to the mezzanine roo?

        • Engineer48

          Same why Rossi delivered it from the ECat container to the JM Black Box.

          6 inch diameter pipe with 3 inch insulation for a 12 inch insulated diameter running out the North side of the JM Black Box, between images 11 and 12, turning sharp West (toward the front of the building), then climbing up slightly to cross the bottom of the mezzanine porch, through the bottom North side of the cutout in the dry wall and to the heat radiator.

          Very easy to remove and not see able in the images Smith posted as they do not show the bottom area of the dry wall cutout: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81c3124489aed74f23edcf99ef939ee3d2ba5b5a4e73dcd3ca7d199e621462e4.png

          • GiveADogABone

            Dr M stated ‘the velocity of the air in the 6’ diameter pipe ‘.
            Here you state, ‘6 inch diameter [steam] pipe with 3 inch insulation’
            What happens when the steam and air pipes meet?

      • Engineer48

        Dr. Mike,

        Try this. Air up the vertical vent pipe at 95 – 99C. That reduces the volume the big fans need for driving air in the tunnel as we want the air up the vertical vert to be a hot as possible, without it being steam.

        Can’t send the superheated steam up the vent as we need it to condense and return to the ECat.

        • Dr. Mike

          Engineer48,
          The air probably would be very hot both from being heated in the heat exchanger and being compressed to flow thru the narrow outlet pipe. There just wasn’t enough electrical energy used by the building to run the fans during the period of the test. Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the photos in Smith’s supplemental report that shows no pipes going thru the mezzanine door. Also, the heat exchanger only appeared in Rossi’s testimony after it was shown that there was no other way to remove heat from the building. It will be very hard for a jury to believe Rossi when he says there is a heat exchanger dumping heat when throughout the test he told IH that the “customer” (himself) was using all of the heat and was even willing to pay for it.
          Finally the issue of the heat exchanger will be settled in court by photos of the mezzanine door and the new testimony of the radiation guy James Stokes. Stokes wasn’t asked about a heat exchanger in his 12-15-2016 deposition because there was no need for a heat exchanger until after the 1-30-2017 reports of Smith and Murray. Stokes would have certainly followed pipes going into the mezzanine if there really were a by-pass pipe coming off the main steam line going up into the mezzanine.

          • Ged

            Where do you get that there wouldn’t be enough power for the fans? If you want to move 73k CMH of air you only need 5 hp (3.73 kW), or 2 hp if you drop that to 43k CMH. So, do you have the calculations on hand that say there isn’t enough power? All I currently see says the opposite.

            Smith’s pictures cut off the area near the base of the door where pipes could be, so they do not show what you say at the moment. He has some other clever photo stitches in places, too, which is annoying.

          • Dr. Mike

            Ged,
            you would only need a few horsepower to move 43K CMH of free flow air, but a tremendous amount of power to move that air through a long 6′ diameter pipe. You need to know the resistance to flow to be able to estimate the power required to achieve an air flow in any non-free flow situation.
            Dr. Mike

          • Ged

            Sounds like someone should do some calculations :). Because “tremendous” is highly unscientific when there is no quantitation to back it up. 6′ is quite large (larger than the fans needed to move enough air!) with plenty of free space to move air at this volume.

            Edit: did you mean 6″ instead of 6′? Because 6′ being bigger than the fans is free flow.

          • GiveADogABone

            I lost the plot on the discussion about the mezzanine heat exchanger, so here is my take :

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aaa1351baece1ec6682c138a0e53da2b940aa48b553feade50afd2c76a97ecd2.png

            The diagram has the essential features. Steam in at the top of the platen, condensate out of the bottom in a fashion that is free draining. I would shift the fans from the top outlet to the bottom inlets above the water. The spray system runs continuously and it is the evaporation of the spray water that removes the bulk of the heat.

            Note the mist eliminator. Clearly, the spray system must be controlled so that there is no massive steam plume.

          • Josh G

            But where did he vent the heat to if the windows were covered with glass panes as clearly seen in the 2015 google street view pics?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            The heat was vented out the window behind the tree, which apparently stressed the tree so much that it had to be removed.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Most likely they disposed the deceased tree. Again, spoliation of evidence…;-)

          • Stephen

            In effect I think I can summarize my points about lagged pipes as follows:

            What’s curious to me is that due to the now known insulation of the pipework and JMP container we would need an either an external radiator or incredibly efficient endothermic process for all scenarios not just the 1MW heat scenario. But also the 10 kW heat scenario.

            Quite apart from Smith denying an external heat exchanger. In the 10kW scenario that would require a lot of hot water pumped around a long circuit of pipework with all the the complications of additional pump head etc that that requires.

            If we assume DN 150 pipe is used for that heat exchanger if it is 100m long pipe work would require an additional 1.76 m3 or 1760 liters of water. Even 50m of pipe would require 880 liters Which I think is far more than the spare capacity in the external tank after filling the rest of the circuit with water.

            If we assume no heat exchanger then the returned water would slowly heat up by at about 10kW per circuit eventually reaching boiling temperatures producing steam that has no spare volume to expand into leading to high pressure water and steam being circulated around the whole system that becomes hotter and hotter until….

            For what it’s worth I also find it unlikely that an endothermic process, however exotic, could account for 1 MW in 60m of pipe. This is not just a feeling but based on reasoning that the heat transfer to the endothermic material in the cylinders would need to be incredibly efficient if we assume that they are also contained in steel pipe for example then the heat transfer should be limited by the transfer rate through those pipes. Also I would think the most likely use for the heating cables is to keep the steam superheated.

            I now suspect that it isn’t so much the thermal power that the JMP process requires but rather some property of superheated steam… perhaps something due to thermal conductivity or stable thermal environment it supplies. The heating cables imply some level of endothermic process but perhaps if the order of a few kWs endothermic rather than 1 MW.

            However in this scenario all the latent heat of vaporization needs to be removed, so close to 1MW steam needs to be circulated in a heat exchanger that returns water. And this has all the issues already heavily discussed elsewhere.

            So we are still missing something in the overall story I think.

          • Engineer48

            Dr. Mike,

            Smith’s images from the ECat area don’t show the bottom of the dry wall opening. What is not shown is enough for a 12 inch dia steam pipe.

            Plus the steam pipe could have entered via the floor. There is at least one foam filled hoke in the floor that is large enough for the steam pipe.

            I’m not concerned about how the steam pipe could have got there as there are several possibilities.

            My concern is working out how the waste heat was removed from the upper story.

        • Pat

          How do we know it was an air-cooled condenser? It’s possible that it could have been a water cooled condenser – a much better solution I’d have though.

    • Obvious

      Where is the ducting for the roof top A/C?
      I see no ducting in the mezzanine.
      Perhaps the silver pipe is simply A/C ventilation, and the cable the supply for the A/C unit.
      Although I still like the idea of the silver duct as the bathroom fan vent.

      • GiveADogABone

        I have an air conditioner in my house, although I only use it for heating. It has two units, the outside unit with the compressor and the indoor unit with a small blower. The connection between them is two small bore pipes for refrigerant and a power cable that fit in a 4x7cm channel. The units can be up to 30 feet apart. There are no ducts.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Obvious,

        The bathroom is on the South wall. You can see the white vent piping for it run up the dry wall and exit by the south most roof vent.

        The shiny metal duct work is new and was not there before Rossi moved into the buildings.

        • Stephen

          Interestingly the horizontal section of the silver pipe is significantly higher than the grey wall and maybe even higher than the top of the black box. It’s certainly higher than the original steam pipe from the ECat.

          I wonder if it is at the same level as the bottom of the doorway from the mezzanine?

        • Obvious

          I’m not convinced of that, but the evidence is poor either way.

  • Engineer48

    Lets consider the new shiny 6 inch diameter pipe that vents to the roof:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1318008e969c20504c255e3641d8c9f4a8b56df0ffdf3e88a80ab5a2aacd9940.png

    What if the heater air from the box with the superheated steam heat radiator was directed into that pipe and then vented out the roof as high velocity very hot air, not saturated or superheated steam? No windows required to be removed.

    IE,
    Air from the warehouse enters via the opening cut in the dry wall, then enters the dual fans, is then forced through the 1 x 6.5 x 12 mtr box that contains the 22 x 10 mtr long black pipes that carry the superheated steam. Then the hot air coming from the outlet of the box is directed into the shiny metal pipe that vents to the roof?

    So the heat as very hot high speed air, exits via the roof vent? No open windows needed. Just need a very shiny new metal 6 inch dia duct from the upper story to the roof vent.

    Now to turn 1MW of superheated steam into high velocity very hot air and vent it straight up:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce956923c76d2228a4ce6f988c79a047e03787fe289ecb9dc9d10a0151d5fa95.png

    • Bruce__H

      The width of the room is 12 meters. You can measure that from the roof. Don’t know how much difference this makes to your scheme. It does mean that the marks on the floor don’t match the heat exchanger dimensions.

      • Stephen

        I wonder if that would be 2 horizontal layers of 11 pipes each separated by 50cm or a single layer of 22 pipes separated by 25cm. Or some other arrangement?

        • GiveADogABone

          You have to have a scheme that is ‘free draining’. That means the tube in the platen slopes downhill all the way from inlet to outlet to let the condensate run out. I would go for four platens to match the four pipes coming from the black box. Four free-draining platens?

        • Bruce__H

          The simplest configuration to construct would be a single layer but I have never seen this specified.

    • Josh G

      Rossi stated clearly and unambiguously in one of his depositions that the heat was vented through that middle second floor window.

      • GiveADogABone

        The venting through the middle window is significant and could be done for a reason: recirculation. The wind blowing along the face of the building could go one way or the other. You then chose which window to suck through based on not getting your own back. Of course the doorway at the rickety stairs is also a suction duct.

        • Stephen

          Especially if the back doors are always open

        • Josh G

          If only the window had been open…

          • Ged

            That is an enormous issue. Evidence has made sense till that.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Josh,

        Yup, when the room gets too hot open a window.

        HOWEVER there may be other ways, such as the shiny duct to the roof, to vent heat.

        It was put there for a reason.

        • Josh G

          So they were running the heat exchanger all the time and only untaped the window panes when it started to get too hot?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Josh,

            That may be the case. The windows may be a secondary way to get rid of the heat.

          • Josh G

            After reading through his depositions I no longer believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Your talents would be best used elsewhere, such as helping MFMP with their testing protocols for their upcoming tests.

    • Stephen

      Could the silver pipe be there for contingency and safety… i.e. In case of need the steam could be vented directly out the top of the building?

      • Stephen

        In effect we have 3 cases.

        1. JMP plant inactive or failing.. All energy apart from other losses needs dissipation through heat exchanger.

        2. JMP Plant active depending on thermal use and obviously the endothermic efficiency only remaining unused thermal energy if any requires dissipation. Perhaps this requires only limited use of the heat exchanger if at all.

        3. Any possible emergency or contingency. If necessary the steam should be able to be vented… perhaps through the silver pipe.

        It seems to me the plant is designed with these contingencies in mind.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Stephen,

        Yup. For sure it could do that.

        • GiveADogABone

          I have often wondered where the discharge pipe of the E-cat safety valves went.

    • Dr. Mike

      If my calculations are correct, the velocity of the air in the 6′ diameter pipe would be about 800m/sec to achieve a flow of 50,000M3/hr as is needed to remove the 1MW of heat in the heat exchanger. It would probably take a >100 horsepower fan to be able to drive air through the the 6″ pipe at this velocity.

      • GiveADogABone

        How do you get the steam up to the mezzanine roo?

        • Engineer48

          Same why Rossi delivered it from the ECat container to the JM Black Box.

          6 inch diameter pipe with 3 inch insulation for a 12 inch insulated diameter running out the North side of the JM Black Box, between images 11 and 12, turning sharp West (toward the front of the building), then climbing up slightly to cross the bottom of the mezzanine porch, through the bottom North side of the cutout in the dry wall and to the heat radiator.

          Very easy to remove and not see able in the images Smith posted as they do not show the bottom area of the dry wall cutout: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81c3124489aed74f23edcf99ef939ee3d2ba5b5a4e73dcd3ca7d199e621462e4.png

          • GiveADogABone

            Dr M stated ‘the velocity of the air in the 6’ diameter pipe ‘.
            Here you state, ‘6 inch diameter [steam] pipe with 3 inch insulation’
            What happens when the steam and air pipes meet?

      • Engineer48

        Dr. Mike,

        Try this. Air up the vertical vent pipe at 95 – 99C. That reduces the volume the big fans need for driving air in the tunnel as we want the air up the vertical vert to be a hot as possible, without it being steam.

        Assuming the air rising in the pipe was 99C, it has a 4 mtr vertical pipe to rise in and would cause a reduction in the pressure needed to drive the air volume into the pipe.

        Can’t send the superheated steam up the vent, in normal operation, as we need it to condense and return to the ECat.

        What we need is the necessary air volume to hold 1MW of heat at 99C as it rises in a 4 mtr vertical pipe being 6 inches in diameter. I expect the air volume is a very lot less than 50,000 CMH.

        • Dr. Mike

          Engineer48,
          The air probably would be very hot both from being heated in the heat exchanger and being compressed to flow thru the narrow outlet pipe. There just wasn’t enough electrical energy used by the building to run the fans during the period of the test. Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the photos in Smith’s supplemental report that shows no pipes going thru the mezzanine door. Also, the heat exchanger only appeared in Rossi’s testimony after it was shown that there was no other way to remove heat from the building. It will be very hard for a jury to believe Rossi when he says there is a heat exchanger dumping heat when throughout the test he told IH that the “customer” (himself) was using all of the heat and was even willing to pay for it.
          Finally the issue of the heat exchanger will be settled in court by photos of the mezzanine door and the new testimony of the radiation guy James Stokes. Stokes wasn’t asked about a heat exchanger in his 12-15-2016 deposition because there was no need for a heat exchanger until after the 1-30-2017 reports of Smith and Murray. Stokes would have certainly followed pipes going into the mezzanine if there really were a by-pass pipe coming off the main steam line going up into the mezzanine.

          • Ged

            Where do you get that there wouldn’t be enough power for the fans? If you want to move 73k CMH of air you only need 5 hp (3.73 kW), or 2 hp if you drop that to 43k CMH. So, do you have the calculations on hand that say there isn’t enough power? All I currently see says the opposite.

            Smith’s pictures cut off the area near the base of the door where pipes could be, so they do not show what you say at the moment. He has some other clever photo stitches in places, too, which is annoying.

          • Dr. Mike

            Ged,
            you would only need a few horsepower to move 43K CMH of free flow air, but a tremendous amount of power to move that air through a long 6′ diameter pipe. You need to know the resistance to flow to be able to estimate the power required to achieve an air flow in any non-free flow situation.
            Dr. Mike

          • Ged

            Sounds like someone should do some calculations :). Because “tremendous” is highly unscientific when there is no quantitation to back it up. 6′ is quite large (larger than the fans needed to move enough air!) with plenty of free space to move air at this volume.

            But at any rate, one cannot claim there isn’t enough power when one doesn’t show how much power would be needed in the first place.

            Edit: did you mean 6″ instead of 6′? Because 6′ being bigger than the fans is free flow.

          • Engineer48

            Dr. Mike,

            Smith’s images from the ECat area don’t show the bottom of the dry wall opening. What is not shown is enough for a 12 inch dia steam pipe.

            Plus the steam pipe could have entered via the floor. There is at least one foam filled hoke in the floor that is large enough for the steam pipe.

            I’m not concerned about how the steam pipe could have got there as there are several possibilities.

            My concern is working out how the waste heat was removed from the upper story.

        • Pat

          How do we know it was an air-cooled condenser? It’s possible that it could have been a water cooled condenser – a much better solution I’d have though.

    • Obvious

      Where is the ducting for the roof top A/C?
      I see no ducting in the mezzanine.
      Perhaps the silver pipe is simply A/C ventilation, and the cable the supply for the A/C unit.
      Although I still like the idea of the silver duct as the bathroom fan vent.

      • GiveADogABone

        I have an air conditioner in my house, although I only use it for heating. It has two units, the outside unit with the compressor and the indoor unit with a small blower. The connection between them is two small bore pipes for refrigerant and a power cable that fit in a 4x7cm channel. The units can be up to 30 feet apart. There are no ducts.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Obvious,

        The bathroom is on the South wall. You can see the white vent piping for it run up the dry wall and exit by the south most roof vent.

        The shiny metal duct work is new and was not there before Rossi moved into the buildings.

        • Stephen

          Interestingly the horizontal section of the silver pipe is significantly higher than the grey wall and maybe even higher than the top of the black box.

          It’s certainly higher than the original steam pipe from the ECat.

          There is also no sign of if connecting to the black box in the picture from the mezzanine doorway.

          I wonder if it is at the same level as the bottom of the doorway from the mezzanine?

        • Obvious

          I’m not convinced of that, but the evidence is poor either way.

  • kenko1

    What is the possibility of Rossi having to prove, in court, that his device works? Thus a public demo of a Quark-x. In a U S courtroom verifying and validating that LENR is real.

    • GiveADogABone

      In my estimation, non-existent. The court has to referee a contract dispute about a CoP calculation that only involves electricity in, water mass flow rate and a specific enthalpy gain. It is that calculation that validates the E-cat and not the other way round.

  • kenko1

    What is the possibility of Rossi having to prove, in court, that his device works? Thus a public demo of a Quark-x. In a U S courtroom verifying and validating that LENR is real.

    • GiveADogABone

      In my estimation, non-existent. The court has to referee a contract dispute about a CoP calculation that only involves electricity in, water mass flow rate and a specific enthalpy gain. It is that calculation that validates the E-cat and not the other way round.

  • Stephen

    I wonder if that would be 2 horizontal layers of 11 pipes each separated by 50cm or a single layer of 22 pipes separated by 25cm. Or some other arrangement?

    • GiveADogABone

      You have to have a scheme that is ‘free draining’. That means the tube in the platen slopes downhill all the way from inlet to outlet to let the condensate run out. I would go for four platens to match the four pipes coming from the black box. Four free-draining platens?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Wong gives the dimensions as follows (197-01, p. 5):

    „Approx. 10 m (length) X 6.5 m (width) X 1 m (height)”

    The edge that goes parallel to the street could well be 6.5 m long if one assumes that the structure was centred on that axis.

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      Google Earth measurement suggests the upper story is square, approx 12 x 12 mtr, not including the 6 window section that sticks out a bit to the West.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Well there were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. One can be seen at the right of the 1st image and one behind Rossi ion the 2nd.

    There are there for a reason which I suspect mat be to boost the condensate holding volume and to cause all the pumps to have a positive inlet pressure, to increase the pump flow rate as much as possible.

    You can’t just ignore the 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. They are plumbed in and are a part of the condensate system.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a44b08a8c49c459b1af4bda42b05f29ecd859ba8f370441479069f987fcaa0d0.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

  • Björn-Ola

    Why did Rossi set up the JM plant, when there was no need for doing it?
    If an air cooled condenser had been used, then it would be easy to check the measurements by checking the air temperature from the condenser.
    Was it on purpose so Penons measurements couldn’t be checked?

    Two fans should make a lot of noice, did anybody hear the fans? For it to work, the fans should blow the airstream directly through a window, or better, be connected to the window by a duct. If not, it would be very hot in the room and I doubt the cooler could have worked.

  • Ged

    That is the worst possible design orientarion, but even so that result sounds very suspect and way too low. For what CFM was he working with, that 50k CMH (29.4 CFM)? You can cool any design down with enough CFM (within physical CFM generating constraints of course) unless there is no surface area exposed, even that horrid design assumption.

    Sadly, all this is guess work without pictures of the supposed thing, and right now there is no real evidence for it in the first place.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    According to the diagram on this ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steel-pipes-heat-loss-d_53.html ) site, a 6’’ steel pipe would lose about 250 W/m at a temperature difference of 60 degrees (red line), which means 55kW for 220 m. But that’s for a pipe in ambient air without further ventilation. I would guess with a ventilator it should be possible to increase the heat transfer by more than the factor 2. So I am a bit sceptical about that 100 kW figure. Maybe you could ask him which result he gets if he ignores ventilation.

  • GiveADogABone

    I lost the plot on the discussion about the mezzanine heat exchanger, so here is my take :

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aaa1351baece1ec6682c138a0e53da2b940aa48b553feade50afd2c76a97ecd2.png

    The diagram has the essential features. Steam in at the top of the platen, condensate out of the bottom in a fashion that is free draining. I would shift the fans from the top outlet to the bottom inlets above the water. The spray system runs continuously and it is the evaporation of the spray water that removes the bulk of the heat.

    Note the mist eliminator. Clearly, the spray system must be controlled so that there is no massive steam plume.

