A Lightweight Proof of the Minimum CoP during the 1MW Test (Paul Dodgshun)

The following post has been submitted by Paul Dodgshun.

A Lightweight Proof of the Minimum CoP during the 1MW Test

If :-
1: The E-cat produces dry steam,
2: the condensate flow is 36m^3/day[5:], and
3: the maximum electrical supply is 250kW[6:],
then the minimum CoP is 4.48.

The three facts stated above, if proven, demonstrate that payment was due in accordance with the license agreement.

Notes:
1: The variables, superheat margin, condensate flow and maximum electrical supply could be determined outwith the ERV system. The superheat margin is not part of the CoP calculation; it simply demonstrates that the steam is dry.

2: The E-cat is designed to produce superheated steam. The fins on top of the E-cat core, when protruding above the water level provide heat directly to the steam. The water level in the E-cat can be seen in the boiler gauge glass at all times. The water level is controllled and alarmed. Specifically, the E-cat is designed not to produce water.

The steam dryness is demonstrated by the superheat margin. This is determined by the difference between the measured steam temperature and the saturation temperature at the measured pressure.

3: The condensate flow can be measured anywhere between the production plant heat exchanger outlet and the E-cat inlet but there may well be preferred location(s). Flowmeters and measuring tanks outwith the ERV test could be used in combination.

If the production plant is an evaporator, then the byproduct liquor flow into the plant less the concentrated liquor flow out also measures the heat transfer into the production plant. This would crosscheck the E-cat condensate flow.

Heat flow to evaporate 36m^3/day with latent heat of 2683.3kJ/kg at 1.2barA is 1.12MW. More heat is required to raise water temperature to the boiling point at 1.2barA and provide a superheat margin.

4: The maximum electrical supply is determined by the electrical supply trip parameters at all supply breakers, which ever has the lowest overload setting. If the Electrical Input Power Peak is 200kW as stated by Hydrofusion, then the minimum CoP is 5.6 (6.7 at stated 167kW input power average).

5: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/
The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

6: http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw-plant/ecat-1-mw-technical-data
ECAT 1MW Technical Specifications
Specification Data
Thermal Output Power 1 MW
Electrical Input Power Peak 200 kW
Electrical input Power Average 167 kW

  • GiveADogABone

    Searching through spreadsheet data, I found the following two loadcases :-

    Case 1: 144.6:
    CoP Elec In Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
    CoP kW g/s m^3/day kJ/ s
    1 60 414.94 35.85 60

    Case 2: 2257:
    17 60 424.72 36.70 1020

    The mass flow rates and electricity readings are much the same but the CoPs and Enthalpy Transfers are very different. In one case the CoP is a minimum at 1 and in the other case the Enthalpy Transfer is at the E-cat’s maximum. How is this possible? After all, the fluid temperature is being increased from 70C to 110C in both cases.

    The answer to that lies in the specific enthalpy data that reflects the sensible heat or the latent heat of increasing the fluid temperature from 70C to 110C. The sensible heat is 144.6kJ/kg and the latent heat of vapourization is 2257kJ/kg.

    Which case is correct because they cannot both be right? Depends who you ask. IH will say that it is Case 1: and Rossi will say that it is Case 2:. Let the court decide! Using what criterion?

    The criterion is whether or not the E-cat was operated in the flooded condition or whether it produced superheated steam. Flooded or superheated? Decision with reasons please.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      What spreadsheet?

      • GiveADogABone

        Five columns and as many rows as you like.
        I have shortened the tables for this presentation.

        A: CoP – Input Data Range 1-50
        B: Elec In – Input Data Range 1-300
        C: =A7*B7*1000/$B$3 : $B$3 is Enthalpy Diff. 1000 converts to g/s.
        D: =C7*60^2*24/10^6 : 10^6 converts to M^3 from g/s
        E: =A7*B7

        Mass Flow Rate = CoP * ElecIn / Enthalpy Diff
        Enthalpy Diff 144.6 kJ/kg………… Alternative 2257 kJ/kg

        Normal max Mass Flow Rate is about 38M^3/day
        Normal max Enthalpy Transfer is 1000kJ/s

        CoP Elec In Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
        …..kJ/s or kW…..M (g/s)……….. M^3/day…………kJ/ s
        1 1 6.92 0.60 1
        1 20 138.31 11.95 20
        1 40 276.63 23.90 40
        1 60 414.94 35.85 60
        1 80 553.25 47.80 80
        1 200 1383.13 119.50 200
        1 250 1728.91 149.38 250
        1 300 2074.69 179.25 300

        2 1 13.83 1.20 2
        2 50 691.56 59.75 100
        2 100 1383.13 119.50 200
        2 150 2074.69 179.25 300
        2 200 2766.25 239.00 400
        2 250 3457.81 298.76 500
        2 300 4149.38 358.51 600

        3 1 20.75 1.79 3
        3 50 1037.34 89.63 150
        3 100 2074.69 179.25 300
        3 150 3112.03 268.88 450
        3 200 4149.38 358.51 600
        3 250 5186.72 448.13 750
        3 300 6224.07 537.76 900

        7 1 48.41 4.18 7
        7 25 1210.24 104.56 175
        7 50 2420.47 209.13 350
        7 75 3630.71 313.69 525
        7 100 4840.94 418.26 700
        7 125 6051.18 522.82 875
        7 150 7261.41 627.39 1050

        50 1 345.78 29.88 50
        50 5 1728.91 149.38 250
        50 10 3457.81 298.76 500
        50 15 5186.72 448.13 750
        50 20 6915.63 597.51 1000

