E-Cat Plant Test Plan (Fabio Penon)

The following text of the plan for testing the 1 MW plant written by Fabio Penon before the 1 year E-Cat plant test began, is taken from Exhibit 70 -1 from the docket of the Rossi v. IH Court case. This is a transcription of the document which can be found in the original at http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/70-01-Exhibit-1.pdf



1. Plant description 

The MW1—USA plant under test consists of 115 power generation units, grouped in modules. Only 111 units will be operational during the tests: Four units will be used as spare parts. 

Every unit absorbs a power of about 1.1 kW — 2.5 kW 

Each unit consists of a reaction chamber, where the nickel powder reacts with the hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst.
Electric heaters heath the reaction chamber and by this way trigger the reaction between nickel and hydrogen.
The power panel regulates the power supply of the electric heaters. 

The cooling water is contained in a tank, placed inside the plant, that receives the water from an external plant. It is conveyed by pumps in the units E—Cat, where it is heated to vaporize. The steam is collected in one tube of the steam line, which conveys it to the outside of the shelter.

The steam is then passed through the customer’s facility, where it cools up to its condensation. 

The water is so recycled to the internal tank in a closed loop. The water is distilled water. 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 heating elements of the E-Cat units, the pumps for the water, the internal services to the shelter and the control panel are powered by the public grid

 In the plant some measuring instruments are installed:

– flowmeter for measuring the flow rate of cooling water inlet into the shelter. It is located along the line of return of the water, between the plant of the Customer andthe 1 MW E—Cat

– temperature probe for measuring the cooling water temperature at the inlet of the shelter. It is located in the internal water tank, containing cooling distilled water. 

– temperature probe for measuring steam temperature at the outlet of the shelter. It is located along the steam pipe at the outside of the shelter 

– pressure probe for measuring steam pressure at the outlet of the shelter. It is located along the steam pipe at the outside of the shelter 

– power analyzer for measuring the power supply. It is located along the electric power line before the E—Cat

2. Test set up

2.1 List of components 

. 60 Water pump ( Prominent)
. 115 E-Cat units
1 Water pump
1 Internal Water tank (0.2 C.M. )
1 Auxiliary external water tank

2.2 Measurement instrumentation

 -Flowmeter                                            Test report n. 01/2015, dated 2015/01/15
-Power analyzer PCE 830                     Calibration certificate n. 0518/15, dated 2015/01/28
-Probe for water temperature measurement          HSTC – TT – Tl — 24S.
– Probe for steam temperature measurement        TU — T – NPT — U 72
-Probe for steam pressure measurement PX 309—100A5V
– Multifunction calibrator

 The measurement chain of temperature a will be calibrated by the thermometer HSTC-TT-Tl-24S-1M-SMPW-M

 3. Calculation of the energy mutiple

 6.1 Calculation of the energy produced ( EP )
The energy produced by 111 power generator units is given by the sum of the heat of
heating of water, heat of vaporization of water and heat of superheating the steam. 


 ER( energy of heating of water up to100 °C )= Mw x Csz ( va — Tiw)
Mw = mass of water vaporized during the whole test, coming from tank
TiW = inlet temperature of the water, coming from tank
Csw= specific heat of water = 1‘14 Wh/(kg°K)
va = vaporization temperature of the water = 100 °C
Ev = ( energy of vaporization of water) = A x Mw
A = ( latent energy of vaporization) = 627,5 Wh/kg


Es ( heating energy of steam ) = M3 x Cps x ( Tos — va)
Ms = mass of steam produced during the whole test
Cps =specific heat of steam at constant pressure = 0,542 Wh/kg
Tos = outlet temperature of the steam
va = vaporization temperature of the water
The values referto the atmospheric pressure

 In order to be conservative:
– it will be not taken into account the heating energy of steam
-the temperature of the incoming water will be always considered to be equal to the
maximum value of the same measured during the entire test day

 It will be possible small leaks of water to the inside of the shelter and are present
measurement uncertainties
To take this into account the total mass of water transited during the test period will be
reduced by 10%..

