Arguments have been raised on E-Cat World about the claim in the opening statement of Pace in Rossi v. Darden about the pump capacity.
What facts do we have?
As was pointed out by the judge to the jury in the case, lawyer statements and questions are not evidence. It is not required that a party make any opening statement. The case itself has already been stated to them by the Judge.
However, an opening statement is an opportunity to establish a possible framing of the evidence in the minds of the jury. Having some framework to hang evidence on will help greatly with comprehension and retention of what will be presented in the next phase of the trial. Pace’s theme could be summarized in a few words, “fake” interspersed with nouns like “customer,” etc. I’d better get straight to the opening. Both sides changed their opening statements substantially between their presentation in the mistrial and in the second attempt.
Pace, Day 3, the second go-through, begins with:
This is a case about written promises, and it’s about blatant lies. It’s about fake-testing results. It’s about fake invoices. It’s about a fake customer. It’s about high hopes that my clients had for technology and how those hopes
were destroyed when it turned out in the real world the technology didn’t work.
He then starts into examples. One of them is our topic today, the pumps.
[…] in order for these magic boxes to work, the water has to get into them, so you have to have little pumps. You have to have pumps to bring the water into them. The grand total of the pumps that were working — these are — this is a picture of six of them. There was three sets more like this, so it’s 24 of these pumps. These 24 pumps together, working 24 hours a day, working as hard as they possibly can at their maximum can move about half a swimming pool a day, so less than 5,000 gallons. So if you’re claiming to us that you’re turning 9,000 gallons of water into steam, but it’s impossible for you to get 9,000 gallons of water into your magic boxes, that can’t be true, that can’t be credible, and that doesn’t earn you $89 million.
On E-Cat World, Engineer48 has asserted that this was Wrong, that the pumps can pump more than that. At this point, starting out, I don’t know the truth on this. I’m looking into it. From that argument, then, it is claimed that Pace decided that, having made such a Terrible Blunder, he couldn’t win and therefore advised Darden to settle (and Planet Rossi tends to think that Rossi got some big cash settlement.) However, if this was an error, that’s all. There errors in both Opening Statements. This one, at least, is based on expert testimony (which can also be wrong, and IH could simply decide to not pursue it in the evidentiary phase, they had many other situations to present with very strong evidence, such as “fake customer” and “fake invoices” (even if they were not, technically, invoices, but invoice requests, reports of power from JMP via Johnson, purportedly independent measurements of energy delivered.)
As the closeup [of the pump label] show[s], each pump has a maximum capacity of 32 liters per hour. Dosierleistung is translated as dosing rate, or maximum flow. The maximum flow rate for all 24 feed pumps is:
l/h = 24 x 32 l/h = 768 liters per hour
Since a liter of water nominally weighs a kilogram, the mass output is:
kg/h = 768 l/h x 1 kg/l = 768 kg/h
A kilogram of water coming into a boiler equals a kilogram of steam leaving a boiler. A kg of water is a kg of steam. The BF’s cannot put out more steam than incoming water – no matter what the reactors may
or may not have been doing. Therefore, the maximum steam output of all four BF units combined is 768 kilograms per hour. […]
That is 18,423 kilograms per day. Roughly half of the reported flow.
The Penon report stated flow with astonishing uniformity as 36,000 kg/day. It does talk about this as a rounded-off figure. What this actually means, however, is that the actual flow meter readings were not entered into the Penon report spreadsheet, but an approximate number was entered. The flow meter did read in multiples of 1000 kg/hr; it was not a good flow meter for the job, a point that has been made by many, it was too insensitive. (It was operating below rated flow. It does have means of measuring with higher resolution, but those dials were blocked by how the meter was actually used.) If actual reading were entered, it might normally be “36,” but would vary, depending on the exact actual rate. I.e., if the actual rate were higher than 36, some days it would read 37. Etc.
(Looking today, I see some variation in the number in the Penon report, so the above could be misleading, I may revisit this.)
Engineer 48 claims this is error, that the meter can pump more than that “rated flow.” But these are metering pumps. They are designed to pump a fixed volume (not mass, by the way, and the label spec is in liters/hr.) This is the technical specification page for model 0232.
That water flow was based on metering pumps would tend to explain a fixed overall flow rate. But the idea of 24 pumps was based on all 4 BF reactor units operating. They weren’t. Reactors were shut down when heating elements failed, in particular. Leakage may also have been a cause. One of the claims in explaining continued Plant performance during power outages was that the heating continued by “self-sustain,” and that the heating caused flow (which it could), but … the system was leaky, causing problems with this. The whole setup was Mickey-Mouse.
What was the maximum flow with these pumps? Here is the full manual for the Gamma-L pump, model 0232.
On ECW, GiveADogABone:
An IH lawyer did repeat a falsehood from Smith within minutes of the trial starting. He repeated a Smith falsehood in his opening remarks to the jury. The falsehood was :-
‘ The amount of water that Rossi claimed the E-Cat machines were turning into steam each day — about 9,000 gallons — was impossible, because at most, the pumps available there could pump only 5,000 gallons of water per day [1:]’
Rossi’s legal team would have picked up the falsehood as it was said. The 48 minute long court drama the following day was the result. The result: trial collapse. Which side had the bargaining power in the resulting settlement?
As to engineering falsehood, that’s what we are looking it. It is not an established thing. Nor has contradiction been established. I will get to that. But as to the claim that this resulted in the “drama” the next day, that’s total bullocks. The mistrial was due to jurors bailing out, they lost too many, so they needed to start over.
2: The falsehood: Max output is 32 liters per hour – Smith quote from 248-6: page 31
3: The reason: “When metering at atmospheric pressure the pump can achieve several times the stated feed rate.”