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

        Lt Ht Vap 2257 kJ/kg

        ………..Elec In……. Mass Flow Rate Mass Flow Rate Enthalpy Xfer
        CoP….. kJ/s or kW……. M(g/s)……….. M^3/day…………… kJ/ s
        1 1 0.44 0.04 1
        1 50 22.15 1.91 50
        1 100 44.31 3.83 100
        1 150 66.46 5.74 150
        1 200 88.61 7.66 200
        1 250 110.77 9.57 250
        1 300 132.92 11.48 300

        2 1 0.89 0.08 2
        2 50 44.31 3.83 100
        2 100 88.61 7.66 200
        2 150 132.92 11.48 300
        2 200 177.23 15.31 400
        2 250 221.53 19.14 500
        2 300 265.84 22.97 600

        3 1 1.33 0.11 3
        3 50 66.46 5.74 150
        3 100 132.92 11.48 300
        3 150 199.38 17.23 450
        3 200 265.84 22.97 600
        3 250 332.30 28.71 750
        3 300 398.76 34.45 900

        16 1 7.09 0.61 16
        16 25 177.23 15.31 400
        16 50 354.45 30.62 800
        17 60 451.93 39.05 1020
        16 100 708.91 61.25 1600
        16 125 886.13 76.56 2000
        16 150 1063.36 91.87 2400

        50 1 22.15 1.91 50
        50 5 110.77 9.57 250
        50 10 221.53 19.14 500
        50 15 332.30 28.71 750
        50 20 443.07 38.28 1000

  • AdrianAshfield

    Bruce_H, Good find!
    I don’t think much can be gained by guessing at the pipe diameter without knowing the insulation, but the pipe looks order of magnitude large enough to carry the required quantity of steam.
    The pipe size required is widely published in tables and I have no reason to doubt that Rossi looked it up.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    All of the assumptions could be set into a range — for example, the ground water was a minimum of 50F and no more than 65F. The breaker was set for a range of 480 to 600 Amps. These will set a min/max on the COP when rolled into the other assumptions, setting the error bars for the measurements. My point being, the assumptions, when properly bounded, should show up as a range of results.

    It still begs the question how one set of measurements gets COP=1 (or less) and the other gets COP=50. It boggles my mind to even see how that is possible, given reasonable competent test directors.

  • Billy Jackson

    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf
    this is the patent filed by IH not by Rossi.

    http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Third_party_E-Cat_test,_Lugano,_Switzerland_(2014)

    and there’s the link for the independent 31 day test. rossi’s only involvement was observation with the fuel placement and removal.. it ran 31 days without him there and the testers taking messurements with no loss of power in that time. COP was around 2.5-3 i dont remember which

  • GiveADogABone

    If the E-cat outputs water, can you explain why the gauge glasses in the several photos of the container internals have a water level in them?

    What purpose would the gauge glass itself serve if the E-cats run flooded?

    The control schematics include a water level control system. What purpose would that serve if water was output?

    If output temperature and pressure sensors show a positive superheat margin, how would that be achieved if it was water in the pipe?

    Rossi has stated that the E-cat produces superheated steam and there is a thread on this site that discusses that.

    • Bruce__H

      If it is hot water rather than air being circulated then the whole thing is a fraud and the purpose of glass gauges, water levels, etc., is to show people what they expect to see.

      This is a possibility that it is imprudent to ignore. It is a possibility that independent replication would demolish though.

      • GiveADogABone

        I am really interested in what has to be done to convince you that the water level in the gauge glass exactly mirrors the water level in the E-cat. This issue arises in normal operation of steam boilers because trusting a blocked gauge glass is dangerous. Normally, the gauge glass is fitted with a blow-down valve, although the E-cat appears not to have it.

        You shut one of the gauge glass isolator valves and open the blow-down. If the top isolator is opened you get a blast of steam from the blow-down and the water level disappears. If the bottom isolator is open and the top shut you get to see some water at the bottom and a blast of water/steam from the blow-down. Then shut the blow-down, open the top isolator and the water level returns to normal. Blowing down the gauge glass is a regular routine and as it relates to safety boiler operators rarely forget.

        Would a blow-down valve solve the problem?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_glass
        http://www.sps700.org/zoldsite/gall0210mont_part11.html
        One thing every fireman does at the beginning of his/her shift, … is to blow-down the
        lines leading to each sight glass (water level glass) and the column to keep those lines free-flowing.
        As the upper and lower valves are operated, the water level must move
        with sufficient rapidity to indicate the lines are indeed clear.
        Photo by Dale Birkholz.

  • GiveADogABone

    I have another reason to doubt 1barA at the E-cat steam outlet is right: incondensable gases. You have to get the air out of the circuit as the plant starts and continue to remove it, if necessary. The steam sweeps the air to the heat exchanger where it accumulates and spoils the heat transfer unless it is vented and that requires a positive pressure to do it.

    I reckon that the E-cat Normal Working Pressure is close to 1.2barA and that is what Engineer48 was told by Rossi. That shifts the saturation temperature up about 5C.

    Also if the steam drives an evaporator then you need a temperature difference to boil water at 100C.

    I have not seen any photos or drawings that show the outlet pipework.

    • Warthog

      “The steam sweeps the air to the heat exchanger where it accumulates and spoils the heat transfer unless it is vented and that requires a positive pressure to do it.”