 3.2 Calculation of the energy absorbed ( Ea ) 

The energy is supplied from the public grid
in order to be conservative:
 — all the supplied energy is supposed be absorbed by the 111 reactors 

In reality a part of this energy feeds the pump, which conveys the water from the tank
external to the reactors This energy doesn’t feed the reactors

3.3 Calculation of the ‘energy multiple’ 

Energy multiple = energy produced (EP)
                          energy absorbed ( EA)


4. Test protocol

Before testing Leonardo Corporation will implement the system in accordance with reference documentation
The ERV will provide the measuring devices: probe for measuring water inlet temperature probe to measure outlet steam temperature,
probe to measure the outlet steam pressure, 
inlet water flowmeter, electrical power analyser
Leonardo Corporation will install measuring devices with reference documentation

Before the plant start up the ERV will verify the compliance of the plant configuration and
of the measuring chains with reference documentation.He will carry out a trial run 

Leonardo Corporation will start the system

The ERV will then follow the system start-up to reach the operating conditions and at least
the next 24 hours of operation 

According to data collected after the first 24 hours of operation, he will make an initial
assessment of the ‘Energy Multiple’ and he will prepare the report

During the test will be detected the electrical power supplied, the temperature of the inlet
water, the temperature and the pressure of the outlet steam, the flow rate of inlet water.

 At 00.00 of every day of the test, the measurement system will calculate the mass of water
that has passed through the E—Cat and the total energy supplied to the E—Cat. 

Every event that occurs from the start until the close of the tests, after 350 days of
operation, will be recorded in the logbook by Leonardo Corporation.

During the 350 days of operation, the ERV will visits to the plant with a frequency approximately
four months in order to verify the configuration of the system and the measuring chains and make evaluations of Multiple Energy

At the end of the 350 days of operation the ERV will follow the shutdown of the plant
At the conclusion of the test the ERV will produce a final report, showing the results

Abano Terme, 2015/02/09


Fabio Penon ME.

107 Replies to “E-Cat Plant Test Plan (Fabio Penon)”

      1. I can’t shake the feeling that this circus is the visible comic-relief part of a much more comprehensive and professional development effort, conducted by parties that wish to (or must) remain unseen. And that the circus is serving a purpose.

  1. It sounds like a description of the earlier system (which Rossi had as a spare system during the test but which was apparently never invoked) because it says about 100 units. The system which ran for one year was said to consist of four E-tigers each producing 250kW.

        1. I think it matters.

          It appears not much effort went into buttoning things up. Like they were operating in an atmosphere of trust and didn’t think it mattered much. Half-assed.

          1. Since the 100 reactor things are still part of the system… I guess we must ask if an updated protocol was sent later and agreed on. I can’t tell if this is the final agreed on version or an earlier version/draft.

          2. Thought that they were still on about the 6 reactor unit test rather than either of these.

            Where’s Eng48 when you need him?

          3. Hi Wpj,

            Very busy.

            What the plan shows is that both the 4 slab reactors and the 51 Blue reactors were ALL the plant. What was backup was 4 reactors, which I assume were 3 Blue reactors and 1 of the reactors inside 1 of the slabs.

            Breaks down like this:

            115 – 4 = 111 active reactors.

            51 Blue reactors in 13 stacks of 4 with 1 stack being 3 spare Blue reactors. So 12 active stacks of 4 Blue reactors.

            48 active Blue reactors (51 – 3 spare = 48 active reactors)
            63 active Slab reactors (16 per slab x 4 slabs) = 64 – 1 = 63 active reactors)
            111 active reactors.

            The small pumps also work out:

            24 x Slab pumps (6 per slab).
            36 x Blue pumps (3 x 12 stacks. In each Blue stack, the lower Blue reactor doesn’t have a pump. I assume it runs flooded.)