A page is shown from “An Overview of Solenoid-Driven Pumps.” There are users who have a habit of using images to present what would more properly be text. It becomes difficult to quote, and a URL was not given to allow determining context. I could not find that page on the Prominent site. However, why would a metering pump read above the “stated feed rate”? What is the “stated feed rate”? That is an odd usage if they meant the “stated maximum feed.” I conclude that this means the reading on the face of the pump, particularly at low feed rates. And why does the pump do that? Isn’t this defeating the purpose of a metering pump?
This is describing a failure mode. I did not find a clear explanation of this, reviewing the manual. However, there is a 2 bar specification on the pump label. That would be adequate back pressure to prevent overflow, i.e., water leaking through the pump from positive pressure, the output being at lower pressure than the input. Then the question would be how much flow would occur under this condition. My sense is, not much. The pressure would be low causing this leakage. “Several times the stated feed rate” would not be at the maximum rate, at that rate it might make little difference. To really know what is going on here, one would need to make measurements or find clear manufacturer specifications.
I notice that the maximum long-term temperature rating of the pump is 50 C max. It is possible that the return water exceeded this temperature, which could cause pump problems.
To me, this is a shallow indication of some possible error or inaccuracy, not the necessarily the gross error claimed (so horrendous, allegedly, as to totally kill their case, when most of the IH case isn’t about engineering at all.)
There are other problems, once when considers how a reactor would be set up. There are two inputs that regulate reactor temperature and heat output: the input power and the water flow rate (which regulates cooling rate and thus temperature. The reactor itself is understood to be at much higher than boiling, so there is an internal heat exchanger that then conducts heat to the cooling water. In “self-sustain mode” there is no control from input power, the only control would be from cooling. It appears that most pumps for operating BFs were set at maximum flow. Yet the number of BFs varied in the Test, declining with time as they failed. Maintaining the same overall flow would be quite difficult.
As well, the claim is that the output steam is superheated. The measured steam temperature is reasonably constant. That indicates saturated steam, not superheated steam, which would be very difficult to control so precisely. Saturated steam regulates its own temperature, depending on pressure. While the recorded temperature would seem to be above boiling at the recorded pressure of 1.0 barg (Penon’s error of “bar” is grating, but that’s a minor point), this could happen from one or both of two different causes: pressure meter failure due to operating out of temperature specifications, as that gauge apparently was, so the pressure was higher than stated, or the temperature gauge was installed such that it was heated by an additional heat source — which could be the reactor body. From what I’ve seen and recall, I’d go for pressure meter failure.
And then there could be a mixture of superheated steam and water. That seems to fly against common sense, but … a temperature differential in the pipe is possible. There could be superheated steam above running water, because the heat transfer between steam and liquid water is poor. If the “liquid water” is fine droplets, they would quickly flash-boil, cooling the steam, but not enough to condense it if the superheating is major. But if they are liquid, the surface area available for heat transfer would be low compared to volume. Running water in that steam pipe is possible, and that is why the removal of steam traps is considered important.
I will watch for commentary on this issue and intend to correct errors here or incorporate additional arguments.
Well, it’s not really very important; however, there are those claiming that the Smith claim about the pumps was So Stupid that this is why IH agreed to settle with Rossi, presumably dumping a large volume of cash on him to quiet him.
I’ve written a fair amount on this issue on E-Cat World, but this is the basic point I have in mind. I do not have certainty that what Smith claimed is fully valid. My reading of Smith, though, is that he is a competent and engaging engineer and will be seen as that by a jury, it would take strong proof in another direction to reverse that. This does not mean that I think all of Smith’s arguments were sound, and anyone can make mistakes. Nevertheless, Smith is smart and engaging, with a sense of humor, which can make a big difference with a jury.
The Pace Opening Statement was designed to create a context for the jury, a way to organize all the evidence they were going to see. The Pace theme of “fake” was easy to understand and remember, and I know that in some cases, evidence of some kind of deception was overwhelming, I’m thinking specifically of the “fake customer” allegations. Basically, to my friends on Planet Rossi, I say, “Get over it. Your man screwed up.” People screw up. Even geniuses screw up. I screw up. Saints screw up. (You think saints are perfect? No wonder you have trouble following the path they have laid out! Sainthood starts with being human, this is an ancient understanding.)
The flow meter claims were very simple to explain. Pace did it with “swimming pools.” The math was simple, basically 1500 > 756. However, if Pace, following Smith, was wrong, this was only a very small part of the IH theme, just an easy one to present when you have a few minutes.
The “evidence” being presented on E-Cat World about this is a shaky interpretation of a line in an “overview” document produced by Prominent, the pump maker. This is far from expert testimony, and would not be admissible evidence.
I will be looking at the case documents, but I don’t think that this argument, which was late — it was in the addendum to the Smith Expert Report, issued after he visited the Plant — is covered by response.
What would Wong, the Rossi expert say? Let’s put it this way: I don’t think he would rely on that offhand comment from Prominent and the way it was parsed on ECW, but would consider how these pumps operate and would look at the data available, and would either say that Smith was more or less right on this point, or that the matter could not be decided without actually testing the pumps under Plant operating conditions. And it was probably too late to do all that.
So the jury would very possibly be looking at what we can look at, and how would a jury decide?
Bottom line, to support the IH narrative, they only had to decide that something is fishy about the test results. This pump claim is not part of the IH “fraudulent inducement” claim, that’s much more about the “fake customer,” about which there is a pile of direct evidence already admitted.
Some people want to know “who won?”
For me, that’s simple to decide. We won.