      Diaphragm pump in vacuum mode will work just fine for this….no positive pressure needed. Automate with two-way solenoid valve and a simple level detector/switch on a sight glass. Switch opens/closes valve and starts/stops pump.

      Voila, no air/permanent gases.

      • GiveADogABone

        I agree a vacuum pump could do the job but I am not quite sure about the level detector. The air accumulates in the steam space above the water level where it drops the partial pressure of steam.

        If you run the steam space at sub-atmospheric pressure then any leaks are air inwards. It is best practice to avoid it, if you can. All-in-all I would opt for 1.1barA in the evaporator steam space and 1.2barA at the E-cat steam outlet as the normal operating values.

        • Warthog

          The air is not going to accumulate above the steam….both are gases.

          The air is going to accumulate above the WATER “somewhere” in parts of the system where there is (or should be) liquid only.

          The way this is avoided is to put a vertical piece of pipe in the “liquid only” piping such that it will serve as a trap for the air.

          This is typically done 1) by putting a “tee” in place of an “ell” where the liquid-containing pipe changes direction, or 2) or in a straight run. In case 1), the “tee” is sideways, and the air accumulates in the vertical arm. In case 2) the “tee” is upside down, and the air accumulates in the vertical “stem”.

          The vaccuum pump/solenoid valve setup removes the air contained in the stagnant space in the vertical arm of the tee.

          The “steam space” is never run at “sub-atmospheric pressure”.

          Instrument engineers face this kind of situation in virtually any mixed-phase fluid.

          • GiveADogABone

            You wrote :-
            ‘air is not going to accumulate above the steam….both are gases’
            True, but I wrote ‘above the water’.

            You wrote:-
            The “steam space” is never run at “sub-atmospheric pressure”.
            If the E-cat is operated at a discharge pressure of 1.0barA, which was the starting assumption, and the pipework pressure losses to the evaporator are 0.1bar, then the evaporator steam space that receives steam from the E-cat is at 0.9barA i.e. sub-atmospheric. I am not sure why that is controversial.

            A drawing of the evaporator internals is really needed to figure out what provision is made for the removal of incondensable gases and we do not have it, so I cannot see a way to make progress.

            • Warthog

              Here is what you wrote:

              “The air accumulates in the steam space above the water level where it drops the partial pressure of steam.”

              Which is wrong. The gases comprising the air are divided between the steam and water phases by solubility. Some of the gas WILL be dissolved in the liquid water and WILL be distributed throughout the recirculating water. In order to make sure that the gases do NOT build up inside the e-cat, you remove them OUTSIDE the ecat. By just such sorts of arrangements as I outlined.

              What I describe isn’t some theoretical concept (as yours is). It is what is actually done in real plants in the real world. You arrange the plumbing to remove the gases from a point specifically designed to do so to prevent them building up where you don’t want them to be.

              Since you are removing the gas bubbles outside the ecat, any fixed gases inside the ecat will be “drawn down” by dissolving in the circulating water for removal at a controlled spot.

              From Wikipedia:

              “A steam trap is a device used to discharge condensate and non-condensable gases with a negligible consumption or loss of live steam.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_trap

              • GiveADogABone
                • Warthog

                  Since the water recirculates, fixed gases will be removed no matter where the trap is located.

                  With air being removed regularly at the trap, any gas that comes out of solution in the heat exchanger will slowly re-dissolve and be removed from the condenser. This is simple physical chemistry.

                  And what makes you think that there isn’t a trap between the e-cat and the customer heat exchanger??

      • Engineer48
  • AdrianAshfield

    One good source is Mats Lewan’s 2 hour “webinar” here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ3S3YMH96s&feature=youtu.be

  • Ged

    The picture you’re looking for is the one showing the pipe leaving the ecat container and heading over the divider wall. I really wish I was in a position to dig it up for you–it was the picture that verified the three loading doors from the inside that were seen at the JM Chemicals address. It is a pretty hefty pipe if I recall, but I don’t know were insulation ends and pipe begins. Maybe some of the interior shots showing the outlet piping along the ceiling of the container could help (an elbow joint may better show pipe size), like the one shot with all the techs working?

  • Oystein Lande

    A few pictures. Now then , the isolated pipe must be the steam line. Question is if it’s 20 cm di. Or not…..
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171660-1-megawatt-cold-fusion-power-plant-now-available-yours-for-just-1-5-million

  • AdrianAshfield

    Thanks GiveADogABone for the photo showing the water level gauges.

    I did a quick check of the heat output at atmos pressure as follows

    water flow rate 36 m^3/day
    convert to kg
    36 x 1000 = 36,000 kg/day
    latent heat (water) 2264 kJ/kg
    36,000 x 2264 =815o4000 kJ/day
    kilowatt = kilojoule / second
    81504000/ (24 x 60 x60) = 943.3 kW

    So the heat output with that flow rate is about the right order of magnitude.
    Do we have any info on the output diameter of the pipe?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Generally, when you make assumptions for the measurements, you must show with reasonable certainty that they do not materially affect the measurements. In effect, the assumptions set the error bars in measurement. If there is no reasonable justification for the assumptions, then the measurements are probably faulty.

    One assumption used in many calculations is that the heat capacity of water is independent of temperature from 0 to 100C. It is not, however, the values differ so little that assuming a fixed heat capacity does not substantially affect the measurement.

    What assumptions are you concerned about?

  • Omega Z

    Approximately 5.5 gallons a minute.
    Approximately 1.12 gallons a minute per 250KW reactor.