    • Bruce__H

      No matter how you control the spray wouldn’t there be a steam plume anyway? You are emitting 1 MW of heat in the form of water vapour. When that hits the outside air isn’t it going to condense into a visible plume?

      • GiveADogABone

        For certain you can get a plume. Think of those big power station cooling towers with a white cloud at the top. The question you ask is how do you prevent the plume from forming. The answer is that you restrict the spray to much smaller amounts of water so that the humidity of the exit air is below the saturation. It is all about the humidity levels being controlled and monitored.

        What is the humidity and temperature of the incoming air?
        How much more water vapour can it hold before it becomes saturated?
        Air at 30C can hold 0.027kg water per kg air.
        Air at 15C can hold 0.011kg water per kg air.
        You can add 0.027-0.011=0.016 kg water per kg air without starting to form a white plume when the air goes back to ambient temperature outside but the actual hot air that leaves the heat exchanger can hold a lot more water vapour. It is that possible excess evaporation that you must control.

        These wet cooling towers are all over the place as heat sinks for air conditioning systems. You might remember that Legionaires Disease first struck at a veterans conference in a Miami hotel. It was the wet cooling towers at the hotel and the droplets from the towers that were the source of the problem.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

        http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/humidity-ratio-air-d_686.html
        Temperature (oC)
        Water Vapor Saturation Pressure (Pa)
        Maximum Humidity Ratio – x -(kgw/kga)
        0 609.9 0.003767
        5 870 0.005387
        10 1225 0.007612
        15 1701 0.01062
        20 2333 0.014659
        25 3130 0.019826
        30 4234 0.027125

        • Bruce__H

          What happens when the local weather conditions change? Are you saying that the spray is controlled dynamically to hide the steam plume? Why bother? Why is Mr Rossi trying to hide this cloud?

          On a winter day that is cool but still a bit humid only a little bit of spray could be used without a steam plume appearing, correct? And yet the hea exchanger still needs to dissipate 1 MW. What fraction of this 1 MW could actually depend on spray cooling if the vapour is to go undetected?

          • GiveADogABone

            Everything on the JMP side was secret, so a steam plume coming out of the mezzanine would have been quite revealing. Technically, it makes no difference at all. This mezzanine heat exchanger seems to have fooled everyone, including me. I did propose evaporation as a means of dumping the heat but that was back in the main warehouse space. Cue Jed and his heat studies. The amount of spray cooling is limited by the water consumption at the location. It is high for just the basics of an office and too low for a high level of heat removal, if you believe Smith. Too many unknowns for anything definite.

        • Stephen

          According to page 21 here:

          http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0215.02_Exhibit_B.pdf

          The utility bills indicate 4.6 gallons of water are used at the site per hour.

          This would be about 23 liters (or kg) per hour or 552 liters (or kg) of water per day.

          Smith uses this as an argument that the heat was not dumped down the drains… which incidentally was never claimed by JMP or LC as far as I know.

          It’s also difficult, to account for this usage of water in the plant itself for normal usage such as making tea, washing cups and WC usage. It seems much more.

          Would this fit your calculations above though for an evaporating cooler?

          If we assume air mass is about 1.2 kg per m3 at atmospheric pressure and ambiant temperature about 20 deg C.

          25000 m3/ hour of air would be about 30000 kg/ hour of air.

          So I suppose if we assume constant continuous operation the vapour if used for this would be well below saturation.

          Would this be sufficient to contribute significantly to the Heat loss?

          I suppose the point of this set up is the evaporation aids the transfer of the heat fro the pipes to the air rather than the heat transport all being in the steam it self.

          Or is it more likely it is used intermittently if required with higher levels of saturation?

          I sometimes wonder if the JMP plant worked on a daily shift cycle for some reason (either practal, logistical or for safety) and the cooler was only required when the JMP plant was not in operation.

          Would we expect to see condensation on the windows if present at certain times of the day?

          • GiveADogABone

            That is a good challenge and the number supplied by Smith is low, if evaporation is to make a serious dent in the 1MW of heat.

            Then we hit the overarching problem with Smith’s report; he does not present his data sources. If he was citing the ‘Miami-Dade water bills for the subject property’, then those/that document should have been presented.

            We also have the awkward problem of sub-cooling the condensate to about 70C before returning it to the E-cat. The output of the mezzanine heat exchanger would be at the saturation temperature at the pressure inside which seems would be much closer to 100C.

            There is a suggestion in there that the cold towns water was used to sub-cool the condensate first and then sent to my postulated wet cooling system in the mezzanine, where it was used as the spray water and evaporated. That means no hot water was put down the drains. I think we have learnt something, even if it is not the full story.

          • Stephen

            I have read somewhere that typically 1MW data centers that use water cooling typically loose about 1% of water due to evaporation and other losses in the cooling circuit.

            23 liters / 1500 liters isn’t far from this.

            I think in the case I saw it is a different kind of (non phase change high water volume) wet cooling system compared to the steam / condenser system you described though using direct cooling of water spray rather than an external evaporation cooler. But I suppose airflow and evaporation losses that account for the 1MW heat transfer could be comparable in both cases. I will see if I can find the link…

            Here it Is I think.

            https://journal.uptimeinstitute.com/dont-ignore-water-consumption/

            I think your system is more of a hybrid dry/wet system. With 1500liters/hour of distilled water/steam from the plant in closed loop with little or no losses. And the 23 liters per hour of utility supplied water from the external evaporator to enhance heat transfer to the airfolw in an other wise dry transfer system.

            I guess we have no evidence that the utility water was used this way but it’s a good idea I think.

          • GiveADogABone

            Looks like the amount of spray water used by Rossi is dictated by the needs of the sub-cooling. Hot water cannot go down the drains, so he used it to improve mezzanine performance by fully evaporating it.

          • Bruce__H

            Average public-supply (i.e. domestic) per capita water use for Florida (https://fl.water.usgs.gov/infodata/wateruse/datatables2010.html )
            was 134 gallons/day = 5.58 gal/hour in 2010. Rossi’s Doral facility had 4-5 people around regularly with Rossi in particular living there at night. This is before taking into account the casual labourers Rossi often hired. So 4.6 gallons per hour doesn’t seem too out of line.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I live near a 160MW co-generation plant that uses evaporative coolers for the condenser end of a steam turbine. It has two 50MW jet engine driven turbines and a 60MW steam turbine driven by a steam generator connected to the jet engine exhausts. You see clouds of condensed moisture mostly in the coldest days of winter. My guess is that in Florida, you would seldom see condensed vapor from a 1MW chiller.

          Another effect is that the saturated, warm air mixes with the un-saturated air as it rises and is further diluted. The relatively small cooling stream will turn into a much larger moving airstream of surrounding air.,

    • Josh G

      But where did he vent the heat to if the windows were covered with glass panes as clearly seen in the 2015 google street view pics?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Josh,

        The heat was vented out the window behind the tree, which apparently stressed the tree so much that it had to be removed.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Most likely they disposed the deceased tree. Again, spoliation of evidence…;-)

  • Ged

    Serpentine and counter current are not mutually exclusive however. They are unrelated concepts. Counter current simply means the sum flow of the water is opposite that of the air. A serpentine counter current is the most effective design.

    You can do some calculations using the tools here too: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html and if you look at that along with the typical values for the heat transfer coefficient of air (some helpful situations are listed here including for air cooled heat exchangers: http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/overall_heat_transfer-table.htm ), the results are more than enough cooling potential (several MW max, with actual dependent on air speed aka CFM, of course) using the assumptions listed in this thread at least. Heat transfer is not the limiting factor as there is more than enough surface area.

    • Bruce__H

      How would have a serpentine counter current arrangement with air blowing over pipes? Some sort of arrangement with baffles and a fan at each end?

      • Ged

        ? No, just have the water flowing from say north to south (oscillating east-west) and the air from south to north. The serpentining is independent of the counter current–the total flow vector of the water is still north to south even if it is detouring east-west repeatedly. This does not affect the counter current at all, but makes it more space efficient.

        Light flows in a single vector, even if it oscillates in positive and negative orthoganol vectors, none of that changes its bulk flow. Same for serpentining water. And it is the bulk flow being in opposite vectors that makes something counter current.

  • GiveADogABone

    For certain you can get a plume. Think of those big power station cooling towers with a white cloud at the top. The question you ask is how do you prevent the plume from forming. The answer is that you restrict the spray to much smaller amounts of water so that the humidity of the exit air is below the saturation. It is all about the humidity levels being controlled and monitored.

    What is the humidity and temperature of the incoming air?
    How much more water vapour can it hold before it becomes saturated?
    Air at 30C can hold 0.027kg water per kg air.
    Air at 15C can hold 0.011kg water per kg air.
    You can add 0.027-0.011=0.016 kg water per kg air without starting to form a white plume when the air goes back to ambient temperature outside but the actual hot air that leaves the heat exchanger can hold a lot more water vapour. It is that possible excess evaporation that you must control.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/humidity-ratio-air-d_686.html
    Temperature (oC)
    Water Vapor Saturation Pressure (Pa)
    Maximum Humidity Ratio – x -(kgw/kga)
    0 609.9 0.003767
    5 870 0.005387
    10 1225 0.007612
    15 1701 0.01062
    20 2333 0.014659
    25 3130 0.019826
    30 4234 0.027125

    • Stephen

      According to page 21 here the utility bills indicate 4.6 gallons of water are used at the site per hour.

      http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0215.02_Exhibit_B.pdf

      This would be about 460 liters (or kg) of water per day.

      Smith uses this as an argument that the heat was not dumped down the drains… which incidentally was never claimed by JMP or LC as far as I know.

      It’s also difficult, to account for this usage of water in the plant itself for normal usage such as making tea, washing cups and toilet usage. It seems much more.

      Would this fit your calculations above though for an evaporating cooler?

      • GiveADogABone

        That is a good challenge and the number supplied by Smith is low, if evaporation is to make a serious dent in the 1MW of heat.

        Then we hit the overarching problem with Smith’s report; he does not present his data sources. If he was citing the ‘Miami-Dade water bills for the subject property’, then those/that document should have been presented.

        We also have the awkward problem of sub-cooling the condensate to about 70C before returning it to the E-cat. The output of the mezzanine heat exchanger would be at the saturation temperature at the pressure inside which seems would be much closer to 100C.

        There is a suggestion in there that the cold towns water was used to sub-cool the condensate first and then sent to my postulated wet cooling system in the mezzanine, where it was used as the spray water and evaporated. That means no hot water was put down the drains. I think we have learnt something, even if it is not the full story.

        • Stephen

          I have read somewhere that typically 1MW data centers that use water cooling typically loose about 1% of water due to evaporation and other losses in the cooling circuit.

          23 liters / 1500 liters isn’t far from this.

          I think in the case I saw it is a different kind of wet cooling system compared to the condensor system you described though probably direct cooling of water spray rather than evaporation cooler but it could be comparable. I will see if I can find the link…

          Here it Is I think.

          https://journal.uptimeinstitute.com/dont-ignore-water-consumption/

          I think your system is more of a hybrid dry/wet system. With 1500liters/hour from the plant in closed loop with little or no losses. And the 23 liters per hour from the external evaporator enhancing heat transfer in an other wise dry transfer system.

          • GiveADogABone

            Looks like the amount of spray water used by Rossi is dictated by the needs of the sub-cooling. Hot water cannot go down the drains, so he used it to improve mezzanine performance by fully evaporating it.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I live near a 160MW co-generation plant that uses evaporative coolers for the condenser end of a steam turbine. It has two 50MW jet engine driven turbines and a 60MW steam turbine driven by a steam generator connected to the jet engine exhausts. You see clouds of condensed moisture mostly in the coldest days of winter. My guess is that in Florida, you would seldom see condensed vapor from a 1MW chiller.

      Another effect is that the saturated, warm air mixes with the un-saturated air as it rises and is further diluted. The relatively small cooling stream will turn into a much larger moving airstream of surrounding air.,

  • ALERT: Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/mats-lewan-buys-condo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports. Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.
    These comments are NOT made by me. They are false, made up, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this I expect him to delete those comments immediately.

    • Stephen

      Wow… I’m utterly astonished. Clearly those comments are not from you Matts.

      This kind of misuse of people’s ID’s and obvious attempts s to defame them and manipulate the context of what they stand for on blogs disgusts me. I have seen this before and it’s absolutely aweful. How low can people get.

      It’s desperate behavior I guess by someone who has no clear arguments but in my opinion it’s crime and astonishing that those people who do that are not held to account.

  • ALERT: Abd ulRahman Lomax yesterday posted a blog post at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/mats-lewan-buys-condo-in-cloud-cuckoo-land/ commenting some of my actions and reports. Under the blogpost there are comments made by Mats Lewan.
    These comments are NOT made by me. They are false, made up, and if Abd ulRahman Lomax reads this I expect him to delete those comments immediately.

    • Stephen

      Wow… I’m utterly astonished. Clearly those comments are not from you Matts.

      This kind of misuse of people’s ID’s and obvious attempts s to defame them and manipulate the context of what they stand for on blogs disgusts me. I have seen this before and it’s absolutely aweful. How low can people get.

      It’s desperate behavior I guess by someone who has no clear arguments left but in my opinion it’s crime and astonishing that those people who do that are not held to account.

      Maybe someone who is in touch with ABD could let him know incase he is not aware.

    • roseland67

      Mats,

      Wow, I would expect retractions to be immediate, sit tight, possible he got bad intel

  • GiveADogABone

    Everything on the JMP side was secret, so a steam plume coming out of the mezzanine would have been quite revealing. Technically, it makes no difference at all. This mezzanine heat exchanger seems to have fooled everyone, including me. I did propose evaporation as a means of dumping the heat but that was back in the main warehouse space. Cue Jed and his heat studies. The amount of spray cooling is limited by the water consumption at the location. It is high for just the basics of an office and too low for a high level of heat removal, if you believe Smith. Too many unknowns for anything definite.

  • Ged

    No worries, it is easy to get all turned around trying to discuss pipes and orientations!

    Yes, I had to read his assumption description several times, but it seems clear he has it stacked with three layers of serpentining pipes (going completely from one side to the other),using the 10 meter length as the largest value for the opening. This is fine, but may not be the real arrangement (if there was one), and other thicker stacks or using the 6.5 meters, gives a lot more air speed and more cooling. Also, if the pipes had fins or baffles would radically change the outcome, which I’ll touch on below.

    However, after he calculates air speed he makes additional unsupported assumptions that appear completely incorrect to lower the heat transfer coefficient even more. Empirical determination and analytical solutions of the coefficient in these settings both give values much higher than what he used in the end, giving a dissipation rate at least double his result. This means the higher CFM values quotes in the deposition would indeed be enough for 1 MW dissipation (but Wong would still be wrong). I have found nothing that supports his additional lowering of the coefficient, and only lots of evidence that contradicts it. For instance, larger pipes are much better for heat transfer as they take up more space and cause more turbulant flow, which increases the heat transfer coefficient, yet he incorrectly decreases the coefficient with larger pipe diameter, which is backwards. In the end, all the equations come out to the same conclusion contrary to his when using his assumption set as the base.

    200 kW is still a lot less than 1 MW, and 1 MW with 50k CMH is only possible with a properly designed exchanger, hence the 1.8 MW exchanger we have previously seen for sale that uses 34k CFM of flow to get the job done. It’s all a matter of the design, for if there were baffles or fins on the pipes, that would greatly speed up the air flow by order of magnitude at least, by inducing turbulance (which alone increases the heat transfer coefficient by localized faster speeds) and funneling air flow more. That simple change could take this from 200 kW to a little over a MW. Though I personally doubt it would have been thought of even if the exchanger is real, so it’s safe to assume naked pipes as he does.

    Thankfully, counter current with cross flow due to the serpentine does mean nearly 100% transfer of available cooling from end to end, so that is completely a correct assumption he makes and not overly generous. Of course, it does assume counter current was even used if there was an exchanger, and that it wasn’t rigged with concurrent. That would hurt transfer a lot, though the serpentine would still help,if thay was done.

    Without actual photos, this is a fun academic problem but… the design could have been even worse than assumed for all we know, and yield even less than 100 kW.

  • Bruce__H

    From his first ERV report (“Plant Start Up” doc 214-33 pages 23-26) here is Penon’s description of how the ecat plant starts up from a cold dry state

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fb9309da092e001b14d948538d05bbe73d352a7bc5b68da8eab6556b5936fe5.jpg
    Something doesn’t make sense to me here. The picture is that first the Tiger/BF units are filled to some desired level with water coming from a holding tank inside the ecat plant. Then, after the partly drained holding tank is replenished … “The hydraulic circuit is closed to see if there are leaks in the E-Cat plant or in the customer’s one”.

    What does closing the hydraulic circuit mean here? Does it mean that (more) water is pumped from the internal holding tank and into the Tigers until the output pipe from the ecat plant over to the JMP plant is full of water? And does it also mean that the pumping continues until the pipes on the customer’s side fill right up and water returns to the ecat plant? Because if it does then that means that the starting point for the operation of the plant is with all steam risers and steam pipes in the ecat plant flooded with water. Than seems odd.

    The oddness continues. Penon further explains that this initial flooding of all components may reveal some leaks (OK, that part actually makes sense) and if so all leaked water is replaced by again filling the internal holding tank. And now we are good to go! Next step is “…the hydraulic circuit is closed. The heating resistors are turned on”. Over the next several hours the ecats do their work and eventually begin to create superheated steam.

    But wait! I had expected some sort of bleeding operation before heating everything up. After aren’t the Tiger/BF units supposed to work half full? And aren’t the steam riser and steam pipe that goes over to the JMP facility still full of water? What is going to happen to this totally full system once large quantities of water in the Tigers start to boil and expand in volume by 1400 times?

    I would do things differently. I would bleed the whole system dry then fill the Tiger/BF units 3/4 full of water … and then that should be enough. Once the ecats are switched on just that amount of water should be plenty for the entire operation. No?

    Well… it’s only enough if the Penon/Rossi circulation is the true situation pattern. Only then do you need to bleed the system after the original leak test.
    In contrast starting completely flooded is no problem in Rick Smith’s suggested circulation pattern. In that pattern the risers, steam pipes,and Tiger/BF units are all supposed to be flooded. After all, the only thing the plant does is circulate hot water over to the JMP side — which then sends it back.

    I think Penon witnessed the startup. I believe he was in Doral at the time. I wonder if he will testify about seeing a large-scale bleeding operation on startup. Other people were there too. I wonder if they saw it. It must have happened it the Rossi’s system works as claimed. If Smith’s circulation pattern is the right one then no bleed is necessary, and in fact none is wanted.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I should have read the report more carefully. If the internal tank was mostly disconnected from the external one, both the red pump and gravity could not have contributed to the supply.

      However, Alan F from LENR forum ( https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=193 ) found the following remark in a catalogue by Prominent:

      “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate.” (PDF p. 33)

      http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/20110330_5617_prominent-equipment-catalogue-2011.pdf

      It has been disputed if this would apply to the particular model that has been used in the plant. In the footnotes they refer to a “gamma/L metering pump”. The name of the original model is “Prominent gamma/L Solenoid Metering Pump”, which appears to fit.

      • Obvious

        The maximum rate of the pump does not increase in multiples (it can increase a small amount) but at low rate settings the pump can perform more strokes than anticipated if there is low resistance to the diaphragm due to low pressure on either side of the pumping action, which in some cases can cause multiples of the intended rate setting.

        • Ged

          The catalog quote specifically says feed rate, not strokes, however. So it does definitely sound like output can go up by a “multiple” at atmospheric pressure. Still, this would need to be tested.

          • Obvious

            Agreed, but realize that the only thing that can increase pump volume is more strokes. (Other than slight temperature-related expansion). The pump rate is determined by the number of stokes, since the volume pumped per stoke is constant, once set. At 180 strokes per minute, there isn’t much room for extra strokes. At 30 strokes per minute (for example) there is plenty of room to squeeze in some more strokes.

          • Ged

            That sounds logical. However, if at low pressure the power sent to the pump can result in so many more extra strokes than expected so as to multiply the output, why would this not happen when the pump is at full power too? I don’t see a reasons there is less room for strokes at 180 than 30. It doesn’t sound like a mechanical limit, but a power limit, so it should still jump up (more strokes for that same power at low pressure), just maybe by a set value which would be relatively less at high strokes then low (10 + 10 is double the intended rate, but 180 + 10 is more or less just noise). Unless it really is more strokes per unit power per unit pressure drop, then the multiple would more or less stay the same at all intended flow rates.