            60 Pumps.

            This fits that we see of the slabs on the roof and the Blue reactors inside.

            What we saw in the 1 year test was the normally roof mounted slabs were moved inside. Probably for improved maintenance.

            As in the attached image, ALL the reactors, roof top Slabs & internal Blue boxes were functional. I assume each group of reactors performed a different heating function.

            Such as:

            1) 1st stage heating of returning condensate by the 12 lower Blue reactors. These lower reactors don’t have the Red pumps.

            2) 2nd stage heating to almost boiling by the 16 x 4 Slab -1 reactors. 24 Red pumps used here. 6 per Slab = 24 in total.

            3) 3rd stage Superheated steam generation by the upper 36 Blue reactors. Each Blue reactor has it’s own reactor almost boiling water level control pump.


            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a4ef9a1efacf920c7853953d113a6f37693fa9a3176ed3e876f46e7b68377adc.jpg access.

          4. Hi Leng G,

            Got very busy paying bills.

            Still doing research on the hydrogenation of Ni. A recent filing from Piantelli, fighting his patent being revoked via Rossi action, has revealed a LOT more info than in any of his patent filings. A LOT MORE.

            Explains why Ni Chemisorption of dissociated H atoms is to be avoided like the plague as it stops H- ion production what is needed to drive the LENR reaction.

            Will find the PDF and post.

          5. Hi Lenr G,

            We have not talked for some time. He is very busy. So am I on a totally non LENR project. He said he will get back in contact when we have something to discuss.

          6. I see pumps on the bottom reactors. At least on the ones that can be seen. The pumps are on the RH side, on each small unit, in each case. In the ‘Andrea checking’ photo from the same series as the one above, the bottom pump can be seen for the side that is not visible from the small module end. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf301592976ae106279b2b86b3c516a39f4bfc0ea45c6a678e98aed09a1c4dce.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9edb02c39fc14f1b2085fc76a047adb1b1a5ead934efbf2816a256a559f1a53.jpg

          7. Those end Blue reactors are the spares. Not knowing which Blue reactor might fails, is wise to fit them all with the pumps. If the failed unit is a bottom row non pump Bule reactor, simple to not switch the pump on.

            There are 60 pumps. 24 on the ends of the slabs. Which leaves 36 pumps to be fitted to 40 Blue reactors. If you look closely with a resolution enhancing image software, you will see there are only 3 water leads feeding up into each stack from the lower water leed line.

            What I now realise is this linear arrangement of Blue box reactors and Slab reactors is just a stretched out Blue container reactor that had the Blue box reactors inside the container and the Blue slabs on the roof.

          8. The official cartoon E-cat images show at least 4 additional pumps on the RH side of the back wall, in addition to the 24 on the end (there are no smaller modules in the newer drawings). If there were 4 more on the LH side, then there would be a pump for each 2 reactors in the Tigers. (It’s not clear that is what the extra divorced pumps are for though, or if the cartoon is accurate, but why add more pumps?).

            That the reactors on the roof are now the Tigers inside should be no surprise.

          9. Hi Obvious,

            You do realise you are referring to a drawing of a future product?

            I working with the reality of the images we have. Maybe we should stick to that reality?

          10. I agree, generally. There seems to be some knowledge of the design, though.

            It doesn’t seem like 16 reactor nozzle things are on one side of each of the Tigers, as in the drowings. I guess that there are 8 on each side, or one nozzle thing each feeds two reactors, (which would better explain the number of pumps).

          11. Hi Obvious,

            Counting the nozzle things (which I suspect are how the fuel rods are inserted and how the various electrical wires enter and leave the reactor) on the central island Slabs, there seems to be 16 such protrusions per slab. Which makes 64 x Slab reactors – 1 spare & 51 Blue box reactors – 3 spares = 111 operational reactors.

          12. They are hard to count properly. None of the images really show enough area.
            I don’t doubt there are 16 reactors in each Tiger, in some arrangement.