  • GiveADogABone

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html
    should answer your specific question if you accept the black box approach.

    If the steam/condensate circulates round a closed pipework loop and is measured at any point at 36m^3/day of condensate, then the steam has to have passed from E-cat to production plant and condensed at that rate.

    • Oystein Lande

      You used a massrate of 4000 kg/hr. But 36 m3/D is 1500 kg/hr….

      • GiveADogABone

        Strange. My spreadsheet does not use kg/hr and 4m^3/hr would be 96m^3/day which is far higher than the maximum condensate flow rate of a 1MW plant. Please explain.

        • Oystein Lande

          Sorry, I thought your link above was to your calculation.

          Anyhow. A 100 mm inside diameter pipe would give 22 m/s steam velocity….

          • GiveADogABone

            Seems we might have cross-connected the steam and water pipes.

  • Billy Jackson

    All that information is freely available on this site.

  • Roland

    And you are prepared to conclusively prove that this has occurred on a vast scale in the case of the 1megW plant by offering us…

    Well so far by offering us your unsupported opinions based on your unsupported opinions.

    Pure genius.

    This singular feature looms large in 90% of the negative views on Rossi’s work that have appeared here; perhaps you’d care to explain why I should give your opinions any more weight than those of someone that claims the the moon landing was faked based on their ‘feeling’ that it never occurred.

    “An engineer will also find fault with any measurement if done incorrectly” does still require the engineer to demonstrate that the measurement was, in fact not conjecture, done incorrectly.

  • Billy Jackson

    except that it has. IH’s own patent created without rossi produced a COP of 11 according to them.

    the 31 day test was done 99.9% without rossi except for some observation for fuel removal and delivery. cop of 3.x?

    2 separate labs 2 separate observations of excessive heat.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Bruce,
    I wanted to check the various calculations I’ve seen and can’t find what Rossi said the water flow rate was.
    Back of the envelope calc is about 2.45 l/min for 1 MW per day. But I’d like to start off with his number and calculate the pressure drop for various pipe sizes.

    Ged,
    I don’t know what is in the 250kW reactors. I assume they are rather like stacks of units shown in the patent.

    • AdrianAshfield

      ps. I won’t bother to do it accurately until know the actual figures, but it looks like the steam velocity is ~70 ft/sec with a 9″ pipe and for low pressure steam the recommended max velocity is 100 – 200 ft/sec depending on how wet it is.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I had to look this up to understand dry steam, so I include it for your reference convenience.

    http://www.tlv.com/global/US/steam-theory/wet-steam-dry-steam.html

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    I think if you want to use the output superheated steam instead of water under pressure it would be prudent to divide the reactor economizer and the evaporator section and a separate zone heat as in conventional boilers. Accordingly heat must be designed surface. Although it is not clear why such a fear of water use under pressure? In the thermal and nuclear power plants heating consumer is transmitted by means of heating water.

    • GiveADogABone

      The E-cat has, effectively, economizer, boiler and superheater all in the same box. If I saw a boiler with the water level out of the gauge glass I would run. Steam explosions are pretty much on the same scale as high explosive. Have you seen the wall thickness of the pressure vessels in nuclear plants?

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Yes, I saw thick walls of the reactor and the steam generator at the
        plant. But there is no point in such high pressures for e -kat. For the
        heating unit with pressurized water is enough 7-10 atmospheres.
        Specifically
        for “tiger” it seems to me difficult to maintain the level in the
        transition modes. Surprisingly the length of flat flanges. Apparently
        there can be problems when resealing the reactor.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Yes, I saw thick walls of the reactor and the steam generator at the plant. But there is no point in such high pressures for e -kat. For the heating unit with pressurized water is enough 7-10 atmospheres.
      Specifically for “tiger” it seems to me difficult to maintain the level in the transition modes. Surprisingly the length of flat flanges. Apparently there can be problems when resealing the reactor.

      • GiveADogABone

        If the E-cat :-
        1: has a design pressure of plus or minus 1bar,
        2: the feed pumps have an output pressure of 4 bar, or
        3: you box the E-cat with water with an active core capable of 350C+ (saturation pressure about 220bar),
        then you have a serious design problem with the E-cat remaining in one piece under fault conditions.

        The E-cat in design terms is a fired boiler and a design code audit might be a good idea. A flat, thin plate design is bound to deflect, even at very low pressures. Deflecting metal works the joints and seals, so leaks are part of the same scene. I would prefer to see the next iteration of E-cat design use proper pressure vessel engineering.

        • Fedir Mykhaylov

          I’ve always wondered use piston feed pumps in the e-sat. The temperature of 350 degrees Celsius surface of the fuel element is not a problem. When failure occurs consumer core cooling by boiling and discharge steam through the safety valve in atmosphere.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Paul,
    “2: The E-cat is designed to produce superheated steam. The fins on top
    of the E-cat core, when protruding above the water level provide heat
    directly to the steam. The water level in the E-cat can be seen in the
    boiler gauge glass at all times. The water level is controllled and
    alarmed. Specifically, the E-cat is designed not to produce water.”

    Have you any reference for this? I think it is key to answering critics like Jed Rothwell who claim the output was just hot water,

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Yes, you can see the water levels here – the “level” is “centered” at the half way point as to where the reactors and tank of water.

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3748/6663/original.jpg

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3748/7964/original.jpg

      So the reactor is half in water. You have something with some fins in water (bottom) and top would have fins exposed with no water to heat that steam further.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • AdrianAshfield

        Albert.
        I think the photo is of the old, smaller reactors, that were not used. What I would like to see is a water gauge and water level control on the 250 kW units.