          • Obvious

            I was thinking of something like piston bounce maybe adding a few extra strokes. The pump shouldn’t really add extra strokes (or miss them) without tripping an error message. The electronics in these pumps is surprisingly complex.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            It appears the volume per stroke is not fixed and does increase as the back pressure drops.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45e0fdf4d861eef22f6fa78b443fc9372d8a9e012f653f352f15a1cbab0077a9.png

          • Obvious

            So the diaphragm flexes a bit more, adding about 0.4 mL per stroke. Stretching it enough to accommodate 2 to 3 more times the fluid at maximum flow (or thereabouts) seems to be a stretch of imagination. This is supposed to be a metering pump after all.
            At less than maximum flow (probably more like less than 1/2 the maximum, or even more likely under 1/4 the maximum) I can see the extra volume being significant compared to the total pump volume. Increasingly towards the maximum pump rate the significance of the extra diaphragm displacement should diminish relative relative to the total flow rate.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Wouldn’t such a pump be a nice addition to MFMP’s equipment, especially in view of the forthcoming experiments?

          • Ged

            Hint hint, wink wink, Bob ;).

      • Engineer48

        Hi AM,

        Good find, especially as they are talking about the Gamma/L model, which Rossi used with the Tigers.

        Several times meaning at least 2 x 32 L/Hr = min of 64 L/Hr.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae418b05e834514b0dd283d5f4595f0abd31ecf6001809316c514f4c9485e8b.png

      • Bruce__H

        Penon appears to believe that the only way water can get to the Tiger/BF is via the pumps inside the ecat plant. Indeed I doubt he has ever set foot inside the JMP part of the facility and has no knowledge of the red pump there. Let us call circulation solely via the Tiger pumps the “Penon circulation”. In your discussion of the pumping rates don’t forget that part of the backpressure on them is due to the vertical distance thy need to suck up water from the internal holding tank. So most of those pumps will never see exactly atmospheric pressure, there will always be a little more.

        The competition for the Penon circulation pattern right now is the “Smith circulation”. The Smith circulation requires the red pump on the JMP side but also uses the Tiger pumps. In the Smith circulation there are 2 pathways for water. One is driven by the red pump on the JMP side and goes down the condensate return pipe to the ecat side. straight up the ecat steam riser, out the steam pipe that emerges from red ecat plant, and then back over to the JMP side to complete the circuit. The other loop is powered by the Tiger pumps which suck up water from the internal reserve tank and send it first into and then out of the Tiger/BFs to then join the other flow. The red pump doesn’t need to be going all of the time. It can just pump at night when Rossi, and no one else, is there. The red pump makes up the shortfall from the Tiger pumps so as to achieve the needed 35,000 per day down the condensate return pipe.

        I have not mentioned Engineer’s flow pattern because I believe it is dead now. There is just too much clear evidence against it that Engineer has never dealt with.

        • Ged

          That doesn’t make any sense, sadly. Remember, water goes naturally down hill. Pumping water into the high point of the steam pipe means it’ll go -back down- from that end into the “Penon circuit” you propose. Meaning everything is flooded, all the reactors and gauge glass and pipes, and there is a large weight on the Tiger pumps.

          This does not fit the evidence at all. Also, I don’t see any alternate path in the photo evidence, so that also seems to contradict that idea.

          • Engineer48

            Ged,

            There are flow restriction valves between the condensate risers and the reactors such that they can not supply all the flow, so the reactors are NOT FLOODED, and the Prominent topping up pumps handle the rest of the flow to control the water level inside the reactor.

            You can clearly see them in this image of the EC reactor condensate flow and control system. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1861362dc1c4a5bf7b18e5cee70361a45a95deb710b65fe06337659cf3dff14c.png

            The condensate riser that feeds the EC reactors is the vertical pipe to the far left.

          • Ged

            Exactly. It is clearly not the case that there is a second path or any of that pumping directly into the steam pipe jazz.

          • Engineer48

            Ged,

            There are 2 clearly visible 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. How do you think the condensate gets to the top of those risers without the use of a slightly pressurised (0.245 barg) condensate circulation system that needs the Red Grundfos pump in the JM container to pump the condensate up that high?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

            Then ask yourself why did Rossi design the condensate circulation system such that it needed the 2.5 mtr condensate heads?

            I see 2 reasons:

            1) reduce the back pressure on the Prominent pumps so to improve their L/Hr pumping rate.

            2) be able to supply A PART of the required condensate flow for each reactor from the flow driven by the Grundfos pump in the JM container, which Penon knew about and listed in the ERV, and the rest via the topping up pumps.

            You see the existence of the raw condensate flow is critical to showing how the Tigers were able to be feed the required L/Hr as apparently the Prominent pump volume was too small.

          • Ged

            Everything converges nicely, with one path into the steam pipe as… steam.

            What is also interesting is that we have seen the multiple techs who built this thing for IH and know everything about it. So I wonder why they haven’t been trotted out if there was a design issue in that way.

          • Bruce__H

            Good question! The tour through the ecat plant and Smith’s resulting proposal came after all the depositions though. These questions could still come up at trial.

          • Bruce__H

            I think the condensate gets to the top of those risers via the Prominent pumps. They suck up condensate from the unpressurized internal holding tank … just a Penon says. Those pumps can suck water vertically 6.5 feet up to their inlets.

            It is fun looking at the different part of the ecat plant but to support your proposal I would have thought you would need evidence 1) that can’t be accounted for by other schemes in play and 2) matches what Penon says. Your proposals don’t do that.

          • Bruce__H

            You are confused about different parts of the overall system. The part of the ecat plant you are currently pointing to is the newer part with all the smaller ecat units. There are twice as many pumps in this part of the facility than on the Tiger/BFs (i.e., one on each small ecat unit). The original plan apparently called for using these small ecat units for the 1 MW production and reserving the Tiger/BFs for a backup. If you do the math you will find that the combined capacities of the pumps on the little ecats is within the 1500 l/h needed for 1 MW production even if the backpressure is the maximum recommended. For this part of the plant there is no need for the design requirements you are praising Rossi for.

            In the Tiger/BF end of the facility the pumping capacity s are too small. THAT is where a master pump would be needed and where you should see a corresponding parallel path of water feeding the Tigers. But you don’t see that parallel path. i’ve shown you that it isn’t there..

          • Bruce__H

            Why is it clear?

            There is one thing that is absolutely clear … the external tank feeds the internal tank by gravity. Penon says so, right in his ERV report. Barry West says so. Smith says so. There are pictures showing the connection and the relationship between the tanks.

            But if this is true then Engineer’s claims are nonsense. I am surprised that others on this forum not grasping this.

            Have I not made this case plain enough? Should I provide more diagrams to convince?

          • Ged

            Can you show me the pics? I see the condensate pipe come in from one side right where the internal tank is, and on the opposite side is the external tank? Seems really weird and hard to imagine how they could connect.

            But I also don’t see how it is a problem like you suggest if the external feeds the internal–it seems to agree fine with E48. Both could be under equal pressure from the weight of what feeds the external, there is no problem with that, and it would indeed be gravity. If A goes to B where A is the external and B is the internal, then hydrostatic pressure on A is also equally on B. So, I apologize but I don’t yet see any problems with that and will need more explanation; other than I can’t visibly see how the external goes to the internal as it looks like the external isn’t connected to anything in the one pic we have and they are in opposite sides…

          • Bruce__H

            Take a look at Penon’s plumbing schematic (see pages 39-40 of document 236-43).
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/988bdd8378d8e7ff080c2533bddf173eb9ce84025605da52615aac0a850cc95f.jpg
            The external tank feed comes from one side and the condensate return pipe come from the other. Both feed into the internal tank. The picture of the connection between the external and internal tanks I posted earlier was taken from the vantage point on the left of the diagram looking down the container towards the internal tank.

            Here is how Penon describes the situation …
            ” The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank into the internal tank by gravity.”

            The valve is in the connection between the external reservoir and the internal tank. What does the float for the valve float on if not for the surface of the water inside the internal tank? How does the internal tank have a water surface if it is sealed and has a head of 2.5 metres of water on top of it?

          • Ged

            Even in his diagram and the photo we have, there is no water source going to the external tank. The only place it seemingly gets water is from the internal tank according to the diagram and what we see so far. That would only work if there was pressure pushing water into the external, but that is backwards what he writes–but the only possible choice with this set up as drawn and as we visually seen so far.

            Penon doesn’t say which tank has the valve in that passage, but it makes most sense for the internal to have it to keep levels steady. But the next assumption seems to be that the valve opens when the water gets too low, but it could be the valve opens when the water gets too high (too much pressure compressing the air pocket), using the external as a pressure release if something clogs the outflow from the internal to the rest of the plant so the internal doesn’t blow something. It doesn’t have to be filled completely with water to have pressure, as an air pocket can be there and pressurized too just as it is in air traps in domestic plumbing.

            Either way, Penon’s diagram and the photo we have are at odds with Penon’s description as there is no source to the external but the internal from what I can see so far. Is there more evidence about the external’s water source?

          • Bruce__H

            Yes. The external tank is the entry point for all water into the system and had to be filled by hand. Here is Barry West in his deposition (207-61, page 89) …
            “… everything that came back as condensate needed a vessel to flow into, and that was done away with altogether. Everything came back into a smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger tank, which originally was going to be condensate return tank, and then we were going to pump the water back into the units. That ended up being –…we built a big stand a little taller than this table, really heavy duty stand out of wood to support that large tank full of water, which this thing held, I forget how many gallons, 55-gallon drums, it probably held 6, 800 gallons or more, maybe a thousand gallons of water, which is substantially heavy. But it had to be up so gravity could allow it to flow into the system.”

            (Note that the current external reservoir was originally designed by IH to be the condensate return tank for the system. Rossi changed that. West is describing how the original condensate return tank was repurposed as the external reservoir and an internal tank inserted into the ecat container to act as the condensate return tank.

            And here is West (page 143) describing the difficulties they had with the working of the internal tank and how the external tank was used at those times.

            “Q. Do you recall seeing rust on the return pipe?
            A. Yes, that’s the condensate return.
            Q. Right. When did you see that?
            A. We moved it. We had level issues in that one condensate tank that were used. That level needed — we had to make adjustments to that, because they would get too full, and the pumps that removed
            that material and sent them up to the units when Andrea finally got his system dialed in there on what rates to pump the material at to keep things balanced, and we lost a lot too, you know, so we had this big tank up there with a valve in there or a little foot pedal and a float that would try to maintain that level. Sometimes when you turn things up really high and things really got to cooking hot, we would have issues. We would have problems. ”

            Note how the material from the condensate return tank is supposed to get up tho the Tigers … by pumps that “removed that material and sent them up to the units”. No indication of a 2.5 metre head of pressure.

          • Ged

            Hm, he mentions the internal tank getting too full, so this does sound like the internal could overflow to the external? And he makes it sound more like the float/peddle valve was in the external… Not as helpful a description as hoped. I also don’t see him saying how the external was hooked up to anything else other than the internal unfortunately.

            It at least appears from him and Penon and the photos that the external tank was an accessory and not part of the flow system directly, so it seems it can be safely ignored, as it’s apparent use is only in unusual volume cases.

            It by itself of course can’t make a 2.5 m head pressure since it isn’t apparently 2.5 m high, but it probably has about 1 m head pressure from the pictures–hard to tell exactly, but given the container is probably 9-10′ high. But it would be possible to have 2.5 m head pressure push into it from the internal tank to fill until the valve closes. And of course, In cases where it flowed into the internal, or if that was the normal state, the internal would have to have low enough pressure and volume to open the valve.

          • Bruce__H

            The top of the external tank is about 5 feet above ground (guesstimate). But the big red shipping container that the ecat plant is in sits about 2 feet off the ground. So if we refer everything to the floor of the ecat plant, the head of pressure exerted by the external tank is about 3 feet or so. This is comparable to the height of the internal tank inside the ecat plant.

            This all work beautifully if the external tank’s role is to handle unusual volume cases, as you say. If the internal tank goes low then the external tank empties into it by gravity to replenish the internal tank without overflowing it. If the internal tank goes too high then there is also the possibility of the excess going back into the external tank, by gravity, so as to prevent floods inside the ecat plant itself with all of its electrical components. I don’t think this latter mode was really envisaged by Rossi

            With the level of the internal tank stabilized, the water inside it can be sucked up by the Prominent pumps and injected into the Tiger/BF units.

          • Stephen

            It is mentioned it is demineralized or distilled water I think. So probably the external tank is filled and contains all the water required for the system and is only topped up by a delivery when it is required.

            If that tank is 2m x 2m x 0.8m as it looks to me then it could contain up to 3200 liters or 640 gallons of water. If so it should have plenty of demin water to half fill the 4 Tigers the internal tank and the condensate pipes in the ECat plant and in the condensate pipe inside and from the JMP plant.

            With some left over to top up after leakages etc.

            I suppose it would need refilling after the ECat is drained ready for restarting or before incase a refill is needed in a contingency.

            I suspect it would struggle to fill all the pipes up to and in the mezzanine heat exchanger with water. But if those pipes mostly contain steam then no problem.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            The fluid from the external tank was PUMPED into the internal tank. It was NOT gravity feed.

            Why?

            Because the water level in the condensate system inside the ECat container was HIGHER than the water level inside the external tank.

            So say IH in 235-11, page 32, item 5.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Suggest you read 235-11 page 32 which describes how water was moved from the external tank to the internal tank via a PUMP.

          • Bruce__H

            You mean this?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d980c98f91948fe8854a894d387f1d54b5489c7f8fdffdfaf617c96d7235541a.jpg
            By “E-Cat heater tank”, Murray means a Tiger/BF unit.

            When he says ” If the tank needs water the operator will turn on the pumps to move water from the feedwater tank to the E-Cat heater tank.” he is talking about switching on the Prominent pumps to move water from the internal tank to a TIger/BF.

            I don’t see how “E-Cat heater tank” can be interpreted as the internal tank. It isn’t a heater tank.

          • Stephen

            I was also wondering about this statement when I read it.

            It’s interesting he says “if the tank needs water…. “, “the operator will turn on those pumps”. It seems to me to imply that normally the E-cat heater tank does not need water from the pumps but sometimes needs topping up by the pumps.

            Which somehow implies the water normally circulates with out those pumps and they are only required to top up. So it seems there is yet another twist to the story.

          • Bruce__H

            The whole procedure is surprising. I would have thought that a level sensor with some type of feedback control would have been a good idea. It may be standard to have a setup like this with industrial boilers though. I don’t know.

          • Bruce__H

            By the way. I think Murray’s depiction (based on West’s descriptions) means that the sight glasses work as advertised. I think this is what Murray means by enabling the level indicator on the E-Cat heater tank. The level indicator is the sight glass.

          • Bruce__H

            The pipe on the far left is not a condensate riser. You have the flow going backwards just as you did on the corresponding vertical unlagged pipe beside the Tigers. It doesn’t carry condensate to the ecat units because it can’t, there is no pressure on the condensate to carry it up there. That is what Penon says.

            The pipe on the far left is a drain for emptying the ecats if needed. It is unlagged because in normal operation it is empty and so does not heat up, just like the one beside the Tigers. The things you label “level sensors” are valves to close off the drain when not in use.

            You know I am right about all of this because you have seen the evidence I presented about the external tank and how if feeds the internal one by gravity. You carefully carefully carefully avoid talking about that evidence because you know it makes nonsense about everything you are saying here.

          • Bruce__H

            It doesn’t fit the sight-glass evidence. That’s for sure. Although all you need to do to spoof them is close the valve at the top of each sight glass so as to trap a bubble of air and make it look half full.

            The issue of backpressure on the Prominent pumps is absolutely correct. But does it affect their performance? Maximum backpressure appears to be 2 barg with a capacity of 32 l/h at that backpressure. That means they can pump at 32 l/h even if they are pumping into a column of water 66 feet high. Sounds OK to me.

            If you are talking about the “alternate path” for the Smith circulation then i agree there is no photo evidence. That alternate path needs to be a connection between the condensate return line coming from the JMP side and the steam riser for the Tiger/BF stack. The condensate return passes right by the steam riser after ti enters the ecat plant container but this particular region has not been visualized in any pictures. So we don’t know if they connect or not.
            Similarly there is no photo evidence we have that the condensate return goes straight to the internal tank as it is supposed to according to Penon. All of these structures are within inches of each other and seemingly enclosed in some sort of square housing. So you really can’t see anything well

            Here is a photo from Smith’s supplemental report. You can see the large whitish rectangular cover of the internal tank at the bottom and the whitish cylindrical steam riser standing vertically on the right. The condensate return line pierces the wall of the ecat plant just off picture at the lower right. The base of the steam riser is encased in some sort of boxlike structure and the condesnate return should be within inches of it.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0962a03803d820af23babe3a0f2d9ec2618243e265d3c434b602ae78046cc61d.jpg

            Here is a blowup of the bottom right of Smith’s picture. Once again, this is a region where the internal tank, the steam riser, and the condensate return are all very close together. There is no photo evidence here, however, that would testify to either Penon circulation or Smith circulation as the reality (both pathways could be real if there was a butterfly valve in place down there)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/398f8acaf015f7fd0ecb075e772545e55c3f4c1b2bbbed6f975272ab5f444b8b.jpg

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          Penon was aware of the master pump.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c367ef3bf87984111fb0ccaba1f1452edc7433379f9114fdf63f8b66894da1a.png

          Please share what clear evidence I have not dealt with?

          • Bruce__H

            Nice observation. I wonder what it is for? can you find anywhere that he describes it’s use?

      • GiveADogABone

        Rossi says :-
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/08/critique-of-the-smith-report-from-the-jonp/
        “2- the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to 20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW.
        Not to mention other enormous errors, like for example the fact that the superheating of the steam must be made as he says: this guy does not even know how boilers work, or, most likely, lies in change of money.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I just noticed that the piping was different from what I had in mind. Fig. 1 in 197-03 (p. 2) shows that both tanks are not connected in series. Instead, the internal tank has two inputs: one from the external tank and one from the JMP plant. So please ignore my first paragraph (except the first sentence).

      • Engineer48

        Hi AM,

        Believe the photographic evidence of the evolution of the condensate flow system at the pump end of the Tigers clearly shows the plant design did alter over time.

        Condensate system stage 1:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e44be26d32d975de1ff5285752e5a9178ab5cbbe66d2fcb4a9bfb5aa1b859812.png

        Condensate system stage 2:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22592da100cbb110fe93e17a61b76ef88ba8b414d9acbbfa2adfba54609c9bad.png

        Condensate system stage 3:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73f262ccac1425da5a854e82acf994bc91c6e03f122bb5687394dee22d47e778.png

        Could be that as Rossi discovered the Prominent pumps could pump more flow than specified, the condensate feed system evolved as the photos record.

        • Bruce__H

          How come the vertical pipe in the middle picture isn’t even hooked up at its base to the the condensate flow coming from the internal tank? Doesn’t that mean it is supplying zero condensate to the Tigers?

          I expect you will ignore this point now just as you have done the other times I brought it up. That is a shame.

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          How did Rossi and his crew drain a Tiger unit when needed? Do you have a photo of any of the drain pipes?

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          If one looks closely at your middle photo, the one you have labelled “Condensate system stage 2”, you can see that the pipe carrying condensate from the internal tank is not continuous with the vertical pipe on the left at floor level. Here is a closeup of the bottom of that photo …
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dff191e1bf129d6af7394d2053c504d5167339326e3167c2e0caad36eecb4308.jpg
          … and here is an even closer look at the left hand corner where you would need the vertical and horizontal pipes to meet for your scheme to work … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d823451005108ff061b1c55c973cb4c6a73697ee6d32082d0d79836253774745.jpg . As you can see, the horizontal, lagged, condensate pipe is not connected to the vertical pipe. In fact there is a block of wood in the way.

          So your “Condensate system stage 2″ does not supply water to the Tigers by the vertical pipe (unless it has already gone through the Prominent pumps”

          Now let’s look at your bottom photo labelled “”Condensate system stage 3”. I’m not sure exactly where this photo is from but here is a photo from Smith’s supplemental report that I think shows the system at the same stage … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/17ca63b19e5e2f415cd29b17172ddfb3d661cad5441c137dc3cb89a6803d8c20.jpg .
          Here is a blowup of the lower part of the photo https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/467c03a02e1a11b29a1f850cabe840c54dd7ab55caa9dc1b77b8d8dd25060404.jpg … and here is an even more extreme blowup of just the left-hand corner
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/27b8312b34bb26ac33c60b6d0a191664fca432f43584d5fbe350b0aebac5da95.jpg
          The angle is more oblique this time but you can still see that the configuration of this corner is the same as for stage 2. No continuity between the horizontal and vertical pipes with, instead, a block of wood in the way.

          So stages 2 and 3 are the same in the sense that all water travelling to the Tigers must go through the Prominent pumps. The vertical pipe simply can’t act as a parallel supply or water.

          I’d now like to work on stage 1. Where did you get that photo? I’d like to get it in as high a resolution as possible. If you have other photos of the system in stage 1 (or even in other stages) can you please guide me to them? If you don’t answer this post I will ask again.