          13. The four Tigers are made with 64 of those reactors.

            51 small modules are the rest of the 115 reactor total.

            Presumably the spare parts could be scavenged from the 51 reactors since they were not used anyway.

          14. Ok, then that is fine and part of the description after all. So I guess no deviations on that part, contrary to what I thought.

  2. What is getting really annoying is that this is potentially the most important technological development of the millennium and ALMOST EVERYTHING AROUND ROSSI AND INDUSTRIAL HEAT IS AMATEUR HOUR.

    Every document, every process, every validation, every investment, every communication….

    Stick 3 of us in a room together and we would do a better job than Darden, Vaughn, Rossi and Penon, etc.

    I’ll give them props for engineering though. Lots of difficult work accomplished along those lines.

          1. Now you have it. I sputtered the tea all over my computer. (Unfortunately causing a short just the moment I successfully hacked into Rossi’s computer and was about to download the ERV report. Damn!).

      1. Not an engineer here, just a recognized mechanical technologist according job description and duties. If I may be so bold. Penon may not have been required to put together a fancy report that would have to pass some high bar but rather do as he saw fit according to his own knowledge and experience as long as he was able to find the COP of the system. Within reason and conservative values. Not to convince some unknown skeptic or skeptics how all of the details of the heat source worked. Skeptics will always be able to find something not quite right beyond what is basically required. Penon, I am sure, was not asked to satisfy any or all criticizims from left or right field.

  3. It does seem strange that Penon does not know the actual configuration of the 1MW reactor just about 10 days before the reactor is fired up. (This might be reasonable if the plan had been written several months prior to start-up.) Penon does not mention what is done with the power used to control the reactor in his calculation of the “energy absorbed”. It appears that the “energy absorbed” includes all of the electrical energy coming into the reactor room, including the power used to control the reactors, but this is not stated in the plan.
    From an engineering standpoint this plan seems to be adequate for determining the reactor’s COP, assuming that the steam temperature and pressure data is adequate for verifying that all of the input water was converted to steam. It would be good to see this calculation in the final report.

  4. Some of the comments here are ignorant. If you are not an Engineer or have not taken a Mechanical Engineering Class with Materials and Heat Transfer you should not comment on Penon’s Test plan.

    1. Um, nobody here challenged the math or the COP calculation.

      Anyway, anybody can comment any way they see fit to contribute. Engineers do not have a monopoly on understanding aspects of this story. I meet your criterion in any case.

  5. We still await the evidence of the December letter and what it said, though.

    Also, the return pipe is the lowest pipe which we can see and could never be half full. That would require no water anywhere above that pipe, or if water was being forced with air, one heck of a ruckas. A lot of people saw this baby in operation, we now know.

      1. Hi Ged,

        Doubt anybody here will have any issue with the 2 x temp sensors and the pressure sensor the ERV selected, well suggested to IH that he would use.

        To be clear, we do not have a confirmed list as to what instruments the ERV did finally install and where they were installed.

        We do know there are 2 holding tanks. A small one (0.2M^3) inside the container and another, I assume, much larger unit outside the contained.

        That larger outside container / condensate tank used may be like the one below.


          1. What pipe is that even attached to? Not the condensate/return, nor the feed pipes(?), so it couldn’t be measuring flow rate of the plant. Gotta be something else; plenty of other people in the larger image who can see that.

          2. Makes fine sense if it is a valve (does have a handle sticking out of it in an open position) or measuring the water intake for topping off.

          3. Yes, looks to me as a typical air gap (back flow protection) for the city water supply line connection to the condensate tank…

          4. Would that be something like figure 1a in this link?


            with a water meter attached to measure the amount of topping up water?

            It seems cobsitent wth the test plan description.

            I’m not sure though if I can see how the flow is controlled though in the E45’s picture

          5. This is the old plant though, dunno if the red IH plant has this setup too on its condensor (likely if it has the same con sensor setup, but we don’t know), but it is separate from the ERV flow meter. Interesting nonetheless!