        • Ged

          I was under the impression the 250kW ones were actually a bank of the smaller reactors acting as one. I could be completely mistaken.

          • doug marker

            Ged, IMHO you have it right. The 250kW were a bank of smaller units as a module.

            Doug M

            • Frank Acland

              I think Rossi was asked about this once and he said the 250kW reactors were not made up of smaller units. I don’t have the reference handy though.

              • Roland

                Hi Frank,

                Each 250kW module contained 15 individual reactors, what we don’t have specific information on is the internal plumbing, i.e. does the incoming water flow over all the reactors sequentially or does each reactor take the input flow from 60C to 105C or are there a number of sub-clusters.

                The bulk of the ‘work’ performed is inducing phase change so preheating the incoming 60C water to 100C and taking the post phase change steam from 100C to 105C with a portion of the reactors makes some sense.

                • Frank Acland

                  Thanks, Roland

                  I found this reference:

                  Patrick Ellul
                  November 19th, 2015 at 12:18 AM
                  Dear Andrea.
                  On the website ecat.com there is the following description:

                  “ECAT 1 MW Plant is made up of 4 modules each containing 16 core reactors. These module produce 250 kW of Heat each.”

                  Is this still correct?

                  Best regards

                  Andrea Rossi
                  February 7th, 2016 at 5:56 PM
                  Patrick Ellul:
                  I think yes.
                  Warm Regards,
                  A.R.

                • Roland

                  We had speculated that the 16th reactor was the ‘mouse’ but that was never confirmed.

                • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

                  As you say, we have no idea of what the current internal configuration looks like, but I’m pretty sure that the finned box would not be ideal for generating superheated steam or allowing the cores to run at high temperatures, and has probably long been superseded.

                  IMO a ‘flash boiler’ consisting of a thermal mass bored through for vertical coolant flow and ‘dry’ reactor core insertion seems much more likely. If the reactors are placed near the top of the mass, then thermal conduction downwards would heat and boil incoming water, progressively superheating the steam as it passes through the very hot upper zone. This would allow the cores to run at high temperatures, and the thermal mass would ensure stability.

              • artefact

                I think at first there were 16 units inside one box like in the pictures at ecat.com. He changed it later to one unit per box as far as I know.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            Rossi said 15 reactors in each 250kWt slab reactor but not all doing the same job. He said “complex”.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Quite sure of recent that engineer48 did post a screen cap of the newer “tiger” of which there are 4 units – and again the water was at the half way point in the viewing tube. I don’t doubt the above simple setup and having a reactor half submerged makes most sense.
          To me the “real” issue and speculation(s) are going to center around on the flow rate – that flow rate is gong to really tell and determine what the COP is/was.
          I don’t think we can really “ascertain” the flow rate – and thus we are in speculative territory.
          R
          Albert

        • GiveADogABone

          borrowed from Engineer48

        • Engineer48
          • AdrianAshfield

            Engineer48,
            Thanks again. That looks like each module has a sight glass but it is hard to see if there is any automatic level control.
            The gauge should be directly connected to the reactor rather than the output, for better accuracy.

            • Engineer48

              Hi Adrian,

              It would appear each gauge glass is connected between the condensate input line at the bottom of the reactor and the steam output line at the top of the reactor for each reactor.

              • AdrianAshfield

                Mechanically that is easier to do but is not so accurate.

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Adrian,

                  Remember the superheated steam pressure is estimated to be only 0.2 barG.

                  Plus the pressure sensor output may be analogue to a microprocessor that adjust the output according to the meaaured steam pressure.

                • AdrianAshfield

                  0.2 bar = ~80 ins H2O
                  If you are trying to control to 0.1″…..

      • Engineer48
    • GiveADogABone

      Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test
      This thread is still on the home page,albeit at the bottom.

      There are control schematics in Italian somewhere.

      A view of the E-cat internals below borrowed from Engineer48.

    • GiveADogABone

      A few more claims to answer :-
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/21/jed-rothwell-on-an-unpublished-e-cat-test-report-that-looks-like-it-worked/
      there is no significant heat escaping from the facility.
      Therefore, there is no 1 MW heat release.
      Not even 100 kW.
      Every indication is there is no more than the input electric power.

      Put them all together and see what you get. I am sure that there is a pattern. My back-of-an-envelope calc is :-
      Electricity in = Enthalpy out = (105-60)*4.2*0.441 = 83kW
      Then you can ask what the ERV’s instruments are doing while this is going on.
      It is all disinformation to a purpose.

      • AdrianAshfield

        I am a retired engineer who has designed, built and operated glass melting furnaces up to 400 tons/day output. A typical plant might have
        three 250 t/day furnaces that use ~4 million BTU/ton.
        250 x 3 x 4.10^6 = 3000.10^6 BTU/day
        Convert to Watts x 0.293 = 879 MW/day
        All the heat is dissipated in the building, generally using natural ventilation. One wouldn’t even notice another 1 MW.
        Float glass furnaces are ~ 1000 t/day.

        • GiveADogABone

          Adrian,
          As a gentlman who understands numbers, I am sure you will understand that the Coefficient of Performance (CoP) = Energy Out / Energy In

          If you only count the Latent Heat of Vaporization of water at 1barA/100C, the equation becomes CoP = 2265 * Mass Flow Rate / Electricity In. That statement has an important proviso. It applies to dry steam and not water.