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          I’d like to ask you once again to take a look at the photographic evidence you yourself have produced and tell me if you don’t agree with me that it contradicts pattern of condensate flow that you say exists around the Tiger/BF units.

          I have carefully gone over your evidence and tried my best to point out where I think it is deficient. Do you agree with my case? Let me know if you think I have been unclear and want more description from me.

          I’d also like to ask you again if you can guide me to a source for the “stage 1” photo from your post. I’d like to take a closer look at it.

          Thanks.

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          Please respond to the observations I have made regarding the flow pattern into the vertical pipe beside the Tiger/BF units. I have demonstrated to you using your own pictorial evidence that you are mistaken in your claims that condensate flows from the internal tank directly into that vertical pipe. I believe the evidence is clear. You have refused several times to even acknowledge that I have made the point. It is now my view that this is because you agree with me and realize that there is no 2.5 metre head of pressure inside the ecat container.

          You have stated many times that you think pictorial evidence is good evidence and have scolded people for ignoring it. Yet now here you are ignoring such evidence. It is beyond me how you think that doing so will convince anyone that your views are correct. In fact it is just the opposite. I think you should answer this one way or another just so that everyone here can be clear on what your views are and to preserve your own integrity as someone who wants to know what is going on here..

        • Bruce__H

          Hi Engineer,

          It’s nice to see that you are still posting and thinking about Rossi issues! I know you have little free time but I think it is important for you to address some of the issues regarding the flow pattern you have not yet answered.

          There is evidence that has been put before you that shows your theories as are unfounded. Right now it looks as though you are intentionally trying to avoid answering any of it. Given some of you past posts in which you took people to task for this sort of behaviour you now owe everyone here an explanation.

          Beyond how it looks, I really don’t see how you think that pretending that this evidence doesn’t exist will change reality. How do you square it in your own mind?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bruce,

      The condensate system has multiple bleed valves, with two shown below:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1360c9da9474f063db135c77044a5e6c685de909bc2114b679ae58674682b6b6.png

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ebfab9d48f3d290e73fb298a9e58740e9af50ae0584d4dddd13baeb96ea977e.png

      While these are bleed valves for the smaller EC reactors, I’m sure there are other not yet seen bleed valves for the Tigers (BFs)

      • Bruce__H

        Of course it does. It probably needs them for all sorts of reasons.

        I think you need to address the issues of the nature of the vertical pipe the bank of Tiger/BF units and and the relationship between the external and internal tanks. Those form a very strong, evidence-based case against your proposals for the water circulation in the ecat plant and for over a week you have pointedly ignored them despite their being presented to you numerous times. Without specifically answering on those points you are only pretending to take part in this discussion.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          It has always been my opinion that inside the ECat container there was a 2.5 mtr condensate head, which meant the bottom of the condensate holding tank was under 0.245 barg of pressure.

          Rossi told me the 6 per Tiger Prominent pumps did not supply the total volume required for each Tiger and that there was another master pump that supplied the extra volume the topping pumps did not.

          To do this and reach the highest Tiger, would require a 2.5 mtr condensate head. There are at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser that show this is part of the system.

          The 2 know 2.5 mtr high condensate risers are shown. I believe there is another not yet shown condensate riser.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

          • Bruce__H

            How does the external tank supply the internal condensate tank if it (the internal tank) has a 2.5 meter head of pressure on it? After it leaves the holding tank, how does the water get into the Tigers when the only path seems to be through the pumps? Penon doesn’t seem to know about any other path.

    • GiveADogABone

      Start up procedure
      The normal procedure for filling a water circuit is to start all drains shut/all vents open. As vents start producing water shut them. That means the last vent to close is normally the highest on the system. The point of all this is to drive all the air out and have a system full of water.

      On once-through boilers, I am used to flooding the boilers and steam pipework as far as a blowdown vessel and its recirculating system. Same business with drains and vents. Then start a low pressure circulating pump with main system valves open and circulate the whole system and clean the crud out in the system filtration plant.

      Yes, I know that sounds like Rick Smith’s version. What Rick Smith has not realised is that normal operation requires the additional blowdown phase. Anyway, with water circulating you start heating and that brings all metal temperature up evenly until …

      … you reach the temperature of vapourization as Penon puts it. When the boiling starts, you have to dump water(not steam) out of the system and slow down the recirculation. As steam starts to arrive at the mezzanine heat exchanger, condensing starts. A normal working level forms in the boiler, the steam pipes dry out and the mezzanine heat exchanger starts to fill with steam. The system is then running as it should at minimum power. Then ramp the power up.

      ‘Once the ecats are switched on just that amount of water should be plenty for the entire operation. No?’
      You do not appear to have got rid of the air or done the right thing by your metal temperatures – that is a total no-no. You have to give Rick Smith a bit of credit for getting it half right for startup and totally wrong about full operation at the same time. Once-through boilers behave very differently to drum boilers and I guess Rick has not heard of a once-through.

      • Bruce__H

        Is the “blowdown” phase the one where you “dump water (not steam) out of the system and slow down the recirculation”? That is the step that is not described in Penon’s starting up instructions. Why not?

        For the Smith circulation you don’t need that step.

        • GiveADogABone

          ‘Is the “blowdown” phase the one where you “dump water (not steam) out of the system and slow down the recirculation”?’

          On a big once-through boiler you take hours to spin up the boilers by heating and recirculating. At some point you reach the saturation temperature of water and steam bubbles appear. Those tend to appear where the water pressure is lowest and buoyancy drives them i.e. the top of the system. You have to make room for the steam, so matching draining starts. On the plant I knew that happened from the blowdown vessel (the clue is in the name).

          Seemingly, that leaves another puzzle. Where was the drain point on the E-cat? The drain water is hot, so cannot go down the Miami drains. At that point you know the answer. The drain water must go into the mezzanine heat exchanger spray water circuit from where it can be evaporated. Penon knew nothing about any messing about in the JMP plant, so I can see how he could miss this step.

  • Bruce__H

    I am bothered by the mysterious case of the pump that can’t be heard.

    Just like Sherlock Holmes’ dog that didn’t bark … the pump that can’t be heard seems to be a significant fact in the mysterious case at Doral. If, as Rick Smith suggests, the red pump on the JMP side was responsible for half or more of the water flow recorded during the 1-year ecat test, then why did Barry West say it was often dead quiet on the JMP side for weeks at a time? And if the red pump was essential to achieve the 35,000 litres of flow per day that Rossi and Penon associate with 1MW output, then why is James Bass under the impression that the pump was only used occasionally?

    It’s all been bugging me. Indeed it’s the dog that didn’t bark. The dog should have been barking!

    Then it hit me. For the entire course of the 1-year test, Mr Rossi took the night shift.

    • Ged

      How loud are these pumps supposed to be? I don’t have a good idea on the range for those. Doesn’t sound like it was used anyways except at start-up though?

      • Bruce__H

        It doesn’t matte how loud the pump is if it is only in use at night when no one else is there to hear it.

        Mr Rossi took the night shift during the entire course of the 1-year test.

      • GiveADogABone

        websearch ‘central heating pump grundfos noise’
        Those pumps are standard wet central heating system pumps and sell in their millions. The sound it makes is largely affected by the quality of the installation. Make it cavitate and you will not sleep!

    • Engineer48

      Hi Bruce,

      Rossi told me the 24 Prominent pumps were just for topping up and water level control inside each Tiger reactor. Said there was another master pump that created the main condensate flow.

      The Red Grundfos pump was inside the insulated JM Black container, so I doubt it would be audible above other noise in the warehouse.

      • Bruce__H

        Why allow Penon to think that the Prominent pumps were the only ones in play? If his remarks to you conflict with the evidence presented in discovery does this have a legal aspect? Would you be willing to supply an affidavit regarding what Rossi told you?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          Penon does not show the heat exchanger in the JM container, yet the heat exchanger in the upper story. Which means the Grundfos pump in the JM container was not shown in his diagrams.

          So why assume what Penon drew describes the entire system, when it only described the ECat local system that he had to monitor.

          • Bruce__H

            I am thinking of the difference it has to make to the way that the ecat plant has to be plumbed. The presence of a pump requires that the internal reservoir tank be sealed, have a 2.5 metre head of water above it, and have a path to the Tigers that is parallel to the Prominent pumps. Penon doesn’t seem to know anything about any of this. He is writing as though the external tank feeds the internal one by gravity and that the only way for water to get to the Tigers is via the Prominent pumps. If what Rossi tells you is true, then clearly the ERV doesn’t understand the hydraulic system within the ecat plant. Without that knowledge how does he really know where to put instrumentation and so on? That is why I commented that this might have a legal dimension to it.

          • Vinney

            It is a circuit, what the ERV had to do was measure accurately the flow rate (thus volume) going into the E-cat heater system and its temperature, and the same at the exit of the same heater system, around the rest of the circuit, it could go thru a water feature fountain and a water slide, but wouldn’t affect the COP of the E-cat heater system that Penon had to principally measure.
            Obviously though, there should be no other water flows in (or out) of the E-cat heater system between these two measuring points (unless they are their own closed circuit surrounding each E-cat element, or group of elements).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Vinney,

            Penon said the water volume added by the external tank was measured. He also said the measured water volume was reduced by 10% to account for leaks.

          • Vinney

            This water was introduced to the
            80 deg C (plus) reactor system at room (or tanker) temperature of 16 deg C.
            This represents a 10% – 15% conservative figure on the COP of the E-cat.
            Again it seems to have worked better than reported.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Maybe the original plant design design used gravity feed.

            But that was not how the operational plant worked. There was a pump in the external water tank that did the fluid transfer and pushed it up the 2.5 mtr high condensate risers.

            Read section 5:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

            So now we KNOW the feed from the external tank was NOT a gravity feed and with the use of the pump, it was easy to pump up a 2.5 mtr high condensate head.

            Of course that pumped external tank supports a throttled raw condensate flow into each reactor being as 75% of the required flow and the other 25% being supplied from the topping up pumps such that they can maintain the water level inside each reactor.

            So thanks to IH, the issue of the 2.5 mtr high condensate head inside the ECat container is settled due to the use of a pump to transfer the fluid from the holding tank to the internal tank and condensate risers.

          • Bruce__H

            It says “pumps”. Not pump. It says “E-Cat heater tank” not internal tank. How dies the internal tank qualify as a heater?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            You got it wrong. Time to accept it.

            There was a pump in the external tank, as per the IH disclosure, that pumped the condensate into the 2.5 mtr vertical condensate risers, which reduced the Prominent pump back pressure to negative and provided throttled raw condensate flow into the Tigers.

            If you continue to discount this data, you only continue to paint yourself as a LENR denier.

            I suggest it it time for you to back down or join Jed and others as FUD providers that have no legitimate backing in physics.

          • Bruce__H

            What data am I ignoring? I think I have addressed everything. Which part of the IH disclosure says there was a pump in the external tank?

          • Bruce__H

            From Barry West’s deposition (207-61, page 89) …
            “… we built a big stand a little taller than this table, really heavy duty stand out of wood to support that large tank full of water, which this thing held, I forget how many gallons, 55-gallon drums, it probably held 6, 800 gallons or more, maybe a thousand gallons of water, which is substantially heavy. But it had to be up so gravity could allow it to flow into the system.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Again you choose to ignore the photographic evidence of multiple condensate risers and the words of IH about the pump in the external tank.

            Please read what IH said as per section 5:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

            If you continue to ignore the evidence, well you just paint yourself as a Jed like commented making BS statements about non filled flow meter pipes that are now revealed to be pure BS.

            Is that where you wish to go?

          • Bruce__H

            You will need to point out a particular sentence of two

          • Bruce__H

            New evidence released on the docket today (279-04) may be relevant to the issue of the pump mentioned by Penon.

            This document is a copy of a report Penon sent to IH regarding the 2013 test of Rossi’s ecat system in Ferrara. It is formatted much like Penon’s reports for the Doral test including a description and schematic outlining the flow of fluid around the system. The reproduction quality of the schematic is not terribly high but it is still instructive.

            You will observe that just as for the Doral test Penon says that the ecat usits are fed by Prominent pumps (and nowehere does he say that other pumps directly fed the ecats). Importantly, just as in the Doral test report, Penon also describes the involvement of 2 other pumps (other than the Prominent pumps that is). These pumps sit between the external water tanks and the condensate return reservoir and pump water from the condensate return into the external tanks. I suggest that a similar pump does the same in the Doral setup.

            Of course you will observe that there are some a big differences between the Ferrrra and Doral setups. First, many of the components of the Doral setup are doubled for the Ferrara setup — I suppose this is for redundancy and/or safety reasons. Second, the water entering the ecat boiler comes directly from the external tank and not the condensate return reservoir. From what I understand of the deposition of Barry West, this was the original configuration of the plant that IH sent down to Doral before it was modified by Rossi.

            Please note that Penon’s use of language in describing how water is fed to the ecat heat generators is the same as in the Doral report and leaves no doubt that he is talking exclusively of Prominent pumps for this purpose.

            You should take a look and see what you make of it.

          • Bruce__H

            I’m not assuming Penon drew the entire system Just the opposite, he explicitly says he hasn’t drawn anything on the customer side. My point is that his diagrams and statements directly contradict the existence of a 2.5 meter head of pressure on the internal reservoir. For the seventh or eight time (I’ll go back and count them specifically and refer to them if you want) how can the external tank feed the internal tank by gravity, as described by Penon, if the internal tank is sealed and has a head of pressure on it?

            I can now say, after so many attempts at getting an answer from you, that you are you are consciously avoiding answering this particular question.

          • Stephen

            Looking at it non expertly there are a couple of ways I could think but I’m speculating.

            1. Is that the external tank is itself maintained under pressure with a 2.5m Head. This might also be a way to regulate the pressure in the system if needed if there was some active control of pressure.

            2. The water in the normal circuit is in closed loop. So should have very little losses. So the external tank is only used during none operational phases when the water is not circulating by the pump at start up perhaps and perhaps when the mezzanine is not being used.

            3. The condensate return is always at atmospheric pressure. But there is sufficient pump pressure and back pressure in the condensate pumps to pump the required volume in to the Tiger tanks. (This would also create back pressure in the internal water tank which would need to be compensated by drawing on return the condensate I suppose?)

            Possibly there are other possibilities.

          • Bruce__H

            Suggestion 2 is almost certainly the case. The external tank is used at startup and to add water to the system during operation if leaks lead to low levels. That is what Barry West says at any rate (see page 143 of document 207-61 on the court docket).

            I don’t understand your suggestion 3 … the internal tank is known as the condensate return tank but you seem to be referring to the external tank by this name. I’m not sure what you mean here.

            Your suggestion 1 is very interesting an I have been trying to think it through for several hours. I see that it could work logically, I don’t really understand it’s in that case. If the external tank is pressurized and there is a leak in the system somewhere wouldn’t the it tend to suck water out of the system? I don’t get it. Also,,Penon and West talk about talk about the external tank having the capability of maintaining the “level” of water in the system. I understand that if the external and internal tanks are at atmospheric pressure (if the level in the internal tank goes down the high-capacity external tank refills it by gravity) but if both tanks are pressurized by the red pump on the JMP side then they are both controlled by it … there is no potential for the external tank to control the level of the internal one.

          • Ged

            This is probably a silly question but… Where is the external tank? We have the pictures now of the space between the plant and the wall, and there is no tank there, just the return pipe and flow meter and the joint turning into the plant where it connects to the internal tank. Maybe I am just blind or missed it’s photos in all the info dumps :(.

          • Bruce__H

            The external tank is on the other side of the red ecat container, as shown in Penon’s diagram. You can see it in the most famous photo of the ecat facility.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0315358c9eb904098bbaaac264f6506e6f8d7edd1c0baa15ba975f5641008928.jpg

            In the photo the external tank is sitting in its wooden cradle just as described by Barry West in his deposition.

          • Ged

            Ah, ok, so That is what that is, thank you! Doesn’t seem to be hooked up to anything but the ground, from this angle.

            Edit: Nevermind, the white thing beneath it isn’t a pipe, it’s just a box sitting on the wooden shelf next to a cap also sitting on the shelf. So, can’t see it hooking to anything in or out from this pic. Also, solid metal like that is weird if it isn’t preassurized.

          • Bruce__H

            According to Penon, the external tank feed the internal tank by gravity. You can see the internal tank in one of Smith’s pictures. It is the white box sitting on the floor right in the middle of the picture.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef6186768534209125aeacfde94f3a09ff46ec6d9a07637df3696d1fd0a30e44.jpg
            In this orientation the external reservoir is outside the ecat container to the left. I think you can see its connection with the internal tank in the picture.
            Here is a blowup. I think the connection is the black pipe running slightly downhill from left to right and disappearing into the internal tank.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae103cb410b47ba10cc7ad76558c9820af91b39306be587e108862a062d5d4f.jpg

          • Ged

            Hmm, maybe. Strangely doesn’t look like the other pipes we have seen exposed, and the attachment point is looks odd and is in a weird place. We need a much better picture to low what is going on.

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t think it is in a weird place in the sense that it precisely matches Penon’s description. It is definitely a different colour and appearance than other pipes though.

          • Stephen

            There is a high resolution picture somewhere of the ECat tigers pumps. In that picture if you’ll look down the right handside if the Tigers near floor level you can see a pipe going to (and likely through) the wall of the container. I think it is the same pipe connecting the external tank.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Stephen.

            You are playing to a tough crowd here.
            Photos are the min entry cost.

          • Stephen

            Yup you are right and some how I’m glad for it. Evidence should be robust ideally. And the tough crowd help ensure that. Even if the logic is already pretty conclusive to me.

            I would say your points and thought through presented evidences are also tough counters to others less positive view points. Just as they should be.

            Here are the pictures I was looking for:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9b00518289c84016edba7bb049194f34d9952bf43b63f6136505313759274994.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65acfb92f3e23313bd2ca6754b3829f38add97b769fb9302feb6eda34ab26c41.jpg

          • Bruce__H

            I think you are right! That is the pipe from the external tank entering into the ecat container and heading for the internal tank

          • Engineer48

            Hi Stephen,

            The operational plant used a pump to transfer water from the external tank into the internal tank as in item 5.

            It would seem the original design was to use a gravity feed but as all plants do, this one evolved to use a pump that had to be manually switched on.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

          • Stephen

            Yup I think you could be right. Certainly I would expect evolution from the test units used in NC which had very specific purpose and to be tested in a local stand alone configuration with its specific water flow constraints and the version in Doral that is being tested with a real application independent of the ECat and needs to take into account the very different constraints of that set up.

          • Bruce__H

            Don’t be allow yourself to be misled by Engineer.. The gravity feed between the tanks is described by Penon, Barry West, and Rick Smith all based on their observations after the Doral plant was up and running. No one has talked about a pump between the tanks except Engineer. No one. ,

          • Bruce__H

            Hi Engineer,

            You have mistakenly interpreted Murray’s phrase “E-CAT heater tank” in the Swansboro memo as referring to the internal condensate holding tank. It doesn’t. It refers to the Tiger/BF units which are, indeed, heaters.

            Take a look at point 10 in the memo for instance. “BW indicated that it is clear that when standing near the E-CAT heater tank that the water in the tank is boiling vigorously.” (BW is Barry West).

            It is absolutely clear here that when Murray uses “E-CAT heater tank” he is referring to Tiger/BF units. Given this, the only interpretation of the same phrase in point 5 is that Murray is not describing a pump between the external and internal tanks but instead is describing the Prominent pumps between the internal tank and the Tiger/BFs.

            I am eager to hear your views on why Murray’s use of “E-CAT heater tank” in point 5 should be interpreted differently from point 10.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            So let me get this right.

            You are suggesting that every time the water level in EACH of the 4 Tiger dropped too low, someone had to manually switch on a pump to refill them? 24/7/365? for EACH of the 4 Tiger?

            Suggest there will be some very busy people, manually switching on those Tiger Prominent pumps many times an hour to maintain a constant fluid level in the gauge glasses.

            Please think about that you just claimed and you will understand it is not possible. Which means the pumping action you assumed is not correct.

            The pump mentioned was switched on to move the water from the external tank into the internal tank when the water level was too low.

          • Bruce__H

            For the reason I outlined before, it is clear that by “E-CAT heater tank” Murray means a Tiger units. If you have a challenge to that then I am eager to hear it.

            learly Murray thinks the whole setup is crazy too. That is precisely why he think it is fake. Can you follow his reasoning here?

          • Bruce__H

            I’d love to see it. Any type of reference of pointer to it would be of immense aid.

          • Stephen

            Hi Bruce the 2 pictures I was thinking of are linked in my reply to Engineer48 just below.

          • Stephen
          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Why are there 2.5 mtr high condensate risers inside the ECat container?

