This LENR Forum development gives me hope for humanity. Arguments have been raging about the alleged flow limitation raised by Pace in his opening arguments on Day 3 of the trial, Rossi v. Darden.
This was based on the Smith Supplemental Report.
Planet Rossi has been loudly claiming that this was the height of stupidity, so bad that when Lukacs pointed it out to Pace and Bell, IH attorneys, before the evidentiary phase of the trial was to begin on Day 4, realized that their entire case was utterly hopeless and laid down and played dead.
Then Rossi went at it hammer and tongs in his Mats Lewan interview. Utter ridiculous stupidity!
There is some discussion of this issue on Pumped Up or Stupid Mistake.
Those folks on LENR forum decided to actually obtain one of these pumps and actually measure the flow rate. What? And give up all the fun of arguing endlessly and firmly proclaiming that the “other side” is not just wrong, but insanely-stupid-wrong and someone-must-be-paying-them?
Apparently, yes. Giving that up, we can hope. So I’m applauding, and commenting on this test idea and implications.
First, who is testing? The principal investigator is Alan Fletcher, who has a substantial history of support for LENR and Rossi.
Apparently a real name, real person. He is being supported by IH Fanboy, a well-known very strong supporter of Rossi, who nevertheless accepted that Rossi had … screwed up … business-wise, and was probably going to lose in the lawsuit as a result. Juries don’t like lies (or what looks like lies).
So, is this a biased test? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that the results will be useless. Most supporters of Andrea Rossi (all?) are sincere, whether or not they are deluded. I fully expect that Fletcher will honestly report what he finds.
This is an essentially low-cost piece of work. The big cost is the pump, obtained on E-Bay. This was probably the pump. Fletcher elected to buy the computer-controlled pump for $324.99 plus $15.55 shipping. He said there was a non-computer controlled version (manual setting) for $50.
(My guess is that the manual model would have been adequate for this task; the possibility it would be materially different in pumping rate vs pressure is small.)
Fletcher intends to resell the pump when done, which is utterly sensible. My suggestion would be to offer to anyone who wants to confirm the work, for cost. Others could buy a cheaper pump, and this is the point, in fact: this work should be easy to confirm. Easier than arguing endlessly.
This doesn’t require fund-raising, generally, Fletcher is putting the pump on a credit card and will have time to pay it off, IHFB has offered to cover any expenses.
Some buzz around this:
WCG – I’ll leave you with something to ponder. A specific metering pump was designed to deliver strokes per minute with a specific diaphragm capacity and as a result, it is impossible a particular pump to go much above capacity, pressure independent.
Pace nailed it and there is an affidavit available to that effect in case anyone wants to get back in front of a judge but I digress.
Dewey makes statements that may not be immediately verifiable. However, the basic argument here appears sound. That IH just might have obtained an affidavit (from the manufacturer) before committing to this piece of theater in court is plausible. After all, Jones Day, etc.
Dewey, in my experience, when reporting fact, has been reliable. And opinion is not fact, I’m careful to distinguish them (in myself and others).
If it matters — it may not — we might be able to obtain that affidavit. The Settlement Agreement, as I read it, allows IH to disclose nearly everything if they choose to do so. I’ll be following up on this.
Anyone want to purchase one of those pumps and give it a whirl? Would be good to know who is lying.
Well, this might merely show who is completely right, more-or-less right, mistaken, or cloud-cuckoo silly. I’m not sure this will establish “lying.” That Smith (and Pace) were “lying” is extraordinarily unlikely, but that some mistake could have been made is possible … even though still unlikely, especially if they got that affidavit and it establishes the point.
Rossi, as well, is so isolated and distanced from reality that “lying” is almost meaningless. What this could do, perhaps, is show that he can be utterly and completely and contemptuously certain, and be wrong. This still won’t prove that the flow was not as claimed, because “recirculator.”
There are layers to the nonsense. However, at least this could resolve one point, which is progress. Little by little, we go far.
[IHFB] – true to form – an affidavit from the manufacturer doesn’t count in your world but no surprises there.
Aw, Dewey, didya have to say that? IHFB doesn’t have an affidavit, he just has a claim from you, and, to him, you are something like the Enemy of All Good and Beauty in the World. If we want to turn that around (do we?), how about …. tais toi, STFU.
If you can’t say anything useful, don’t say anything at all, and all that great kindergarten stuff. IHFB’s idea was excellent, all the more so because, if what you are saying about the affidavit is true (I trust it is), he is going to help us learn something that may help others to learn and is willing to risk some level of embarrassment. And good for him!
I would not be able to do this as effectively as him Fletcher. The loony contingent on Planet Rossi would be screaming that I’ve been paid, I’m biased, or a Muslim fundamentalist cryto-salafi-jihadist, blah, blah. Are we having fun yet?
Were the Doral pumps calibrated? One of the possible things for Alan to investigate is whether or not pump capacity could be increased by tweaking calibration. If so, how much? But Rossi’s claim in the Lewan interview is about the pumps, generically, so familiar is he with them, in his mind. Calibration would be a small detail, basically irrelevant.