          Jed wants to ‘claim the output was just hot water’ with an enthalpy gain of about 189kJ/kg. I believe the fluid in the E-cat outlet pipe is steam. Jed also wants CoP=1. Now we have two equations :-

          Steam: CoP(s) = 2265 * M(s) / E(s)

          Water: 1 = 189 * M(w) / E(w)

          The point of the first equation is to demonstrate that Rossi is right about the CoP and IH are wrong. The point of the second equation is to prove that IH are right and Rossi is wrong. This is the debate about fact 1: in the header article and I completely agree with you; it is the keystone of the argument.

          IH are already arguing about the accuracy of the instrumentation (they have to get the M(w)/E(w) ratio to equal 1/189) but take out the keystone and the whole thing collapses and that applies to IH’s defence as well. I reckon steam or water in the outlet pipe will decide the outcome of the court case.

          • AdrianAshfield

            The reactors appear to be designed to avoid outputting liquid water, but the steam may still not be “dry.”
            So the COP may be less than 50, but still well above the minimum required for the contract.
            I have no reason to think the ERV Penon is a fool and he would look at this problem carefully. If the temperature is high enough at pressure to make the steam superheated it will be dry, which is what Rossi says.

            • GiveADogABone

              The 1-year test required the monitoring of the outlet pipe pressure and temperature. From the pressure, the saturation temperature becomes available. The difference between the measured temperature and the saturation temperature gives the superheat margin. With wet steam coming directly from the E-cat I would expect saturated temperature and measured temperature to be the same. My view is that, perhaps, a 5C superheat margin would be a guarantee of dryness or as near as makes no difference.

              Rossi has stated that the E-cat superheats. It does it by means of the heat transfer fins above the reactor block standing proud of the water surface and providing heat directly to the steam and the photo of the internals is just below.

              The bigger problem is that IH have refused to pay $89M due to Rossi if the E-cat achieved 6 or greater. The minimum CoP on which IH have to pay something is 2.6. It appears that IH are going to try for a CoP of 1 (No anomalous heat. Trying for a CoP of 2 admits that the E-cat works and 2.6 is not far away) and they have already attacked the test instruments in a court document.

              This thread is really about trying to figure out how much ‘wriggle room’ IH have. My conclusion so far is that IH HAVE to claim that the E-cat was operating in a flooded condition to even begin to make a case and that means :-
              1: their M(w)/E(w) must equal 1/189 or close by;
              2: their E(w) must also be less than something like 250kW.
              3: 1: and 2: in combination limit their M(w).
              Hopefully, the importance of the engineering case against flooded operation (my fact 1: in the header article) then becomes clear.

    • Engineer48
  • Thomas Kaminski

    Paul,

    The main difficulty in using your analyses is verifying the source of the measurements. For example, the 36m^3 per day water usage — is is likely recycled water (not from the city water supply) and thus, requires a flow meter to measure. If the skeptics say “the meter is broken”, then they will never agree to the results.

    I like your approach, though, because it is very simple. If the make-water for the boiler was in fact from the city, and if the electrical power was from the local grid, then it almost works. What is still missing is what “extra” water usage occurs, such as toilets, and other water usage in the facility. You are still back to requiring a flow meter and an electrical meter along with something that verifies “steam” is present in the outlet.

    Skeptics will find fault in any measurement.

    • Billy Jackson

      I agree! The truly irrational skeptic refuses to acknowledge anything to do with the numbers as presented. They will state faulty equipment, poor measurement tracking, or just out right incompetency of the given testers. They simply refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the base start and end numbers are correct. Thus no proof in their eyes.

      This is the backfire effect in action. Their experience and education has taught them that over-unity devices are all scams and impossible in the terms of science as “they” have been taught. Now when presented with the impossible their first reaction is to disbelieve and think the inventor is off his rocker. the more you push the more they will rely on what they already know.

      You see this in politics, religion, and science very few are immune or willing to question what they think they know without becoming hostile.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Part of their argument is based on the fact that many times experimental measurements are in fact faulty. However, I agree with you that much is based on their fundamental belief that it can’t be true.

        As a graduate student in electrical engineering, I had to take graduate level controls classes from a professor who insisted on using the “latest” graduate texts. The grade in the class was based in part on how many errors you found in the text. His point was that graduate level texts are usually based in part on grad student research that the professor did not vet properly and probably neither truly understood what they were measuring. As a result of the 12 credits I took from him, I too am a skeptic. However, based on my own experimental measurements of solar thermal performance, I know about error bars on measurements and when to dismiss pathoskeptics.

        • Billy Jackson

          If it was just Rossi taking measurements and no one else i would probably lean at least slightly toward the skeptic side myself. But after the 31 day test and all the legitimate reputable scientist involved + the 3 separate measurements being taken by 3 different people for the 1 year test all supposedly being close to each other or within the margin of error.. (plus IH’s own patent based on what they created without Rossi present)

          I just don’t find it plausible that so many people can be wrong or that incompetent to do measurements. On one side you have the numbers or rumors of numbers from reputable people and on the other you have the irrational skeptic themselves providing no proof of error beyond their own passion and volume screaming this isn’t possible.

          I actually feel bad for Rossi. Here is something fantastic and at every turn people are trying to prove him wrong rather than trying to validate what he’s found with an open mind.

          • Observer

            When was the last time a skeptic “proved” anything? The reason they are skeptics is that they do not believe in proof (other than proof of what they already believe).