            While we don’t have exact details on the external tank, we do have photos of at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser?

            Are you suggesting we ignore the photos of the condensate risers and only go with a brief description of the external tank?

            I suggest the photos of the 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers trumps Penon’s description.

            When we 1st talked you doubted LENR was real. Is that still your opinion?

            BTW I can design an external tank and submerged pump with float arm that will maintain a 2.5 mtr high condensate head inside the ECat container.

          • Bruce__H

            The external tank is shown in pictures. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0315358c9eb904098bbaaac264f6506e6f8d7edd1c0baa15ba975f5641008928.jpg
            I am not ignoring the 2.5 metre high condensate pipes. There they are. I see them. They are filled by the Prominent pumps.

        • Engineer48
          • GiveADogABone

            It might well be that the water pump that is mentioned is the transfer pump from external to internal tanks.

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            As Penon mentioned gravity feed for the external to internal tank, which may have been the case in design phase, there would not be a pump there then, so the other pump Penon mentions would be the Grundfos pump in the JM container.

          • GiveADogABone

            OK

      • GiveADogABone

        [Rossi s]aid ‘there was another master pump that created the main condensate flow.’

        And so there was, a column of water below the mezzanine heat exchanger.

    • GiveADogABone

      Water columns are not generally noisy at all and they certainly do not bark.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GADAB,

        We know from the photographic evidence that there were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser / water columns full of water. Filled by the Grundfos pump inside the insulated JM container.

        Amazing how some can ignore them and why they were designed into the system.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

        • GiveADogABone

          A couple of snags here. I am thinking of the higher water column in the mezzanine and there is repeated testimony that the Grundfos in the black box did not run at high power. The E-cat condensate pumped itself.

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            Suggest if there was condensate from the upper story heat exchanger then probably the Grundfos was not needed. But if there was not sufficient condensate volume / head from the upper story heat exchanger, then it would need to run to keep the multiple ECat condensate risers full.

            Likewise it would need to run at startup.

            That pump was know by Penon. He listed it in the equipment list. Some may have missed that.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c367ef3bf87984111fb0ccaba1f1452edc7433379f9114fdf63f8b66894da1a.png

          • GiveADogABone

            It is worth thinking about what happens during a power cut. SSM and all that. I remember a test where the power cable was removed and the E-cat ran on for hours.

          • Vinney

            Matts has indicated where the power cut was noted in the daily logs of April 7th, it was only 30 minutes duration.

          • GiveADogABone

            OK. What would running SSM at full power without a condensate pump for 30 minutes achieve/cause? That Grundfos pump is a single point of failure if it is the only condensate pump. If the BFs can pump themselves, the system is much safer.

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            With a 2.5 mtr condensate head inside the ECat container and a direct but restricted feed from the condensate column into the Tigers, YES operation could continue in SSM mode without any mains power or topping up pump operation.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52f4f09bb45e5399a06877820a79a4c22ad4bafd29d097816b7657f0f07d802e.png

            This also implies that the same condensate head level in the condensate risers existed in the condensate return pipe from the JM container.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I should have read the report more carefully. If the internal tank was mostly disconnected from the external one, both the red pump and gravity could not have contributed to the supply.

    However, Alan F from LENR forum ( https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=193 ) found the following remark in a catalogue by Prominent:

    “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate.” (PDF p. 33)

    http://www.kmdahl.no/uploads/20110330_5617_prominent-equipment-catalogue-2011.pdf

    It has been disputed if this would apply to the particular model that has been used in the plant. In the footnotes they refer to a “gamma/L metering pump”. The name of the original model is “Prominent gamma/L Solenoid Metering Pump”, which appears to fit.

    • Obvious

      The maximum rate of the pump does not increase in multiples (it can increase a small amount) but at low rate settings the pump can perform more strokes than anticipated if there is no resistance to the diaphragm due to low pressure on either side of the pumping action, which in some cases can be multiples of the intended setting.

      • Ged

        The catalog quote specifically says feed rate, not strokes, however. So it does definitely sound like output can go up by a “multiple” at atmospheric pressure. Still, this would need to be tested.

        • Obvious

          Agreed, but realize that the only thing that can increase pump volume is more strokes. (Other than slight temperature-related expansion). The pump rate is determined by the number of stokes, since the volume pumped per stoke is constant, once set. At 180 strokes per minute, there isn’t much room for extra strokes. At 30 pumps per minute (for example) there is plenty of room to squeeze in some more strokes.

          • Ged

            That sounds logical. However, if at low pressure the power sent to the pump can result in so many more extra strokes than expected so as to multiply the output, why would this not happen when the pump is at full power too? I don’t see a reasons there is less room for strokes at 180 than 30. It doesn’t sound like a mechanical limit, but a power limit, so it should still jump up (more strokes for that same power at low pressure), just maybe by a set value which would be relatively less at high strokes then low (10 + 10 is double the intended rate, but 180 + 10 is more or less just noise). Unless it really is more strokes per unit power per unit pressure drop, then the multiple would more or less stay the same at all intended flow rates.

          • Obvious

            I was thinking of something like piston bounce maybe adding a few extra strokes. The pump shouldn’t really add extra strokes (or miss them) without tripping an error message. The electronics in these pumps is surprisingly complex.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Obvious,

            It appears the volume per stroke is not fixed and does increase as the back pressure drops.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/45e0fdf4d861eef22f6fa78b443fc9372d8a9e012f653f352f15a1cbab0077a9.png

          • Obvious

            So the diaphragm flexes a bit more, adding about 0.4 mL per stroke. Stretching it enough to accommodate 2 to 3 more fluid at maximum flow (or thereabouts) seems to be a stretch of imagination. This is supposed to be a metering pump after all.
            At less than maximum flow (probably more like less than 1/2 the maximum, or even more likely under 1/4 the maximum) I can see the extra volume being significant compared to the total pump volume. Increasingly towards the maximum pump rate the significance of the extra diaphragm displacement should diminish relative relative to the total flow rate.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Wouldn’t such a pump be a nice addition to MFMP’s equipment, especially in view of the forthcoming experiments?

          • Ged

            Hint hint, wink wink, Bob ;).

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      Good find, especially as they are talking about the Gamma/L model, which Rossi used with the Tigers.

      Several times meaning at least 2 x 32 L/Hr = min of 64 L/Hr.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae418b05e834514b0dd283d5f4595f0abd31ecf6001809316c514f4c9485e8b.png

    • GiveADogABone

      Rossi says :-
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/04/08/critique-of-the-smith-report-from-the-jonp/
      “2- the Prominent pump , as every pump, has a flow rate that is in function of the hydraulic pressure: Mr Smith has hidden to the readers the fact that in the same photo that he reports in his “expertise” is clearly written that the pressure is 2 Bar at the flow of 36 liters per hour !!! Obviously if the pressure is lower, the flow rate increases. I have personally used that model of Prominent pump and at a pressure of 0.2 Bars its flow rate is about 90 liters per hour. If we look well the photo of the pumps system of the E-Cat we can see that the pumps have to raise the water of few tens of centimeters, while 2 Bars correspond to 20 meters !!!! At a rate of 90 liters per hour, the maximum flow rate of all the pumps combined is well above the 1,600 liters per hour necessary to the E-Cat to reach a rate of about 1 MW.
      Not to mention other enormous errors, like for example the fact that the superheating of the steam must be made as he says: this guy does not even know how boilers work, or, most likely, lies in change of money.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I just noticed that the piping was different from what I had in mind. Fig. 1 in 197-03 (p. 2) shows that both tanks are not connected in series. Instead, the internal tank has two inputs: one from the external tank and one from the JMP plant. So please ignore my first paragraph (except the first sentence).

    • Engineer48

      Hi AM,

      Believe the photographic evidence of the evolution of the condensate flow system at the pump end of the Tigers clearly shows the plant design did alter over time.

      Condensate system stage 1:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e44be26d32d975de1ff5285752e5a9178ab5cbbe66d2fcb4a9bfb5aa1b859812.png

      Condensate system stage 2:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22592da100cbb110fe93e17a61b76ef88ba8b414d9acbbfa2adfba54609c9bad.png

      Condensate system stage 3:
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73f262ccac1425da5a854e82acf994bc91c6e03f122bb5687394dee22d47e778.png

      Could be that as Rossi discovered the Prominent pumps could pump more flow than specified, the condensate feed system evolved as the photos record.

      • Bruce__H

        Hi Engineer,

        How did Rossi and his crew drain a Tiger unit when needed? Do you have a photo of any of the drain pipes?

      • Bruce__H

        Hi Engineer,

        Please respond to the observations I have made regarding the flow pattern into the vertical pipe beside the Tiger/BF units. I have demonstrated to you using your own pictorial evidence that you are mistaken in your claims that condensate flows from the internal tank directly into that vertical pipe. I believe the evidence is clear. You have refused several times to even acknowledge that I have made the point. It is now my view that this is because you agree with me and realize that there is no 2.5 metre head of pressure inside the ecat container.

        You have stated many times that you think pictorial evidence is good evidence and have scolded people for ignoring it. Yet now here you are ignoring such evidence. It is beyond me how you think that doing so will convince anyone that your views are correct.
        In fact it is just the opposite. I think you should answer this one way or another just so that everyone here can be clear on what your views are and to preserve your own integrity as someone who wants to know what is going on here..

  • Ged

    Well, it is important to be aware that the wizard there has some very important assumptions going on, and we shouldn’t use it naively for this problem. Additionally, it appears the calculator can’t do highly turbulent flows (if the Reynolds number gets into the turbulent regime, the output errors, but the turbulent regime is where exchangers are supposed to operate, not when laminar) at least at default a, v, k values.

    It starts out with simplified assumptions which is why it works well for the simplistic world of a textbook problem–solving a textbook unfortunately does not mean it is correct for this case. If we use this wizard as is, it is assuming a non-enclosed pipe with no turbulance, nothing in front of or behind it, just floating in free space with perfect laminar–not an exchanger setup. You can see the type of flow it is using by looking at the Reynolds number it calculated, which is 2×10^4. The critical Re number for tubes and spheres above which flow transitions from laminar to turbulant is 2×10^5 (ref 1) (and higher means more turbulant), and thus for this wizard the flow is apparently perfectly laminar. It’s a correct value given the assumed free floating smooth pipe case, but not for an enclosed exchanger (compare to Re versus Nu and this h values in ref 2)

    That laminar condition greatly decreases the heat transfer coefficient (h) by creating a stagnant boundary layer and lowers the dissipation rate significantly (different equation powers and coefficients–though this wizard does have a nice dynamic equation range till turbulence takes over and it breaks). This is also why baffles and fins are used to induce high turbulence and change the equation even at lower Re numbers, as turbulent flow is the most efficient state for exchangers to work in.

    But the pipes in our assumed problem here are enclosed, and they are serpentine with one 10 m run behind another, because this is an exchanger and not a single free floating pipe. While one can argue convincingly that laminar flow may happen for the first perpendicular pipe run, as long as the others are within a few diameters they should get hit by some turbulent wake flow, which will also increase h per value of Re (see the effect for corregation on pipes and heat transfer in relation to Re and turbulence in ref 2). The walls of the enclosure make a boundary condition that should make some small turbulance for the top and bottom stacks since the pipes take up nearly half the cossectional area (and more surface roughness, more turbulance), so they should be spaced close enough for boundary layers to interact. The stacking of the pipes will also create turbulance between stacks if they are within a few diameters as the boundary flows and wakes interact. In short, a perfectly laminar situation with a low Nu and Re number is not realistic for this problem, even without fins or baffles, as there should be turbulence in this set up at these speeds that disrupts laminar flows. This is why empirical investigations of similar enclosed situations do not show quite such a low h value for this airspeed as the idealized case does with this wizard (and why references for heat exchangers have such relatively high h per flow, which is possibly what Wong drew from when he heard “exchanger” and thought of a properly designed one).

    Interestingly, the Re value for the wizard being above 1×10^4 means there there will be a wake behind the leading pipe even in this idealized case as I mentioned above (ref 1), as the number is too large for the thin film to wrap completely around the pipe. So, the subsequent pipes would be hit by turbulence according to this wizard too, unless the pipes are really widely spaced; that too should alert us that the wizard’s assumptions likely do not fit our problem. Instead, using this wizard, one would likely have to calculate each pipe run independently and adjust a, k, and v accordingly… Not easy at all, and a real pain that would require way more work than reward…

    Still, the supposed exchanger set up described here won’t be remotely extremely turbulant as one would want in a real exchanger, but at least it would not be perfectly laminar as the wizard uses for a single free pipe.

    In summary, the wizard appears to be outputing too low a value due to idealized assumptions (not its fault, it is just a wizard) that are not realistic for the case of an exchanger (ref 2 shows a much higher Nu and thus h for the Re value calculated by the wizard in the case of smooth piped exchanger). And taking a pipe run of 220 m for the wizard loses the information contained in the serpentine design by making the calculator assume it is a straight free floating pipe of 220 meters, when really the air sees an enclosed layout of 7 pipes of 10 meters consecutively in a stack of 3, in the current assumption base.

    None the less, we have the practical calculations and tools that say 200 kW, and the idealized laminar case of a single rod that comes to 100 kW, so we have a wonderful range constraint for this current design idea; and the two methods of calculating are not that far from each other.

    And I agree completely with you. We need evidence of this second story exchanger and how it was really built… especially cause it could suddenly be claimed to sprout fins. Though it still has no evidence for existing anyways and quite a bit of counter evidence.

    1. https://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC 388/Notes/Forced Convection.pdf

    2. https://www.hrs-heatexchangers.com/resource/comparison-laminar-turbulent-flow/

  • Ged

    How loud are these pumps supposed to be? I don’t have a good idea on the range for those. Doesn’t sound like it was used anyways except at start-up though?

    • GiveADogABone

      websearch ‘central heating pump grundfos noise’
      Those pumps are standard wet central heating system pumps and sell in their millions. The sound it makes is largely affected by the quality of the installation. Make it cavitate and you will not sleep!

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Rossi told me the 24 Prominent pumps were just for topping up and water level control inside each Tiger reactor. Said there was another master pump that created the main condensate flow.

    The Red Grundfos pump was inside the insulated JM Black container, so I doubt it would be audible above other noise in the warehouse.

    • GiveADogABone

      [Rossi s]aid ‘there was another master pump that created the main condensate flow.’

      And so there was, a column of water below the mezzanine heat exchanger.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    The condensate system has multiple bleed valves, with two shown below:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1360c9da9474f063db135c77044a5e6c685de909bc2114b679ae58674682b6b6.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ebfab9d48f3d290e73fb298a9e58740e9af50ae0584d4dddd13baeb96ea977e.png

    While these are bleed valves for the smaller EC reactors, I’m sure there are other not yet seen bleed valves for the Tigers (BFs)

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    It has always been my opinion that inside the ECat container there was a 2.5 mtr condensate head, which meant the bottom of the condensate holding tank was under 0.245 barg of pressure.

    Rossi told me the 6 per Tiger Prominent pumps did not supply the total volume required for each Tiger and that there was another master pump that supplied the extra volume the topping pumps did not.

    To do this and reach the highest Tiger, would require a 2.5 mtr condensate head. There are at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser that show this is part of the system.

    The 2 know 2.5 mtr high condensate risers are shown. I believe there is another not yet shown condensate riser.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Penon does not show the heat exchanger in the JM container, yet the heat exchanger in the upper story. Which means the Grundfos pump in the JM container was not shown in his diagrams.

    So why assume what Penon drew describes the entire system, when it only described the ECat local system that he had to monitor.

    • Bruce__H

      I’m not assuming Penon drew the entire system Just the opposite, he explicitly says he hasn’t drawn anything on the customer side. My point is that his diagrams and statements directly contradict the existence of a 2.5 meter head of pressure on the internal reservoir. For the seventh or eight time (I’ll go back and count them specifically and refer to them if you want) how can the external tank feed the internal tank by gravity, as described by Penon, if the internal tank is sealed and has a head of pressure on it?

      I can now say, after so many attempts at getting an answer from you, that you are you are consciously avoiding answering this particular question.

      • Stephen

        Looking at it non expertly there are a couple of ways I could think but I’m speculating.

        1. Is that the external tank is itself maintained under pressure with a 2.5m Head. This might also be a way to regulate the pressure in the system if needed if there was some active control of pressure.

        2. The water in the normal circuit is in closed loop. So should have very little losses. So the external tank is only used during none operational phases when the water is not circulating by the pump at start up perhaps and perhaps when the mezzanine is not being used.

        3. The condensate return is always at atmospheric pressure. But there is sufficient pump pressure and back pressure in the condensate pumps to pump the required volume in to the Tiger tanks. (This would also create back pressure in the internal water tank which would need to be compensated by drwawung on return the condensate I suppose?)

        Possibly there are other possibilities.

      • Ged

        This is probably a silly question but… Where is the external tank? We have the pictures now of the space between the plant and the wall, and there is no tank there, just the return pipe and flow meter and the joint turning into the plant where it connects to the internal tank. Maybe I am just blind or missed it’s photos in all the info dumps :(.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Why are there 2.5 mtr high condensate risers inside the ECat container?

        While we don’t have exact details on the external tank, we do have photos of at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser?

        Are you suggesting we ignore the photos of the condensate risers and only go with a brief description of the external tank?

        I suggest the photos of the 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate risers trumps Penon’s description.

        When we 1st talked you doubted LENR was real. Is that still your opinion?

        BTW I can design an external tank and submerged pump with float arm that will maintain a 2.5 mtr high condensate head inside the ECat container.

  • Ged

    That doesn’t make any sense, sadly. Remember, water goes naturally down hill. Pumping water into the high point of the steam pipe means it’ll go -back down- from that end into the “Penon circuit” you propose. Meaning everything is flooded, all the reactors and gauge glass and pipes, and there is a large weight on the Tiger pumps.

    This does not fit the evidence at all. Also, I don’t see any alternate path in the photo evidence, so that also seems to contradict that idea.

    • Engineer48

      Ged,

      There are flow restriction valves between the condensate risers and the reactors such that they can not supply all the flow, so the reactors are NOT FLOODED, and the Prominent topping up pumps handle the rest of the flow to control the water level inside the reactor.

      You can clearly see them in this image of the EC reactor condensate flow and control system. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1861362dc1c4a5bf7b18e5cee70361a45a95deb710b65fe06337659cf3dff14c.png

      • Ged

        Exactly. It is clearly not the case that there is a second path or any of that pumping directly into the steam pipe jazz.

        • Engineer48

          Ged,

          There are 2 clearly visible 2.5 mtr high condensate risers. How do you think the condensate gets to the top of those risers without the use of a slightly pressurised (0.245 barg) condensate circulation system that needs the Red Grundfos pump in the JM container to pump the condensate up that high?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

          Then ask yourself why did Rossi design the condensate circulation system such that it needed the 2.5 mtr condensate heads?

          I see 2 reasons:

          1) reduce the back pressure on the Prominent pumps so to improve their L/Hr pumping rate.

          2) be able to supply A PART of the required condensate flow for each reactor from the flow driven by the Grundfos pump in the JM container, which Penon knew about and listed in the ERV, and the rest via the topping up pumps.

          You see the existence of the raw condensate flow is critical to showing how the Tigers were able to be feed the required L/Hr as apparently the Prominent pump volume was too small.

          • Ged

            Everything converges nicely, with one path into the steam pipe as… steam.

            What is also interesting is that we have seen the multiple techs who built this thing for IH and know everything about it. So I wonder why they haven’t been trotted out if there was a design issue in that way.

          • Bruce__H

            Good question! The tour through the ecat plant and Smith’s resulting proposal came after all the depositions though. These questions could still come up at trial.

          • Bruce__H

            I think the condensate gets to the top of those risers via the Prominent pumps. They suck up condensate from the unpressurized internal holding tank … just a Penon says. Those pumps can suck water vertically 6.5 feet up to their inlets.

            It is fun looking at the different part of the ecat plant but to support your proposal I would have thought you would need evidence 1) that can’t be accounted for by other schemes in play and 2) matches what Penon says. Your proposals don’t do that.

    • Bruce__H

      It doesn’t fit the sight-glass evidence. That’s for sure. Although all you need to do to spoof them is close the valve at the top of each sight glass so as to trap a bubble of air and make it look half full.

      The issue of backpressure on the Prominent pumps is absolutely correct. But does it affect their performance? Maximum backpressure appears to be 2 barg with a capacity of 32 l/h at that backpressure. That means they can pump at 32 l/h even if they are pumping into a column of water 66 feet high. Sounds OK to me.