What Fletcher will do, I assume, in the basic testing, is measure actual flow based on two variables: back-pressure and setting, perhaps with setting cranked all the way up to maximum. How he will measure pressure is another issue. 0.2 bar, the Rossi claim, is 2.04 meters of water. This is back pressure, against which the pump works.
The setup could be a little tricky. I think of pumping from a toilet tank, with height maintained by a float valve, as is normal, to a high reservoir over a bathtub that overflows into a container I could weigh. The idea is to have constant pressure determined by the head, the height between the water level in the source reservoir and that in the overflowing reservoir. Get it all set up and running, empty the measuring container, and time how long it takes to fill. There should be no significant air bubbles in the system. Maybe better to run shorter than fill time and weigh, leave enough room to avoid spilling water.
I love it. This is basic science, discovering what actually happens, as distinct from what we think, expect, want to happen, or read in books and specification manuals or even affidavits from manufacturers, though…. Dewey …. I’d trust that affidavit, but trust and verify.
Still, I’d love to see the affidavit!
Many posts were added to the LF thread. First of all, this test will be checking the Rossi claims to Mats Lewan, and similar claims. I recommend keeping it there. It is not going to prove that there was inadequate flow for the GPT claims, because recirculation pump.
Someone suggests adding a recirculation pump, as if that is a defined thing. Useless.
The outline I give above requires practically no plumbing or equipment. The source reservoir is a toilet tank, and these are designed to maintain constant level. The pump itself can be at any level, place it where it is convenient, because the relevant value is back-pressure, and in a hydraulic system with water, pressure will communicate through the system; what is needed is that the backpressure, the pressure against which the pump is working, is 0.2 bar, or about two meters of water, and even if the line from the source tank goes down from the source, as long as the lines are full of water and the highest point in the system is two meters above the source level, the back-pressure will be the same. As long as you don’t go so low that water can’t keep the lines full (what, isn’t that about 10 meters at 1 bar?)
The receiving tank could be hung from the ceiling, which would make it easy to adjust the height.
Then, at the top end, a plastic line from the pump can be held under the water level in the top tank, which could be almost any container. Arrange it so that the water then overflows into a container where it can be weighed (or measured as to volume, but weight is likely to be more precise). If the receiving tank is above a bathtub, this makes it all easy, and bathtubs are often in bathrooms where there are toilets. It is not necessary that this all be in the same room, though, and those lines could go some distance. However, they should be large enough that flow doesn’t create its own back-pressure. Generous size.
Even simpler would be running at atmospheric pressure. The pump, at the source tank level, runs directly into the receiving tank, very simple. No backpressure from outlet restriction. This would still test the basic premise of Smith/Pace and the Rossi claims.
Rossi weighs in on JONP:
86Lorenzo July 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi:
I read in the interview of Mats Lewan
that the water pumps had a capacity superior to the amount measured by the flowmeter of the ERV: is it because the pumps were redundant and regulated to give you the necessary amount of water?
Andrea Rossi July 20, 2017 at 2:33 PM
There is a problem because not all reactors were operating, so presumably not all pumps were operating (or the system would flood through an inactive reactor). However, setting that aside, and conceptually, the reported constant flow rate could simply be a result of metering pump settings, it they would pump this much and if metering were reliable at the low pressure (probably not!)
Rossi is not here relying on any recirculating pump or device. He’s underlining his commitment to the argument in the Lewan interview.
Not that he actually cares.
(an excellent post covering the pump issue, I recommend it.)
We will know more factual data soon, I assume. However, this point is already thoroughly visible: Smith’s statement was not fully specified, not nailed down, but reasonable. This hinges (and Rossi makes it hinge, as does IHFB) on the usage of the words “maximum” and “minimum.” Like all words, these have meanings that shift with context.
A “fanatic” is someone who is firmly attached to an idea. We all have some level of attachment to our own ideas. Fanatics can be immovable. To them, to be wrong is unthinkable, and implications that they might be wrong are an assault on their identity. Further, because they often themselves have ideas about good and evil, and project evil onto those who disagree with them, they imagine the same in others, so Murray shows, IHFB claims, a “pattern of misdirection.” Yet that’s all IHFB’s judgement. The pattern is in his mind (which is generally true of patterns, by the way).
Rossi points to a usage of “minimum” in the pump user manual, as if this proves that “maximum” is directly and stupidly and totally wrong, end of question. Quite simply, he doesn’t look at the other side, and he just about never looks at the other side. The same value is called “maximum” in a pump brochure. The actual word used on the label means “dosing capacity,” and capacity implies a kind of maximum, but it also can be described as minimum. What is the capacity of a 1 liter graduated cylinder? Duh! However, can you put more than a liter into it? Sure, you can. A little more.
Paradigmnoia [Sigmoidal], however, points out that if the dosing pumps are used flat-out, one has no control of cooling. This is bizarre.
My point is not that the flow reported was impossible, though it is looking like this may be the case. My point is that preposterous arguments are used to counter ordinary and rather obvious critique.