            • timycelyn

              In a strange sort of way pseudoskepticism is a deformed type of religion, complete with the usual hierachy of high priests and so on.

              MY must have a very exalted position. Archbishop, perhaps?

    • Warthog

      ” ….is is likely recycled water (not from the city water supply) and thus,
      requires a flow meter to measure. If the skeptics say “the meter is
      broken”, then they will never agree to the results.”

      More important is what type pump was used to recycle the water. In other setups, Rossi has almost exclusively used diaphragm positive displacement pumps, which provide almost absolutely stable flow rates unless there is a mechanical failure within the pump itself. IMO, the flowmeters are simply there to indicate that such a failure is occurring, and NOT to provide water volume movement measurement. Flow stability is inherent to the pumps.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        From the pictures of the 1MW plant, the devices at the front have been identified as water pumps that are delivering water to sections of each of the 4 “tigers”. The flow meters are a good way to aggregate the individual pump flows. I suspect that the water flow into a unit is adjusted for control of the reaction along with input electrical energy.

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

        Agreed, with the complication that, in order to maintain water level independent of demand, some kind of level sensor must be involved, which in turn controls variable displacement pumps in order to maintain correct levels. Most pumps of this type incorporate analogue or digital outputs which can be utilised to supply data to logging facilities.

        As Warthog suggests, flowmeters may be fitted just to provide confirmation of flow rates, and if both data streams were in fact used by the ERV, close correlation of recorded flow rates would be pretty difficult to argue with.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Warthog,

        I suspect there is a large water pump near the condensate tank that delivers, in common to all reactors, 85% of the 1,500kg/hr flow. Then each bank of 6 x 18kg/hr pumps maintains the ideal water level for optimal superheateded steam production in each reactor via an individual water depth / pressure sensor for each reactor that simply switches on or off that reactor’s bank of 6 ProMinent pumps.

        Here is a picture of one of the reactor water level / pressure sensors.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e22b993fc5b0ebb08b55772129afb6c20aee1039455267a5314bf1e443b4ec3c.png

        • Thomas Kaminski

          From the pump literature, the intake (suction) seems to be on the bottom and the output (discharge) on the top. Based on the photo of the whole system, it seems that the part of the condensate return is the heavily insulated pipe on the right. The make-water filling connection seems to be on the left ( the 1/4 turn valve is closed).

          There does seem to be some flexible hose from the lower manifolds to the units in bunches of six hose each, although it is not clear to me how the condensate actually flows, those seem to tie to the suction side of the pumps. I would guess that each set of six pumps take the make-water from the manifolds on the very bottom through the flexible hose and delivers it through six flexible hose connections to the manifold over the pumps. That seems to deliver water to the pipe on the lower side of the same pipe that the sight glass is on for each of the 4 banks of boilers.

          So which pipe is the main condensate return/boiler feed? There does seem to be heat-insulated plumbing visible behind the pumps.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas.

            I believe the ProMinent level control pumps used has intake at the bottom, discharge straight ahead, through the side of the reactor casing (note pump centre aligns with seperation foam filled region between upper and lower cases) and degas upward. The max flow of the degas type pump is 18l/hr, which can be seen on the displays as attached. The degas output is collected by and returned to the prime flow by the horizontal white headers above each bank of 6 level control pumps and by the white vertical drop pipe to the left than joins just after the reactor fluid level control pressure switch.

            I believe there is a lot more interesting stuff on the left side of the reactor, like horizontal steam collection headers, that we can’t see.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ee43f88fb529d86d4669d206d0be09f7165286d1c3930cb6d129c7316019f9eb.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b3bd1a9feee564b8ba0f8d0b1909a9bb5233c870cd7743f074d10c9736cc2928.jpg

            • Thomas Kaminski

              I missed the degas assembly — thought that there were only two connections to the pump. So with the discharge straight back, we cannot see where the discharge is connected.

              Since the degas connection seems to go up to the manifold over the pumps, I don’t see a path for the degas-gas to exit from the system. Does it just keep rising in pressure? Seems unlikely.

              • Engineer48

                Hi Thomas,

                Have submitted a new thread proposal to Frank, based on this crude concept sketch.

                Idea is to have a thread where those interested can discuss the physical plant build and layout. At the moment plant build, operation, layout & characterists discussions are scattered in many threads.

                I feel there are more than enough experienced heads here to be able to figure this out and put together a realistic plant schematic.

                I showed Rossi the crude drawing. His comment was much more complex.

                https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/768cfd40e8fda63ebcee9057c0cf6589dfa67240ade8a94789c8ce72e79fbfa1.png

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘You are still back to requiring a flow meter and an electrical meter
      along with something that verifies “steam” is present in the outlet.’

      True and point taken. It all comes down to two measurements: water flow in the steam/condensate circuit and electrical power and the reliability thereof. It would seem the court will be offered two different versions that are well apart but each will have to be consistent within itself.

      It might be worthwhile giving an example: If you want to claim a CoP of 1 and 100kw of electricity with no anomalous heat, then you have to claim that the condensate flow rate is 3.81m^3/day. Anything well removed is inconsistent with reality. If the measured condensate flow is 38.1m^3/day, that destroys the CoP=1/100kW claim. Equally, the 38.1m^3/day of condensate cannot be generated by electricity alone, if the supply is limited to 250kW; anomalous heat has been produced and the CoP is at the 4 level. That puts Rossi in the money.