      If you are talking about the “alternate path” for the Smith circulation then i agree there is no photo evidence. That alternate path needs to be a connection between the condensate return line coming from the JMP side and the steam riser for the Tiger/BF stack. The condensate return passes right by the steam riser after ti enters the ecat plant container but this particular region has not been visualized in any pictures. So we don’t know if they connect or not.
      Similarly there is no photo evidence we have that the condensate return goes straight to the internal tank as it is supposed to according to Penon. All of these structures are within inches of each other and seemingly enclosed in some sort of square housing. So you really can’t see anything well

      Here is a photo from Smith’s supplemental report. You can see the large whitish rectangular cover of the internal tank at the bottom and the whitish cylindrical steam riser standing vertically on the right. The condensate return line pierces the wall of the ecat plant just off picture at the lower right. The base of the steam riser is encased in some sort of boxlike structure and the condesnate return should be within inches of it.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0962a03803d820af23babe3a0f2d9ec2618243e265d3c434b602ae78046cc61d.jpg

      Here is a blowup of the bottom right of Smith’s picture. Once again, this is a region where the internal tank, the steam riser, and the condensate return are all very close together. There is no photo evidence here, however, that would testify to either Penon circulation or Smith circulation as the reality (both pathways could be real if there was a butterfly valve in place down there)
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/398f8acaf015f7fd0ecb075e772545e55c3f4c1b2bbbed6f975272ab5f444b8b.jpg

  • Engineer48
    • GiveADogABone

      It might well be that the water pump that is mentioned is the transfer pump from external to internal tanks.

      • Engineer48

        HI GADAB,

        As Penon mentioned gravity feed for the external to internal tank, which may have been the case in design phase, there would not be a pump there then, so the other pump Penon mentions would be the Grundfos pump in the JM container.

        • GiveADogABone

          OK

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Penon was aware of the master pump.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c367ef3bf87984111fb0ccaba1f1452edc7433379f9114fdf63f8b66894da1a.png

    Please share what clear evidence I have not dealt with?

  • GiveADogABone

    Start up procedure
    The normal procedure for filling a water circuit is to start all drains shut/all vents open. As vents start producing water shut them. That means the last vent to close is normally the highest on the system. The point of all this is to drive all the air out and have a system full of water.

    On once-through boilers, I am used to flooding the boilers and steam pipework as far as a blowdown vessel and its recirculating system. Same business with drains and vents. Then start a low pressure circulating pump with main system valves open and circulate the whole system and clean the crud out in the system filtration plant.

    Yes, I know that sounds like Rick Smith’s version. What Rick Smith has not realised is that normal operation requires the additional blowdown phase. Anyway, with water circulating you start heating and that brings all metal temperature up evenly until …

    … you reach the temperature of vapourization as Penon puts it. When the boiling starts, you have to dump water(not steam) out of the system and slow down the recirculation. As steam starts to arrive at the mezzanine heat exchanger, condensing starts. A normal working level forms in the boiler, the steam pipes dry out and the mezzanine heat exchanger starts to fill with steam. The system is then running as it should at minimum power. Then ramp the power up.

    ‘Once the ecats are switched on just that amount of water should be plenty for the entire operation. No?’
    You do not appear to have got rid of the air or done the right thing by your metal temperatures – that is a total no-no. You have to give Rick Smith a bit of credit for getting it half right for startup and totally wrong about full operation at the same time. Once-through boilers behave very differently to drum boilers and I guess Rick has not heard of a once-through.

  • GiveADogABone

    Water columns are not generally noisy at all and they certainly do not bark.

    • Engineer48

      Hi GADAB,

      We know from the photographic evidence that there were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser / water columns full of water. Filled by the Grundfos pump inside the insulated JM container.

      Amazing how some can ignore them and why they were designed into the system.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7063374d8f4caacd48927d3a7a8c0a496bdbb4c10587298b2ab9410f435e344.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa994d18c319a137f76dc9769558c140be8b36dd2b11daf215714d3752d51b65.png

      • GiveADogABone

        A couple of snags here. I am thinking of the higher water column in the mezzanine and there is repeated testimony that the Grundfos in the black box did not run at high power. The E-cat condensate pumped itself.

        • Engineer48

          HI GADAB,

          Suggest if there was condensate from the upper story heat exchanger then probably the Grundfos was not needed. But if there was not sufficient condensate volume / head from the upper story heat exchanger, then it would need to run to keep the multiple ECat condensate risers full.

          Likewise it would need to run at startup.

          That pump was know by Penon. He listed it in the equipment list. Some may have missed that.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c367ef3bf87984111fb0ccaba1f1452edc7433379f9114fdf63f8b66894da1a.png

          • GiveADogABone

            It is worth thinking about what happens during a power cut. SSM and all that. I remember a test where the power cable was removed and the E-cat ran on for hours.

          • Vinney

            Matts has indicated where the power cut was noted in the daily logs of April 7th, it was only 30 minutes duration.

          • GiveADogABone

            OK. What would running SSM at full power without a condensate pump for 30 minutes achieve/cause? That Grundfos pump is a single point of failure if it is the only condensate pump. If the BFs can pump themselves, the system is much safer.

          • Engineer48

            HI GADAB,

            With a 2.5 mtr condensate head inside the ECat container and a direct but restricted feed from the condensate column into the Tigers, YES operation could continue in SSM mode without any mains power or topping up pump operation.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52f4f09bb45e5399a06877820a79a4c22ad4bafd29d097816b7657f0f07d802e.png

  • Engineer48

    After considerable reading of the various statements and looking at the photographic evidence I have concluded that:

    The excess heat was carried out through a heat exchanger on the second floor and the air was expelled through the windows, as Rossi has claimed.

    Wong and Rossi testimonies a series of statements related to the air extraction window: it was removable, all the glasses of it were removable, the glasses and the window could be totally or partially removed depending on the necessities of the system to eject the excess heat, when there was excess of heat.

    Obviously all the windows were made in a way that they were able to be removed and reinstated anytime in matter of minutes! Clearly a fairly simple engineering exercise.

    Therefore, one single photo, made during few seconds out of tens of millions of seconds means absolutely nothing. By the way, looking at the photo, the central window seems to have glasses only on the right side, while the two left glasses appear to be missing.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32c9b08d2ad22533799927c12ae04c8fb083025f2da24f024d7f7a2ab915eb2d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d5e1a41f18377d17f8b7bd17ea63ebecb481c3123ce8b5a33f7d0e6535e66f.png

    Even Smith shows us an image with 3 missing panes: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/778475a5d4c8ce93c7bc9ba6b6d14009c8816e29043d379661986a99ca62a89b.png

    So yes ALL the window panes could be easily and quickly removed and replaced as conditions required. And YES there will be images of window panes there and window panes not there, which only goes to prove the window panes were removed or fitted as required by operational conditions.

    • Josh G

      New post on JONP:

      “Dear Andrea,

      The so called ventriloquist of Raleigh now is making his puppets say that the window you indicated to be the exhaust of hot air was closed and therefore it could not work: a colossal stupidity, since in your deposition and in the deposition of prof Wong has been clearly said that:

      A- the window and its glasses were removable

      B- you used to change the output configuration depending on the necessities of the excess heat

      Note: they did not present a series of many photos like that, made in different dates,but just one, meaning they did not find the window closed in other moments: which meaning can have the fact that the window was closed for several moments, out of billions of moments? None!

      By the way: in that photo it appears that the window had 4 glasses, and while the two right glasses ( from the observer) were on, the two left glasses were missing.

      Your say?
      Cheers
      Prof”

      Rossi answers that he cannot comment.

      • Obvious

        He obviously can and does comment.

        • Stephen

          These so called “sock puppet” statements don’t look genuine to me. They are just too contrived to be from Andrea Rossi. But some people seem to want to create the impression he does so. Look at what recently happened to Matts.

          The thing with sock puppets is different hands can be in them. I personally find that kind of attempts to twist someone’s dialogue distasteful at the least. But there you go. I find it best to ignore them.

  • Engineer48

    After considerable reading of the various statements and looking at the photographic evidence I have concluded that:

    The excess heat was carried out through a heat exchanger on the second floor and the air was expelled through the windows, as Rossi has claimed.

    Wong and Rossi testimonies a series of statements related to the air extraction window: it was removable, all the glasses of it were removable, the glasses and the window could be totally or partially removed depending on the necessities of the system to eject the excess heat, when there was excess of heat.

    Obviously all the windows were made in a way that they were able to be removed and reinstated anytime in matter of minutes! Clearly a fairly simple engineering exercise.

    Therefore, one single photo, made during few seconds out of tens of millions of seconds means absolutely nothing. By the way, looking at the photo, the central window seems to have glasses only on the right side, while the two left glasses appear to be missing.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32c9b08d2ad22533799927c12ae04c8fb083025f2da24f024d7f7a2ab915eb2d.jpg

    Even Smith shows us an image with 3 missing panes: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d5e1a41f18377d17f8b7bd17ea63ebecb481c3123ce8b5a33f7d0e6535e66f.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/778475a5d4c8ce93c7bc9ba6b6d14009c8816e29043d379661986a99ca62a89b.png

    So yes ALL the window panes could be easily and quickly removed and replaced as conditions required. And YES there will be images of window panes there and window panes not there, which only goes to prove the window panes were removed or fitted as required by operational conditions.

    • Josh G

      New post on JONP:

      “Dear Andrea,

      The so called ventriloquist of Raleigh now is making his puppets say that the window you indicated to be the exhaust of hot air was closed and therefore it could not work: a colossal stupidity, since in your deposition and in the deposition of prof Wong has been clearly said that:

      A- the window and its glasses were removable

      B- you used to change the output configuration depending on the necessities of the excess heat

      Note: they did not present a series of many photos like that, made in different dates,but just one, meaning they did not find the window closed in other moments: which meaning can have the fact that the window was closed for several moments, out of billions of moments? None!

      By the way: in that photo it appears that the window had 4 glasses, and while the two right glasses ( from the observer) were on, the two left glasses were missing.

      Your say?
      Cheers
      Prof”

      Rossi answers that he cannot comment.

      • Obvious

        He obviously can and does comment.

        • Stephen

          These so called “sock puppet” statements don’t look genuine to me. They are just too contrived to be from Andrea Rossi. But some people seem to want to create the impression he does so. Look at what recently happened to Matts.

          The thing with sock puppets is different hands can be in them. Some time very malicious hands. I personally find that kind of attempts to twist someone’s dialogue distasteful at the least. But there you go. I find it best to ignore them.

    • Pat

      We know where the air went out, but where did the air come in from?

      • GiveADogABone

        The doorway at the top of the rickety stairs, another open window or perhaps more interesting, the temporary screen wall was a bit clever. It is not just plain board.

  • GiveADogABone

    ‘Is the “blowdown” phase the one where you “dump water (not steam) out of the system and slow down the recirculation”?’

    On a big once-through boiler you take hours to spin up the boilers by heating and recirculating. At some point you reach the saturation temperature of water and steam bubbles appear. Those tend to appear where the water pressure is lowest and buoyancy drives them i.e. the top of the system. You have to make room for the steam, so matching draining starts. On the plant I knew that happened from the blowdown vessel (the clue is in the name).

    Seemingly, that leaves another puzzle. Where was the drain point on the E-cat? The drain water is hot, so cannot go down the Miami drains. At that point you know the answer. The drain water must go into the mezzanine heat exchanger spray water circuit from where it can be evaporated. Penon knew nothing about any messing about in the JMP plant, so I can see how he could miss this step.

  • GiveADogABone

    Distilled water :
    Somewhere to store cold water :-
    http://www.tanks-direct.co.uk/flexible_water_tanks/flexible_pillow_tanks_-_non_potable
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63a55f4851a2e5784da34a3230af2e33005add86ffeb1c041df3fffbf884868f.png

    The primary circuit in the E-cat used ‘distilled water’. It may have been demin water. It makes a lot of sense to use demin for any spray water system. Continuous evaporation leaves a residue of dissolved salts and you cannot drain it off hot into the Miami drains.

    Start up requires the draining of hot water. Where does it go? Into the mezzanine spray water system? The spray water system tank would need to be able to withstand hot water.

    It suggests that the Doral facility was receiving demin/distilled water by road tanker (at night?). A pillow tank in the mezzanine could hold it and provide a head for the primary water make-up system. That would explain the low metered towns water consumption.

  • GiveADogABone

    Distilled water :
    Somewhere to store cold water :-
    http://www.tanks-direct.co.uk/flexible_water_tanks/flexible_pillow_tanks_-_non_potable
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63a55f4851a2e5784da34a3230af2e33005add86ffeb1c041df3fffbf884868f.png

    The primary circuit in the E-cat used ‘distilled water’. It may have been demin water. It makes a lot of sense to use demin for any spray water system. Continuous evaporation leaves a residue of dissolved salts and you cannot drain it off hot into the Miami drains.

    Start up requires the draining of hot water. Where does it go? Into the mezzanine spray water system? The spray water system tank would need to be able to withstand hot water.

    It suggests that the Doral facility was receiving demin/distilled water by road tanker (at night?). A pillow tank in the mezzanine could hold it and provide a head for the primary water make-up system. That would explain the low metered towns water consumption.

    • Bruce__H

      Any idea how much water is needed?

      I would have though that regular deliveries would require a firm actually known to Mr Rossi (rather than all the “flying” workmen whose names he forgets. There would be bills and delivery logs too I guess.

      • GiveADogABone

        Air Flow 50,000 cu ft/min = 23.58 m^3/sec
        Density 1.2 kg/m^3
        Mass flow 28.3 kg/s
        Specific Heat 1.005 kJ/kg K
        Heat 1MW
        dT Air 35C

        If a 35C dT is too high (summer air temps in Miami 35C?), then you either increase the air flow or spray. Increased air flow is not the statement , so spray. How far down do you want to get the air outlet temp? That fixes the evaporated spray water quantity and spraying is also limited by not generating a plume. A 10C reduction in outlet air temp requires 1000*10/35=286kW of evaporation at 2257 kJ/kg. 286/2257=0.127kg/s of evaporation. Call it 11tonne or 11m^3 per day.

        A spray water capability is needed to get rid of any hot drainage and any cool towns water that is used for sub-cooling the condensate flow and gets heated in the process.

        Demin water delivery would be a regular road tanker, so the usual commerical paperwork should exist.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Well, deionized water is not cheap:

          https://www.chemworld.com/DeIonized-Water-s/2622.htm

          You would have to recycle it in an additional step. Obviously, that’s just a theoretical possibility.

        • Bruce__H

          Wow, 11 tonnes of water per day? Every day? Sundays and holidays too? On Christmas Eve it would be 22 tonnes?

          Wouldn’t 11 tonnes of extremely water vapor being emitted from the window every day cause problems for the outer envelope of the building?

          • GiveADogABone

            Below the saturation temperature it would just be air with higher humidity. Shouldn’t be a big surprise. The E-cat circulates 36 tons a day that is boiled. If one third of that heat is used by evaporation at the SAME latent heat of vaporisation, you need to vapourize about 1/3 of 36 tons.

            PS I didn’t check the actual humidity was below saturation. It is just an illustrative number.

          • Engineer48

            Hey Bruce,

            Still believe LENR is BS?

            Please let us know your bias or do you prefer to not make your bias known?

          • Bruce__H

            I don’t see the LENR field as showing the sort of progress over 25 years that usually goes with study of a real phenomenon. But I realize that LENR could still be real, After all, my opinions do not determine reality. In fact I try to ensure that it is the other way around … reality determines my opinions..

            I view LENR as a low probability field. It is probably not true. But I am a professional scientist. I am used to working on things that don’t pan out. It happens a lot! That is OK because it is a privilege to investigate nature in the first place and because sometimes things do work out!

            Scientists know how to separate their biases from their assessments of results.

          • psi2u2

            My observation as a non-scientist who has studied the history of ideas is that many scientists are not much better at doing that than everyone else is. All expertise involves being acculturated into a set of ideas and social conventions that, historically, involves accepting premises that later generations, with more knowledge or awareness, will find to be absurdly wrongheaded.

          • Bruce__H

            I agree with everything except your first sentence. I think that scientists are better at separating out their biases than most people. It’s just that even so, bias still creeps in.

            I’m not saying that scientists are bias or preconception free.

  • Ged

    Can you show me the pics? I see the condensate pipe come in from one side right where the internal tank is, and on the opposite side is the external tank? Seems really weird and hard to imagine how they could connect.

    But I also don’t see how it is a problem like you suggest if the external feeds the internal–it seems to agree fine with E48. Both could be under equal pressure from the weight of what feeds the external, there is no problem with that, and it would indeed be gravity. If A goes to B where A is the external and B is the internal, then hydrostatic pressure on A is also equally on B. So, I apologize but I don’t yet see any problems with that and will need more explanation; other than I can’t visibly see how the external goes to the internal as it looks like the external isn’t connected to anything in the one pic we have and they are in opposite sides…

    • Bruce__H

      Take a look at Penon’s plumbing schematic (see pages 39-40 of document 236-43).
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/988bdd8378d8e7ff080c2533bddf173eb9ce84025605da52615aac0a850cc95f.jpg
      The external tank feed comes from one side and the condensate return pipe come from the other. Both feed into the internal tank. The picture of the connection between the external and internal tanks I posted earlier was taken from the vantage point on the left of the diagram looking down the container towards the internal tank.

      Here is how Penon describes the situation …
      ” The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the external tank into the internal tank by gravity.”

      The valve is in the connection between the external reservoir and the internal tank. What does the float for the valve float on if not for the surface of the water inside the internal tank? How does the internal tank have a water surface if it is sealed and has a head of 2.5 metres of water on top of it?

      • Ged

        Even in his diagram and the photo we have, there is no water source going to the external tank. The only place it seemingly gets water is from the internal tank according to the diagram and what we see so far. That would only work if there was pressure pushing water into the external, but that is backwards what he writes–but the only possible choice with this set up as drawn and as we visually seen so far.

        Penon doesn’t say which tank has the valve in that passage, but it makes most sense for the internal to have it to keep levels steady. But the next assumption seems to be that the valve opens when the water gets too low, but it could be the valve opens when the water gets too high (too much pressure compressing the air pocket), using the external as a pressure release if something clogs the outflow from the internal to the rest of the plant so the internal doesn’t blow something. It doesn’t have to be filled completely with water to have pressure, as an air pocket can be there and pressurized too just as it is in air traps in domestic plumbing.

        Either way, Penon’s diagram and the photo we have are at odds with Penon’s description as there is no source to the external but the internal from what I can see so far. Is there more evidence about the external’s water source?

        • Stephen

          It is mentioned it is demineralized or distilled water I think. So probably the external tank is filled and contains all the water required for the system and is only topped up by a delivery when it is required.

          If that tank is 2m x 2m x 0.8m as it looks to me then it should have plenty of demin water to half fill the 4 Tigers the internal tank and the condensate pipes in the ECat plant and in the condensate pipe inside and from the JMP plant.

          With some left over to top up after leakages etc.

          I suppose it would need refilling after the ECat is drained ready for restarting.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Ged,

      The fluid from the external tank was PUMPED into the internal tank. It was NOT gravity feed.

      Why?

      Because the water level in the condensate system inside the ECat container was HIGHER than the water level inside the external tank.

      So say IH in 235-11, page 32, item 5.

  • Ged

    Hmm, maybe. Strangely doesn’t look like the other pipes we have seen exposed, and the attachment point is looks odd and is in a weird place. We need a much better picture to low what is going on.

  • Vinney

    It is a circuit, what the ERV had to do was measure accurately the flow rate (thus volume) going into the E-cat heater system and its temperature, and the same at the exit of the same heater system, around the rest of the circuit, it could go thru a water feature fountain, but wouldn’t affect the COP of the E-cat heater system that Penon had to principally measure.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Vinney,

      Penon said the water volume added by the external tank was measured. He also said the measured water volume was reduced by 10% to account for leaks.

      • Vinney

        This water was introduced to the
        80 deg C (plus) reactor system at room (or tanker) temperature of 16 deg C.
        This represents a 10% – 15% conservative figure on the COP of the E-cat.
        Again it seems to have worked better than reported.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Suggest you read 235-11 page 32 which describes how water was moved from the external tank to the internal tank via a PUMP.

  • Engineer48

    For those of you that continue to believe the external water tank feed the internal water tank by gravity, I suggest you read section 5 of the attachment which makes it very clear when the internal water level was too low a PUMP would be switched on to transfer water from the external holding tank into the internal tank.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

    Why was a pump required?

    Because inside the ECat container were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser, which both held water and caused all the pumps to operate with a negative back pressure, because of the 2.5 mtr condensate head plus to provide an throttled raw condensate flow into all the reactors, which with the additional flow from the topping up pumps, supplied all the necessary water flow..

    • GiveADogABone

      The internal tank performs the function of a pressurizer (websearch ‘pwr pressurizer’ in the PWR nuclear reactor. It controls the system pressure via the steam pressure in the top half of the pressurizer and it also controls the primary circuit water injection/blowdown via the level in the pressurizer.