My point is also that language is fluid and that when we draw conclusions from what others write, we need to take special care to quote accurately. To us, what seems like the same thing, because of how we interpret it, fitting it into our world view, can actually be, if we have the actual words, quite different. IHFB has given us a splendid example that he has repeated over and over. Its latest incarnation:
IH supporter: “Woodford didn’t make the investment because of Rossi. It was because of the other LENR players in their portfolio.”
Woodford: “Rossi’s e-Cat was core to our investment.”
The first aspect of this is the straw man IHFB sets up. He puts this in quotes, but it’s not attributed and the quotes may simply be rhetorical. However, the understanding shown in the claim is primitive. It appears that IH did not have other players in their portfolio when Woodford invested. The Woodford investment was used to engage with others. The idea of causation is also primitive. The Rossi investment was a factor, I’ve explained this many times, because it provided a hedge, it made it safe to invest in LENR, because in the (by then unlikely) event that Rossi hits the market, they had a consolation prize, perhaps billions in profits.
But then the quotation from Woodford. It’s only partly attributed, because “Woodford” did not write anything like that. This is what Paul Lamacraft wrote, when informed of the IH press release (before the lawsuit was filed, the one where Rossi’s response was to claim that everything was fine with IH, while he was planning to sue them. Have I ever mentioned that Rossi lies?)
This is clearly very disappointing, given that Rossi’s technology was a core element of the original investment.
Obviously, IHFB read this as meaning what he then claims they said. Key word here: “original.” What was “the original investment”? It wasn’t by Woodford, and Woodford never invested in Rossi technology, per se. IH was sold to IHHI, the entire LLC, and Woodford invested in IHHI, which was protected from Rossi claims, but did own the Licence, through IPH, entirely owned by IH. IHHI then explored other LENR technologies.
No, “the original investment” refers to about $20 million that IH invested in attempting to confirm Rossi’s work. Had Lamacraft been writing about Woodford’s own investment, Lamacraft would have much more simply written: “our investment.”
I have point this out a number of times, but I don’t recall if anyone has confronted IHFB on LENR-forum over it. If it has been confronted, then IHFB’s error strays toward lying. Elsewhere IHFB gets into a tiff with THH over “agenda.” IHFB acknowledges an agenda, and it is to ensure that the world does not miss the opportunity of LENR. Great. However, THH is making the point that if this leads to deception, the ends do not justify the means. Deception confuses everyone, and the world needs clarity on LENR. Clarity is the “side” THH is on. We may disagree on this or that, but … we can then correct each other’s errors, with patience and study.
IHFB clearly is a fanatic, though he has, to his credit, acknowledged that Rossi was deceptive. That’s a start. The problem is, once someone is known to be deceptive, nothing they show can be trusted, unless thoroughly and independently verified.
So that IHFB doesn’t continue the deceptive quotation, someone, please tell him on LENR-forum. Perhaps cite this Update. — or the whole post.
Report on pump on JONP:
I tested the Prominent pump of the photo in the report of Smith and discovered that you are right: if you pump water through a pipe 20 meters high it has a flow rate of about 32.5 liters per hour, but when I cut the column to 1 meter it pumped 68 liters per hour !
You were right. Also in the data sheet available on the internet, 32 l/h is reported as the minimum flow rate at 2 bars.
July 20, 2017 at 9:48 PM
Vagueness rules on Planet Rossi. It is quite rare to see links to sources for claims like this on his blog. Rossi called the source document for Smith claims the “report of Smith,” and then people find the Expert Report of Smith and it isn’t there. This was, in fact, the SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF RICK A. SMITH, P.E. and I’ve added a pdf page link so you don’t have to read the whole thing just to look at this one point.
Then, there is reference to a “data sheet.” That usually would refer to a summary sheet. This would be it.
It doesn’t say “minimum flow rate.” It refers to “capacity,” which generally would refer to an approximate maximum value. However, there is a manual. I link to page 64. This does say “minimum pump capacity,” as claimed. But what does that mean?
There is another document from Prominent, a data sheet. This actually says (my emphasis):
The gamma/L is a diaphragm-type, solenoid-driven, microprocessor based metering pump with maximum capacities to 8.4 gph (32.0 L/h) and maximum backpressures to 253 psig (17.5 bar).
Rossi’s point, made intensely in the Lewan interview, was that the description of the pump by Smith was totally stupid, because it contradicted the manufacturer information. However, what Smith said was close to this last statement from the manufacturer. Perhaps it’s wrong, and perhaps that data sheet is wrong, but this, quite simply, is not as obvious as it’s made out to be by Rossi (and by “DT”). The word “capacity” implies a kind of “maximum.” In the Lewan interview, Rossi made an argument for high increase in flow rate at lower back pressure, based on ideas that would be relevant for centrifugal pumps, but this is a metering pump, a dosing pump, designed to be much less sensitive to pressure.
So what’s the real figure? DT claims to have measured it. There is skepticism about this claim. First of all, using a column of water 20 meters high is … not easy. It’s been pointed out that DT doesn’t actually claim to have done this, but, in fact, it’s strongly implied from “cut down.” However, maybe. “DT” is a reasonably common author of comments on JONP. To have done this test, DT would have had to have had prompt access to one of these pumps. Again, maybe.
Stop the presses! Anonymous author on Rossi’s blog confirms Rossi’s claims!