      The MTD that was filed already seeks to blame the ERV instrumentation. What cross-checks can be found and what are the limits of credible results?
      How many water flowmeters are there in the hidden production plant?
      How many measuring tanks are there in the hidden production plant?
      How do you break a measuring tank?
      How many hidden electrical power meters are there?

      A photo of Fulvio standing next to a gauge glass is presented in this thread. You can see the water level for yourself. The control schematic in Italian is available. No steam engineer who valued his life would heat up a boiler with the water level out of the gauge glass and modern protection systems would prevent it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the E-cat does produce superheated steam in normal operation, so I take fact 1: as undeniable.

    • Warthog

      “If the
      make-water for the boiler was in fact from the city, and if the
      electrical power was from the local grid, then it almost works.”

      The makeup water is almost certainly NOT from the city….at least not directly. “City water” has dissolved minerals, which will generate solid deposits (see “teakettle scale”) inside the steam plumbing and totally screw up heat exchange. At minimum, the water will be deionized before being fed into the system, and probably stored in a plastic tank.

  • Hey Tuttietattie

    .

    If you hand me your wristwatch and I put on the ground and smash it with a hammer you cannot prove to a third party that:

    1. I smashed it.
    2. It is your watch that was smashed and that the working watch was not substituted by sleight of hand for a smashed watch.

    As for it being difficult to licence LENR devices for use in peoples homes…: near where I live is the site of one of the earliest railways in the UK. From 1812 Troon was the terminus of a horse-drawn railway connecting it to the Duke of Portland’s coal mines around Kilmarnock. This was not licensed for passengers, a minor technicality evaded by weighing those wishing to travel and charging them freight rates. Being freight the passengers had to sit on hay to prove they were freight and not passengers. The moral here is that:

    “Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.”

    ….Group Captain Sir DGroup Captain Sir Douglas Robert Steuart Bader CBE, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, FRAeS, CBE, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, FRAeS

    .

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    Paul are you a retired mechanical engineer from the electricity supply industry, in the UK?

    I ask because if you are a mechanical engineer with a lifetime of experience I think that’s worth noting.

    • GiveADogABone

      CV
      Degree in Mech Eng specialising in Nuclear Engineering, Thermodynamics and Mathematics.
      Naval Engineer Officer
      Eighteen months on a big coal-fired station
      Transferred to nuclear plant on shift operations and commissioning
      Transferred to engineering head office function that produced nuclear safety cases to support repair/maintenance of operating nuclear stations.

  • Mats002

    A company can claim anything about their products – for example VW CO2 emissions – and be wrong.

    Never the less, I think that the majority of professionals care enough about their reputation to avoid risk their position and source of income.

    Maybe you can pay off or cheat a few, but somewhere down the line you meet professionals with high integrity. That would be where the lie hit the wall.

    This story have past enough walls to be true.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, actually VW did not make a false claim. What they did was “tweak” the engine control software to detect that the driving wheels are moving, gears are changing, but the steering
      wheel is perfectly still and NOT moving!

      The VW engine computer with the above information thus determined that an emissions test is occurring and thus “tuned” the engine for low emissions (as opposed to running well and obtain
      optimal gas mileage).

      So the question was not a claim of VW, but some software that was smart enough to realize an
      emissions test was occurring.

      When the computer realized that no emissions test was occurring, then drivers received better acceleration (performance), better gas mileage, increased driveability. And the engine
      emission controls and systems would last longer and require less maintenance.

      And the CO2 emissions to my knowledge was not the issue is was the NOx etc. since CO2 is harmless.

      I suspect a good number of these VW owners will not want to bring in their cars for the software
      fix.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Mats002

        Thanks Albert, I guess my claim about VW slammed into the wall right there but at the same time you admitted to my over-arching claim that professionals are careful with facts. If Rossi is a fraud his lies have passed an unbelievable number of walls.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Well, it would be only fair to call the sky blue here. VW pulled a fast one and give the large middle finger to the regulators. So at the end of the day, VW did mislead with knowledge to mislead. I will give VW some credit for their ingenuity here!

          And yes, Rossi has passed an unbelievable number of hoops and still chugs on forward. Rossi pressing forward no matter what is a very good sign.

          Unfortunately the flip side is Rossi desire to keep his cards close and hidden. This approach results in much doubt. At this point in time we have lots of anecdotal evidence, but not real solid proof of what Rossi claims – this lack of good solid results (at least to the public) keeps everyone guessing. As such some caution is still warranted.

          I have no doubt Rossi has something – it just a question how well what he has works. What Rossi claims to have is really science fiction!
          I think we are about 1 year away from really knowing. When product(s) appear, that will be a historic day!

          Rossi has no need or desire to prove what he has – since the instant he does, competition will turn into a stampede and Rossi knows this.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • roseland67

    Paul?

    Why do you intimate “lightweight” test?

    • GiveADogABone

      I intended lightweight proof, rather than test.

      Given the three facts are proven with condensate flow close to 36m^3/day and maximum electrical supply at about 250kW, there is no need for the ERV report to demonstrate that Rossi is in the money at a CoP of greater than 2.6.

      Of course, the court has to evaluate the ERV report with any amount of argument but all the jury needs to know is that the CoP was greater than 2.6.

      Then you can ask just how many flowmeters and measuring tanks were fitted on the hidden production plant. I do not believe that the answer is zero but I offer no proof. Ditto for power meters.

      Rock solid condensate flow data and maximum electrical supply data could define the outcome of the trial. Just those two numbers and nothing else except fact 1:. I reckon a jury could get their mind round that in a lot less than ten days. Lightweight seemed a fair description.