  • Engineer48

    For those of you that continue to believe the external water tank feed the internal water tank by gravity, I suggest you read section 5 of the attachment which makes it very clear when the internal water level was too low a PUMP would be switched on to transfer water from the external holding tank into the internal tank.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

    Why was a pump required?

    Because inside the ECat container were at least 2 x 2.5 mtr high condensate riser, which both held water and caused all the pumps to operate with a negative back pressure, because of the 2.5 mtr condensate head plus to provide an throttled raw condensate flow into all the reactors, which with the additional flow from the topping up pumps, supplied all the necessary water flow..

    • GiveADogABone

      The internal tank performs the function of a pressurizer (websearch ‘pwr pressurizer’ in the PWR nuclear reactor. It controls the system pressure via the steam pressure in the top half of the pressurizer and it also controls the primary circuit water injection/blowdown via the level in the pressurizer.

      By definition, the water injection must come from a source that is at higher pressure than the pressurizer itself. Where does the external tank gets its DEMIN water from? Certainly not the towns water supply. There has to be a DEMIN reserve water tank somewhere and the obvious place is in the mezzanine, along with the heat exchanger.

    • TVulgaris

      AN OPEN SYSTEM DOES NOT PREDICATE 100% LOSS!!!
      Nobody’s even mentioned this in passing?
      This is in reference to the business of how much DM or DI water would be required in a spray system, you’d have to be pretty stupid or incredibly short-sighted as an engineer not to use a catchment system.
      As far as gravity feed, it’d be insanely difficult to control levels actively (especially in a multi-zone system), so why on earth would you bother? An adjustable spring check-valve (or electro-mech., with attendant AND SIMPLE control circuitry) is all that’s necessary.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Maybe the original plant design design used gravity feed.

    But that was not how the operational plant worked. There was a pump in the external water tank that did the fluid transfer and pushed it up the 2.5 mtr high condensate risers.

    Read section 5:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

    So now we KNOW the feed from the external tank was NOT a gravity feed and with the use of the pump, it was easy to pump up a 2.5 mtr high condensate head.

    Of course that pumped external tank supports a throttled raw condensate flow into each reactor being as 75% of the required flow and the other 25% being supplied from the topping up pumps such that they can maintain the water level inside each reactor.

    So thanks to IH, the issue of the 2.5 mtr high condensate head inside the ECat container is settled due to the use of a pump to transfer the fluid from the holding tank to the internal tank and condensate risers.

  • GiveADogABone

    Air Flow 50,000 cu ft/min = 23.58 m^3/sec
    Density 1.2 kg/m^3
    Mass flow 28.3 kg/s
    Specific Heat 1.005 kJ/kg K
    Heat 1MW
    dT Air 35C

    If a 35C dT is too high (summer air temps in Miami 35C?), then you either increase the air flow or spray. Increased air flow is not the statement , so spray. How far down do you want to get the air outlet temp? That fixes the evaporated spray water quantity and spraying is also limited by not generating a plume. A spray water capability is need to get rid of any hot drainage and any cool towns water that is used for sub-cooling the condensate flow and gets heated in the process.

    Demin water delivery would be a regular road tanker, so the usual commerical paperwork should exist.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Well, deionized water is not cheap:

      https://www.chemworld.com/DeIonized-Water-s/2622.htm

      You would have to recycle it in an additional step. Obviously, that’s just a theoretical possibility.

      • GiveADogABone

        Demineralised water production from river water using membrane …
        ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction…n…
        This is an industry that requires large quantities of demineralised water in the different … water, the cost per m³ fell from 0.90 EUR to 0.45 EUR. On a yearly basis, …

        … so 11m^3 per day cost would be 4.5EUR +raw water cost. The major cost is the delivery lorry.

  • Engineer48

    Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff:

    Interesting photo from Dr. Wong:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a339764be7a69d6d9ed7e4eb363cf166a0c14eeb1ce0f3ffd3d44f80a741a558.png

    Inquisitive minds would ask why is the floor on the left clean and not walked on?

    Maybe because there was a steam pipe there, that connected the bypass in the JM container to the upper story heat exchanger?

    Also note a telltale lighter mark from the centre of that clean patch toward the outer edge of the landing.

    Sure looks like, to this Black Swan, that a steam pipe could have been there for the duration of the 350 day test.

    • GiveADogABone

      I would prefer four pipes from the black box. The 2×4″ horizontal timber opposite the door has four bright marks as well. A transition from four pipes horizontally to four pipes vertically arranged?

  • Engineer48

    Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff:

    Interesting photo from Dr. Wong:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a339764be7a69d6d9ed7e4eb363cf166a0c14eeb1ce0f3ffd3d44f80a741a558.png

    Inquisitive minds would ask why is the floor on the left clean and not walked on?

    Maybe because there was a steam pipe there, that connected the bypass in the JM container to the upper story heat exchanger?

    Also note a telltale lighter mark from the centre of that clean patch toward the outer edge of the landing.

    Sure looks like, to this Black Swan, that a steam pipe could have been there for the duration of the 350 day test.

    • GiveADogABone

      I would prefer four pipes from the black box. The 2×4″ horizontal timber opposite the door has four bright marks as well. A transition from four pipes horizontally to four pipes vertically arranged?

  • GiveADogABone

    The doorway at the top of the rickety stairs, another open window or perhaps more interesting, the temporary screen wall was a bit clever. It is not just plain board.

  • Ged

    Hm, he mentions the internal tank getting too full, so this does sound like the internal could overflow to the external? And he makes it sound more like the float/peddle valve was in the external… Not as helpful a description as hoped. I also don’t see him saying how the external was hooked up to anything else other than the internal unfortunately.

    It at least appears from him and Penon and the photos that the external tank was an accessory and not part of the flow system directly, so it seems it can be safely ignored, as it’s apparent use is only in unusual volume cases.

    It by itself of course can’t make a 2.5 m head pressure since it isn’t apparently 2.5 m high, but it probably has about 1 m head pressure from the pictures–hard to tell exactly, but given the container is probably 9-10′ high. But it would be possible to have 2.5 m head pressure push into it from the internal tank to fill until the valve closes. And of course, In cases where it flowed into the internal, or if that was the normal state, the internal would have to have low enough pressure and volume to open the valve.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    You got it wrong. Time to accept it.

    There was a pump in the external tank, as per the IH disclosure, that pumped the condensate into the 2.5 mtr vertical condensate risers, which reduced the Prominent pump back pressure to negative and provided throttled raw condensate flow into the Tigers.

    If you continue to discount this data, you only continue to paint yourself as a LENR denier.

    I suggest it it time for you to back down or join Jed and others as FUD providers that have no legitimate backing in physics.

    • Bruce__H

      What data am I ignoring? I think I have addressed everything. Which part of the IH disclosure says there was a pump in the external tank?

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Again you choose to ignore the photographic evidence of multiple condensate risers and the words of IH about the pump in the external tank.

    Please read what IH said as per section 5:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e220005809dd1afa3d73e04e90d7979bea444bccc2139473d899b1741fda0d19.png

    If you continue to ignore the evidence, well you just paint yourself as a Jed like commented making BS statements about non filled flow meter pipes that are now revealed to be pure BS.

    Is that where you wish to go?

    • Bruce__H

      You will need to point out a particular sentence of two

  • Stephen

    There is a high resolution picture somewhere of the ECat tigers pumps. In that picture if you’ll look down the right handside if the Tigers near floor level you can see a pipe going to (and likely through) the wall of the container. I think it is the same pipe connecting the external tank.

  • GiveADogABone

    Below the saturation temperature it would just be air with higher humidity. Shouldn’t be a big surprise. The E-cat circulates 36 tons a day that is boiled. If one third of that heat is used by evaporation at the SAME latent heat of vaporisation, you need to vapourize about 1/3 of 36 tons.

    PS I didn’t check the actual humidity was below saturation. It is just an illustrative number.

  • Engineer48

    Hey Bruce,

    Still believe LENR is BS?

    Please let us know your bias or do you prefer to not make your bias known?

  • Stephen

    An interesting question: If the external tank is full of distilled water. Is its capacity sufficient to fill the ecat supposed liquid capacity. I.e. the Tigers to the required capacity (half full) the internal tank, the condensate pipe work, as well as the steam circuit to required capacity in steam phase?

  • Stephen

    An interesting question: If the external tank is full of demin water. Is its capacity sufficient to fill the ecat supposed liquid capacity. I.e. the 4 Tigers to the required capacity (half full), the internal tank, the condensate pipe work, as well as the steam circuit to required capacity in steam phase?

  • Stephen
    • Stephen

      According to this thread and comments by Andrea Rossi at the time the customer plant is actually 20m x 3m x 3m.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

      This would be about 60 ft and correspond to a combination of one 40ft (12m) container and one 20ft (6m) container. Surrounded in very thick insulation.

      If so it could mean it’s not just 10ft (3m) missing between those two pictures but actually closer to 30ft (9m)!

      An alternative would be if the smaller container is a separate unit connected at either end of the larger container with a door or wall in between. But it does not look like this is the case.

  • Stephen
    • Bruce__H

      Good question! They are questions for Mr Rossi. No one from the IH side has every seen inside the JMP black box.

    • Stephen

      According to this thread and comments by Andrea Rossi at the time the customer plant is actually 20m x 3m x 3m.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

      This would be about 60 ft and correspond to a combination of one 40ft (12m) container and one 20ft (6m) container. Surrounded in very thick insulation.

      If so it could mean it’s not just 10ft (3m) missing between those two pictures but actually closer to 30ft (9m)!

      An alternative would be if the smaller container is a separate unit connected at either end of the larger container with a door or wall in between. But it does not look like this is the case.

      Edit: or could it be one of these?

      http://www.cubedepot.com/product/new-53-ft-high-cube-container/

  • Stephen
    • Goodrice

      For some reason they had “heating cables”, temperature sensors and other systems going into the JMP side container, as Bass and Rossi told during their depositions.

      • Stephen

        If he has some unusual persistent endothermic reaction going on which is difficult to explain with any known process. I think from his dispositions he may have been using high voltage electric processes to enable that process in this device too. But it is a bit wild speculation on my side I must admit.

        Could the device on the steam pipe be a steam trap? Or some kind of meter? I dont see any wires going there.

        The square device on the end of the serpentine pipe frame looks interesting but I have no idea what it could be. Perhaps just a camera?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Stephen,

      Suggest the dual flexible hoses may have carried condensate from the upper story back to the lower heat exchanger for return to the ECat container. Your can see them curled on the floor in this image.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a35466507a338931f019470143cadca6f218cd83a572f851e1a3612e72b25d1.png

  • Stephen

    What are these items?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3e95edbde33557c146ca851187e95bf7d43b4e92bf7c6a8a5627b8e2d068aed.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78c25ad76f74050e939a20c026f9976055a9af0566e0934730cc34e2a1b7ac16.jpg

    Edit: is the blue taped section on the steam pipe in the top picture removable? The rest of this pipe is only silver and brown.

    • Goodrice

      For some reason they had “heating cables”, temperature sensors and other systems going into the JMP side container, as Bass and Rossi told during their depositions.

      • Stephen

        If he has some unusual persistent endothermic reaction going on which is difficult to explain with any known process. I think from his dispositions he may have been using high voltage electric processes to enable that process in this device too. But it is a bit wild speculation on my side I must admit.

        Could the device on the steam pipe be a steam trap? Or some kind of meter? I dont see any wires going there.

        The square device on the end of the serpentine pipe frame looks interesting but I have no idea what it could be. Perhaps just a camera?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Stephen,

      Suggest the dual flexible hoses may have carried condensate from the upper story back to the lower heat exchanger for return to the ECat container. Your can see them curled on the floor in this image.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a35466507a338931f019470143cadca6f218cd83a572f851e1a3612e72b25d1.png

      • Stephen

        Yup I agree they could well be hoses. Although those lagged pipes are also reported as heated some how.

        It’s interesting that the greenish cable for the pump also comes directly from outside.

        Almost as if the electric supplies and equipment need to be outside the container. I wonder if this could be necessary due to the thermal or acoustic environment of due to EMF interference.

        Although there appears to be such a large gap between the pictures in the container that almost anything could be there.

  • Stephen

    What is this silver pipe also apparently “under the stairs to the mezzanine”?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f8ce5ef67cb9c135fdf509ff587346be68f97a89815ce145397f768dce2c3a03.jpg

    Is this one of the pipes used for the serpentine condenser in the mezzanine?

    What material and surface does it have is this consistent with condenser pipe work.

    Assuming the warehouse is 10m tall and 12 mm wide. The 4 pipes would maybe make up 80m

    What happened to the remaining 140m. Is it used in th plant now?

    Is this bit of pipe part of the remaining 140m?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting observation. Maybe the pipes were led first horizontally on the floor below the stairs and then vertically up to the 2nd floor. For that purpose you would have to break through the platform before the entry to the mezzanine. The “clean” areas mentioned by E48 might just be the planks that had to be (re-)inserted after the removal of the system.

  • Stephen

    What is this dark silver pipe also apparently “under the stairs to the mezzanine”?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f8ce5ef67cb9c135fdf509ff587346be68f97a89815ce145397f768dce2c3a03.jpg

    Is this one of the pipes used for the serpentine condenser in the mezzanine?

    To me when comparing it to the dimensions of the pump it looks to be about 6″ or 15cm in diameter.

    What material and surface does it have is this consistent with condenser pipe work.

    Assuming the warehouse is 10m tall and 12 m wide. The 4 pipes would maybe make up 80m

    What happened to the remaining 140m. Is it used in th plant now?

    Is this bit of pipe part of the remaining 140m?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting observation. Maybe the pipes were led first horizontally on the floor below the stairs and then vertically up to the 2nd floor. For that purpose you would have to break through the platform before the entry to the mezzanine. The “clean” areas mentioned by E48 might just be the planks that had to be (re-)inserted after the removal of the system.

  • Stephen
    • Engineer48

      Hi Stephen,

      Looking at the probably 4 inch wide timber on the side wall and visually relating that to the pipe diameter, I suggest 6 inch diameter.

      That other fitting looks to be a sliding fitting that would need to be there to handle length changes are the pipes heated from ambient to 104C.

  • Stephen
    • Engineer48

      Hi Stephen,

      Looking at the probably 4 inch wide timber on the side wall and visually relating that to the pipe diameter, I suggest 6 inch diameter.

      That other fitting looks to be a sliding fitting that would need to be there to handle length changes are the pipes heated from ambient to 104C.

  • Stephen

    Why was the black box lagged?

    Was it to retain heat? If so why were the pipes inside lagged?

    Or was it some kind of sound proofing?

    Would cavitation etc from rapid cooling system of the steam in the pipe work here if it works as claimed produce sound?

    • Stephen

      Very very thick insulation?

      According to this picture the steam pipe enters th JMP container right up in the top left corner:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25462a52cde5e2e1903d9d3b95ea723d08458756d29017be2735931c9a58ff35.jpg

      But from the outside it seems to enter much lower and to the left.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a96d16528c61bf1a30fdb5168c7aab494ca8237e2ac1343aa4f43cfb073760f0.jpg

      In the above pictures the lagged pipe looks to be about 30cm diameter and looks to be about 50cm inside the outside surface. It looks to me we have very thick insulation in 2 layers. With an obvious outer layer maybe 10 to 15 cm and a hidden inner layer of similar thickness

      The following picture shows the insulated back doors with a very thick layer on top of the container above those doors:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8605f5319e63fa33f7aa1736c6f031b3dfb558e0a04e3d59a55b8d0840199178.jpg

      This seems extremely thick insulation for thermal purposes. Could it make more sense as acoustic insulation?

      • Goodrice

        In the deposition he says that in the insulated tubes inside the JMP container he also has reactors containing Pt – Ni – Graphene. We also know that the there are “heating cables” inside and other stuff. From these photos it’s not clear how much of it is simply insulation.

        To be honest I don’t think he had endothermic reactions going on there, quite the opposite actually.

        • Stephen

          Just for clarity I was talking about the thick black insulation on the container it self rather than the pipes.

          But I agree the heating strips seem to imply he wanted to keep the contents in those pipes hot.

          I’m quite curious what ideas about the process you have in mind. I would bet from your past comments they are very good ones. But apparently Andrea Rossi did say the process was endothermic. So it will be interesting to see someday.

          • Goodrice

            Yes sorry, I was referring to the pipe in the first two photos. If you mean the insulation on the container I’m wondering how heavy and dense it is, it could have been for more than just heat.

            I think Rossi has been doing or trying to do LENR experiments inside the JMP container with Pt-Ni-C catalysts. Before he got involved with the E-Cat he found that Pt-Ni thermoelectric devices were good “catalyzers” for exhaust fumes. Here the C would come from the Graphene that he apparently made from graphite. Interesting coincidence.

            https://www.google.com/patents/US20050028858

            [0048] Also for what it concerns the thermoelectric materials there can be changes with respect to the couple platinum-tellurium.
            [0049] For example the couple platinum-nickel, further to generating electric power, showed an unexpected catalyzing effect on the exhaust of diesel combustion engines.
            [0050] Indeed, Pt—Ni modules according to the invention were tested on the exhaust of diesel engines and proved themselves efficacious as catalyzers for the depurating exhaust.

          • Stephen

            Yup I think there is a lot in his past patents and especially their interrelationships some times I wonder if we studied them if we could see the evolution of his ideas from all the way back in the beginning with his waste processing to the quarkx

          • Stephen

            Carbon is also known to enhance hydrogen desorption rates from metal Hydrides.

            But it seems from his dispositions he is replacing platinum with carbon… perhaps CNT or something similar could perform a similar function to the platinum?

          • Goodrice

            A lot of information is still missing and what is available could be incomplete as Rossi balances trying to not lie under oath with not revealing his secrets at the same time. For example in the 2017-03-01 deposition he was asked about Nickel in the JMP container, but the context behind that question does not seem to be in the publicly available documents.

            Personally, I think he would still need to have a metal in there, but perhaps in some cases it doesn’t necessarily have to be present in the form of a powder.

            I’m afraid that at this point the discussion might be verging into speculation territory.

          • Stephen

            Yup your right. We can only wait. And see what data comes up. It’s going to be interesting what ever comes up.

            For sure though what ever it is quite a complex but thought through and consistent machine. For me it must be doing something real. The question is just what.

          • Goodrice

            If such an endothermic reaction was going on, why would a heat exchanger outside the container for the steam be needed at all? Reportedly, water entered the JMP container as low pressure steam, exited from it as steam to the heat exchanger in the second floor and then returned back to it as liquid water.

            It doesn’t seem like what was occurring in the JMP container was an endothermic reaction.

          • Stephen

            Well I think there are s couple of possibilities if it does turn out it is endothermic:

            1. The heat exchanger in the mezzanine is there for contingencies in case of failures in the JMP plant. Or is used when the JMP plant is Off or working at reduced capacity.

            2. The JMP plant is not able to use the full 1MW of heat in its current configuration and so the mezzanine heat exchanger is required to take up the difference.

            For sure the whole setup should take care of contingencies and failures safely in case of need but i suppose providing the ECat could be switched down venting the steam could also be an option.

            On the otherhand it’s very difficult to think of sufficiently strong and persistent endothermic reaction that could take place with out generating and requiring huge amounts of materials. It seems to me only option if an endothermic process is taking place is for it to be something quite exotic. But who knows maybe there are thermo-electrochemical processes that I have not thought of…

            It’s true what you say though that since the heat exchanger is there and providing it is sufficiently vented that maybe the process need not be endothermic. Andrea Rossi did say at some point it was endothermic apparently but indeed I’m not sure if he mentioned it yet in his dispositions.

          • Goodrice

            Bass said the reaction was endothermic and that steam was converted to water in the serpentine pipes inside the JMP box, but that specific point contradicts with what Rossi said about the steam being cooled [to water] in the heat exchanger in the mezzanine. From the public documents it doesn’t seem that Rossi talked about endothermic reactions in his depositions, but I could have missed (or not remembering) something, or there might be more in the non-public parts.

            I think Bass knows more than he’s let on during his deposition but I also believe he’s often referred to what Rossi previously told him, without questioning whether it was true or not.

            My personal opinion is that something produced heat there, but not all the time. If this is the case it will imply legal problems for Rossi, even if LENR with a significant COP was produced.

          • Stephen

            This one describes a lot about it between pages 10 and 12.

            http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0194.08_Exhibit_8.pdf

            Although Andrea Rossi does not say its endothermic he says the mezzanine heat exchanger and bypass was installed because he didn’t know how much heat the plant would use.

            Apparently he also mentioned to Matts Lewan that it was endothermic according to this thread:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

            It’s also discussed at some length here:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/

            But I’m not sure if he says endothermic specially in his dispositions I’ve just read that he said the heat was used which is a bit more vague.

            I guess we will have to wait and see.

          • Obvious

            But Rossi found a Customer that required 1MW steam. They had an existing system that used that amount of energy, and can compare the cost of the new source of heat energy (the IH-Leonardo Plant that they are renting) to the old heat supply system. The only gauge that matters is the happiness of the Customer when he increases his profits.

          • Stephen

            Well I guess the court and jury will judge that if it’s relevant but I certainly could not judge just on the partial data we receive and not knowing what the balance is in the data I have not seen even if was my place to so.

            The fact that JMP is independent company from Leonardo makes sense to me due to IH contract with Leonardo and the valid concerns to keep the IP for the JMP business separate.

            In fact those technology considerations for separating IP in different companies makes more sense to me than having several layers of shell companies for finance independence reasons. But then I’m not working in finance.

            That said the whole story of the arrangement and what each group knew is very unclear in the small sections of dispositions we see. I’m sure it’s much clearer I the full texts for the court.

            I get the impression as well that the status of the companies both LC and IH and their various partners evolved a lot over the contract and especially I the last years. It very hard to see the timeline of all that and how it was communicate with the limit bits of data we see.

            To be honest in my opinion I get the impression that both Andrea Rossi and Tom Darden were very genuine with each other in the beginning and both had genuine hopes. But I suspect some subsequent events, evolution of associate status and perhaps unfortunately a few exploiting associates may have disturbed the trust. At least as far as the IP strategy was concerned and perhaps the technology itself.

            With lack of clear data. There are different ways to make opinions about what is going on. I have my own bias of course as we all do. Mine is clearly more positive about Andrea Rossi than yours. Which is OK.

            I think we would both agree its good to look at and try and understand the real technical data that becomes available with out preconceptions and without resorting to petty insults or hateful or slanderous comments about either party. At least that’s what I try to do… Maybe I’m not always successful.

          • psi2u2

            Nice summary.

      • Stephen

        On the other hand I suppose it could still be thermal lagging if the whole container is heated to consistent high but very steady temperature in some configurations. Perhaps the un lagged pipes are sufficient for this especially if they are much longer than we see in the pictures.

  • Stephen

    Why was the black box lagged?

    Was it to retain heat? If so why were the pipes inside lagged?

    Or was it some kind of sound proofing?

    Would cavitation etc from rapid endothermic cooling of the steam in the pipes as claimed produce sound?

    • Stephen

      Very very thick insulation?

      According to this picture the steam pipe enters th JMP container right up in the top left corner:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25462a52cde5e2e1903d9d3b95ea723d08458756d29017be2735931c9a58ff35.jpg

      But from the outside it seems to enter much lower and to the left.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a96d16528c61bf1a30fdb5168c7aab494ca8237e2ac1343aa4f43cfb073760f0.jpg

      In the above pictures the lagged pipe looks to be about 30cm diameter and looks to be about 50cm inside the outside surface. It looks to me we have very thick insulation in 2 layers on the container. With an obvious outer layer maybe 20 cm and a hidden inner layer of similar thickness

      The following picture shows the insulated back doors with a very thick layer on top of the container above those doors:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8605f5319e63fa33f7aa1736c6f031b3dfb558e0a04e3d59a55b8d0840199178.jpg

      This seems extremely thick insulation for thermal purposes. Could it make more sense as acoustic insulation?

      • Goodrice

        In the deposition he says that in the insulated tubes inside the JMP container he also has reactors containing Pt – Ni – Graphene. We also know that the there are “heating cables” inside and other stuff. From these photos it’s not clear how much of it is simply insulation.

        To be honest I don’t think he had endothermic reactions going on there, quite the opposite actually.

        • Stephen

          Just for clarity I was talking about the thick black insulation on the container it self rather than the pipes.

          But I agree the heating strips seem to imply he wanted to keep the contents in those pipes hot.

          I’m quite curious what ideas about the process you have in mind. I would bet from your past comments they are very good ones. But apparently Andrea Rossi did say the process was endothermic. So it will be interesting to see someday.

          Edit: My personal secret hope is for something remarkable. Maybe a Endothermic metal Hydride + ion bombardment heat pump process powered by LENR like processes that preserves thermodynamics laws and entropy considerations through nuclear rearrangement and materials processing. A kind of Endothermic LENR with useful by products.

          I appreciate that it’s unlikely though but If so all the potential applications and implications would be mind blowing. if something more mundane explains it all Though I will still be more than happy.

          • Goodrice

            Yes sorry, I was referring to the pipe in the first two photos. If you mean the insulation on the container I’m wondering how heavy and dense it is, it could have been for more than just heat.

            I think Rossi has been doing or trying to do LENR experiments inside the JMP container with Pt-Ni-C catalysts. Before he got involved with the E-Cat he found that Pt-Ni thermoelectric devices were good “catalyzers” for exhaust fumes of diesel engines. Here the C would come from the Graphene that he apparently made from graphite. Interesting coincidence.

            https://www.google.com/patents/US20050028858

            [0048] Also for what it concerns the thermoelectric materials there can be changes with respect to the couple platinum-tellurium.
            [0049] For example the couple platinum-nickel, further to generating electric power, showed an unexpected catalyzing effect on the exhaust of diesel combustion engines.
            [0050] Indeed, Pt—Ni modules according to the invention were tested on the exhaust of diesel engines and proved themselves efficacious as catalyzers for the depurating exhaust.

          • Stephen

            I just edited my comment a bit to make it clear I was talking about the container. There was one section where it was a bit ambiguous. Thanks.

            I think he also needed computer control of what ever process he had going on. In the dispositions I think someone mentioned he needed Fabiani or Bass help for this.

            Also Bass mentioned Andrea asking him to find very high voltage transformers for the work in JMP.

            It maybe be he wanted these things for his experiments but I wonder if I fact he was using these in devices he was using in the plant itself.

            Yup I think there is a lot in his past patents and especially their interrelationships some times I wonder if we studied them if we could see the evolution of his ideas from all the way back in the beginning with his waste to fuel reprocessing to the quarkx

          • Stephen

            I read somewhere that Carbon (graphite I think) is also known to enhance hydrogen desorption rates from metal Hydrides.

            But it seems from his dispositions he is replacing platinum with carbon… perhaps CNT or something similar could perform a similar function to the platinum?

            Or was he just using some properties of the platinum and carbon to process the Nickel?

          • Goodrice

            A lot of information is still missing and what is available could be incomplete as Rossi balances trying to not lie under oath with not revealing his secrets at the same time. For example in the 2017-03-01 deposition he was asked about Nickel in the JMP container, but the context behind that question does not seem to be in the publicly available documents.

            Personally, I think he would still need to have a metal in there, but perhaps in some cases it doesn’t necessarily have to be present in the form of a powder.

            I’m afraid that at this point the discussion might be verging into speculation territory.

          • Stephen

            Yup your right. We can only wait. And see what data comes up. It’s going to be interesting what ever comes up.

            For sure though what ever it is quite a complex but thought through and consistent machine. For me it must be doing something real. The question is just what.

          • Bruce__H

            The problem with endothermic/exothermic stories is that there isn’t enough bulk material to make any difference to 1 MW of heat. Any physical chemical reaction would be exothermic or endothermic per mole of reactant. And it sounds as though there was just never much in the way of reactants around.

            A phase change is hugely endothermic. But if you use 1 MW heat to melt just a couple of ice cubes then only a tiny tiny part of the heat disappears. You would have to melt tons of ice per day to make a dent in 1 MW and there is no evidnce of much of anyhting going in and out of the black box. So I don’t understand the relevance of discussions of endothermic reactions.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree. If there was an endothermic process, its influence on the overall energy balance was most likely negligible. Except if – as you say – they had processed very large amounts of material.

          • Stephen

            Only that it’s been reported in various places as being endothermic. Although I fully agree it would need to be something pretty exotic and new to account for the amount of thermal energy absorbed and it’s required persistence.

            If such a thing exists it would be almost as remarkable as LENR itself. A heat sink like that would have all kinds of real world applications quite apart from what ever product is being produced.

            So I’m intrigued of course aren’t you? If it’s something else like just radiating heat outside the system then we will find out eventually. If it’s something new then I will be thrilled to see it. Especially if it implies new knowledge.

          • GiveADogABone

            Methane and Fischer-Tropsch perhaps?

          • Stephen

            As in your comments here?

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/

            Great comments by the way…

            Would it still work with what we now know about the JMP plant and heat exchangers?

          • GiveADogABone

            Yes and yes.

          • Bruce__H

            How much product would have to be made per day in order to account for, let’s say, half of the 1 MW production of heat? How much reactant?

            Bass described the loading of the JMP black box serpentine pipes with metal tubes full of platinum or industrial diamonds. Wan’t done very often apparently. No one, including Rossi, has described anything else. How is it that this endothermic reaction topic still around?

          • Bruce__H

            A tiny amount of material that endothermically absorbs 1 MW for a sustained amount of time?

            Incredible!

          • Stephen

            Yup but one 3 kW kettle heating element in each half full 480 liter of so BF or Tiger making 25 mugs of tea a minute and pumping it around that long circuit of DN 100 and/or DN150 and DN80 pipe work. And at the same time fooling the thermometers and flow meter and even fooling the flow meter consistently with different flow rates when only making 18 or 12 cups of tea a minute doesn’t seem likely to me either. So we are stuck between 2 incredible scenarios.

          • Ged

            Hello heat storage salts. Do you want 78 kJ/mol endothermic at 32 C with a cost of just 1 cent/kg? Known in 1979? Well, you are in luck 🙂 https://engineering.ucsb.edu/~yuen/references/ref-1.pdf

            Meanwhile, ice is 6.01 kJ/mol endothermic to melt. Just for comparison. Oh, and there are even greater endothermic heat storage salt out there than that. Oh, and the density is double that of water for the above salt, so you can use twice as much in the same space. Pretty cool!

            Still wasn’t what happened there or there would have been visible transport activity, but the future of exotic heat storage materials you long for is already here, and has been for 40+ years.

          • Bruce__H

            You know what … I think I had heard of these salts. Something about tapping geothermal heat using a convective flow of salts if that makes any sense. I think a a pilot facility near the Dead Sea was pointed out to me in the mid 1990’s. Interesting!

          • Ged

            There is some crazy salt tech out there. Some well over 100 kJ/mol. Sometimes I wonder why they aren’t used so much, like why isn’t molten salt reactors used when we’ve had the tech for decades and the pilots were superior to standard plants… Maybe they are just too cheap to make money off of compared to all the engineering R&D needed to retool/redesign for their use. Geothermal would be a great application too.

          • Ged

            Don’t forget that heat storage salts are extremely endothermic, Much more than melting ice, per mole :). We had this discussion a long time ago, and it is bemusing how everyone harps on ice and forgets a far more important, Far more endothermic, heat storage material.

            None the less, while using salts makes it physically doable to use up all 1 MW in that space, it still requires a lot of material cycling so that everyone would see the drums going in and out of the place. So, it definitely didn’t happen.

          • Goodrice

            If such an endothermic reaction was going on, why would a heat exchanger outside the container for the steam be needed at all? Reportedly, water entered the JMP container as low pressure steam, exited from it as steam to the heat exchanger in the second floor and then returned back to it as liquid water.

            It doesn’t seem like what was occurring in the JMP container was an endothermic reaction.

          • Stephen

            Well I think there are s couple of possibilities if it does turn out it is endothermic:

            1. The heat exchanger in the mezzanine is there for contingencies in case of failures in the JMP plant. Or is used when the JMP plant is Off or working at reduced capacity.

            2. The JMP plant is not able to use the full 1MW of heat in its current configuration and so the mezzanine heat exchanger is required to take up the difference.

            Andrea Rossi did talk in his dispositions about using “butterfly valves” and a “Bypass” to regulate and redirect the steam flow from the plant to the Mezzanine when necessary. And mentioned he designed it that way as he wasn’t sure what the power requirements of the plant would be.

            I think you can find it here between pages 10 and 12 of the exhibit 8:

            http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0194.08_Exhibit_8.pdf

            For sure the whole setup should take care of contingencies and failures safely in case of need but i suppose providing the ECat could be switched down venting the steam could also be an option.

            On the otherhand it’s very difficult to think of sufficiently strong and persistent endothermic reaction that could take place with out generating and requiring huge amounts of materials. It seems to me only option if an endothermic process is taking place is for it to be something quite exotic. But who knows maybe there are thermo-electrochemical processes that I have not thought of…

            It’s true what you say though that since the heat exchanger is there and providing it is sufficiently vented that maybe the process need not be endothermic. Andrea Rossi did say at some point it was endothermic apparently but indeed I’m not sure if he mentioned it yet in his dispositions.

          • Goodrice

            Bass said the reaction was endothermic and that steam was converted to water in the serpentine pipes inside the JMP box, but that specific point contradicts with what Rossi said about the steam being cooled [to water] in the heat exchanger in the mezzanine. From the public documents it doesn’t seem that Rossi talked about endothermic reactions in his depositions, but I could have missed (or not remembering) something, or there might be more in the non-public parts.

            I think Bass knows more than he’s let on during his deposition but I also believe he’s often referred to what Rossi previously told him, without questioning whether it was true or not.

            My personal opinion is that something produced heat there, but not all the time. If this is the case it will imply legal problems for Rossi, even if LENR with a significant COP was produced.

          • Stephen

            This one describes a lot about it between pages 10 and 12.

            http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0194.08_Exhibit_8.pdf

            Although Andrea Rossi does not say its endothermic he says the mezzanine heat exchanger and bypass was installed because he didn’t know how much heat the plant would use.

            Apparently he also mentioned to Matts Lewan that it was endothermic according to this thread:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/16/mat-lewan-meets-rossi-in-sweden-rossi-bidding-on-factory-for-quarkx-production/

            It’s also discussed at some length here:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/

            But I’m not sure if he says endothermic specifically in his dispositions I’ve just read that he said the heat was used which is a bit more vague.

            I guess we will have to wait and see.

          • Obvious

            But Rossi found a Customer that required 1MW steam. They had an existing system that used that amount of energy, and can compare the cost of the new source of heat energy (the IH-Leonardo Plant that they are renting) to the old heat supply system. The only gauge that matters is the happiness of the Customer when he increases his profits.

          • Stephen

            Well I guess the court and jury will judge that if it’s relevant or even if what Andrea Rossi said was wrong or actually right but I certainly could not judge just on the partial data we receive and not knowing what the balance is in the data I have not seen even if was my place to so.

            The fact that JMP is independent company from Leonardo makes sense to me due to IH contract with Leonardo and the valid concerns to keep the IP for the JMP business separate.

            In fact those technology considerations for separating IP in different companies makes more sense to me than having several layers of shell companies for finance independence reasons. But then I’m not working in finance.

            The JMP technology looks somehow mature too so I imagine it could well have been used before in some form.

            That said the whole story of the arrangement and what each group knew is very unclear in the small sections of dispositions we see. I’m sure it’s much clearer I the full texts for the court.

            I get the impression as well that the status of the companies both LC and IH and their various partners evolved a lot over the contract and especially I the last years. It very hard to see the timeline of all that and how it was communicate with the limit bits of data we see.

            To be honest in my opinion I get the impression that both Andrea Rossi and Tom Darden were very genuine with each other in the beginning and both had genuine hopes. But I suspect some subsequent events, evolution of associate status and perhaps unfortunately a few exploiting associates may have disturbed the trust. At least as far as the IP strategy was concerned and perhaps the technology itself.

            With lack of clear data. There are different ways to make opinions about what is going on. I have my own bias of course as we all do. Mine is clearly more positive about Andrea Rossi than yours. Which is OK.

            I think we would both agree its good to look at and try and understand the real technical data that becomes available with out having to be always right and with out preconceptions and without resorting to petty insults or hateful or slanderous comments about either party. At least that’s what I try to do… Maybe I’m not always successful.

          • psi2u2

            Nice summary.

      • Stephen

        On the other hand I suppose it could still be thermal lagging if the whole container is heated to consistent high but very steady temperature in some configurations. Perhaps the un lagged pipes are sufficient for this especially if they are much longer than we see in the pictures.

  • GiveADogABone

    Rankine cycle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a16a8ec96119ed0f491b08f2676824bed0e708754d46034b11dd1af16ed1a0f.png
    Some requests have been made for an explanation of what is happening inside the E-cat condensate/steam circuit. The circulating water/steam performs a Rankine cycle. It has four components :-
    1-2: condensate return pumped into the boiler
    2-3: condensate economized, evaporated and superheated in a once-through boiler
    3-4: steam is expanded and its pressure drops. You can use a turbine in the Wkipedia diagram but the E-cat uses friction in a narrow steam pipe (sound familiar?)
    4-1: condensation to water, and the cycle repeats
    If the E-cat produced a half-decent steam pressure, you could insert an engine that did real work, instead of just throttling the steam in a narrow pipe. At 200psi, you could have a railway locomotive.

  • GiveADogABone

    Rankine cycle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a16a8ec96119ed0f491b08f2676824bed0e708754d46034b11dd1af16ed1a0f.png
    Some requests have been made for an explanation of what is happening inside the E-cat condensate/steam circuit. The circulating water/steam performs a Rankine cycle. It has four components :-
    1-2: condensate return pumped into the boiler
    2-3: condensate economized, evaporated and superheated in a once-through boiler
    3-4: steam is expanded and its pressure drops. You can use a turbine as in the Wikipedia diagram but the E-cat uses friction in a narrow steam pipe (sound familiar?)
    4-1: condensation to water, and the cycle repeats
    If the E-cat produced a half-decent steam pressure, you could insert an engine that did real work, instead of just throttling the steam in a narrow pipe. At 200psi, you could have a railway locomotive.

    • Bruce__H

      The pump is not actually needed here is it? Could you not just have a gravity feed back into the boiler?

      • GiveADogABone

        If you place the condenser high enough, so there is a high column of water underneath , the column of water can pump the boiler, provided the boiler outlet pressure is low enough. No real generating plant would do it but it would work on the E-cat.

        • Bruce__H

          Thanks. That’s what I thought!

          You could, therefore, have 2 places in the Rankine circuit that could be at 0 barg. One would be just after leaving the boiler and the other would be somewhere just before the boiler. The point just before the boiler would require what I have now learned to call a steam trap. Condensate could then pour out of the steam trap into a tank (at 0 barg).

          Now we see why Smith goes on and on about steam traps in his supplemental report. The presence of two 0-barg points requires a steam trap. He is arguing that he doesn’t see one in the photos of the serpentine affair inside the JMP black box and so he doesn’t see how the system could work. The whole thing could have worked if the upstairs heat exchanger was present and equipped with a steam trap. But then the evidence that there ever was an upstairs heat exchanger is dubious.

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘The point just before the boiler would require what I have now learned to call a steam trap.’
            Sounds wrong to me. The lines before the boiler contain condensate and not steam. You will not find a steam trap on a condensate line. A steam trap drains moisture from the bottom of a steam pipe that contains saturated steam. The drainage is piped away to somewhere. The drainage will not flow if the drainage receiver is at higher pressure than the steam pipe.

            Ah!! The penny has dropped. On equipment that takes heat out of saturated steam and produces condensate as a result, a steam trap is what you can use to stop steam going down the drains. That is what Smith’s drawing (235-10 p22 of the pdf) of a conventional boiler shows. A steam trap is then part of the primary circuit flow.

            Mr Smith opines on p22 of 235-10 that ‘The steam trap … is an absolutely essential piece of equipment for a heat exchanger’. There is no steam trap in the Rankine Cycle drawing (as shown above) for good reason; it does not exist. At which point Mr Smith’s thesis collapses.

            There is no steam trap in the primary circuit flow of the E-cat and Mr Smith is totally deluded.

          • GiveADogABone
          • Bruce__H

            The whole think is a steam trap. In fact it looks just like the arrangement that is 3 along from the main boiler on page 21 of Smith’s supplement. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/18dad333003a2ca2beba15e2aa3fb089e509183489d507e7f9e222d5b3fb19f1.jpg
            Where is the corresponding arrangement inside the JMP black box?

          • GiveADogABone

            Where is the corresponding arrangement inside the JMP black box?
            Nowhere.

            A question :
            Mr Smith opines on p22 of 235-10 that ‘The steam trap … is an absolutely essential piece of equipment for a heat exchanger’.
            Why does Mr Smith think a steam trap is essential when he is adamant that the system runs completely on water?

          • Bruce__H

            He is saying it is essential if the system produces steam.

            If it is just hot water circulated by a pump, with not temperature differential around the system, then there is no problem.

          • GiveADogABone

            The ‘if’ is missing in Smith’s testimony. Perhaps he will correct that defect in court?

          • Bruce__H