          6. Yup it would make sense to measure the top up water though and it might even be important as it may give an important indication of leaks etc.

          7. And the blue bucket on the right I suppose would be for overflow in case of failure.

            The big white container looks quite sealed can there be any issues with air pressure there or is it open some how? I suppose the over flow pipe would ensure air pressure issues did not arise even if there were not other places it was open.

          8. The pipe that goes into the container is above the water line. I wonder if it is a overflow pipe from the internal container. Returning it to the external tank would keep that system closed.

            I can’t see why they would want over flow from this external tank to go into the container.

            I’m wondering if the other pipe to the blue bucket is from the overflow of the external tank

          9. I was just now reading over the patent applications that describe this(?) system.
            It gives me a headache. There is supposedly another reservoir inside the reactor shelter to condense the steam, which then fills these outer tanks, from which the pumps draw (the bundles of white tubing). So I don’t get it.
            See 61821914 and 14262740 (Embodiment 600).

          10. That seems to match with the condensate return pipes wrapping around from the left and into the tank (why two?), and E48’s labeling. Hmm.

          11. There are matching bundles of white pump tubing on the other side (visible in the crane photos), so there would presumably be another reservoir over there during a full test (if all reactors were used for the Validation, which they weren’t). So there is also uncertainty of how this was actually hooked up. (just some reactors from both sides?, or all from one side? Where is the central reservoir (612)?

          12. I wonder what keeps the water meter pipe from siphoning into the blue bucket? That pipe would have to go all the way to the bottom of the white container to prevent that, I would think, and then it is still close to not working without extra help.

          13. It says that they use distilled water, so it is not connected to the mains supply. The distilled water would arrive in one of these containers when bought in bulk.

          14. Distilled water wouldn’t be necessary if the E-cats didn’t work as claimed for a simple 1 year operation. Regular tap water would suffice.

          15. I don’t see how the water gets pumped anywhere from that bucket. Perhaps something is missing (removed), and the bucket just catches drips and bypass leaks while shut down.

          16. I think it’s probably just to catch overflow incase the level regulator in the external tank does not work. But you are right it might have something to do with shutdown too.

          17. Nice images, definitely looks like that meter there just with the lid in a handly position; so measuring top off is most likely then it seems.

          18. Except the meter is at the high point, so it has a high possibility of measuring high due to incomplete filling. If it is top-up water, probably not too critical. Knowing whether either end was open to air would be important.

          19. Can the lid be opened like that?

            I wondered if it was a lever going to a float in the tank to control the top up water supply?

          20. Hi Obvious,

            The 2 larger pipes on the left carry the condensate return from the 2 heat exchangers Rossi uses as a dummy load.

            You really think that size pipe and that meter was what returned and measured the flow for that reactor?

            IF it is a meter and not a value as I suspect it is, would probably indicate the amount of topping up water that was used / added to maintain a steady water level in the condensate return tank.

          21. After going over the Validation description from the patent applications (Fabiani claimed these photos with the blue roof reactors are from the Validation, and the equipment layout is consistent with that), it looks like the two large pipes are feeds to and from a reservoir inside the reactor shelter. The inside reservoir is supposed to receive the water from condensed steam (measured by flow meters), and then return it to the outside tank(s). It is possible that the inside reservoir water is recirculated and exchanged with both outside tanks continously by the Tellarini pumps.

            Application 61821914:
            [0016] The water contained in the two tanks, placed at the sides of the reactor shelter, is conveyed by pumps in the reactor shelter. The water is then heated by heat produced by the reactors to vaporize into steam. The steam is collected in the two tubes of the steam line. The steam is then conveyed to the outside of the reactor shelter housing the water pump and flowmeter. The two tubes are then combined into a single tube.

            These pumps are probably the Prominent reactor pumps. (There are 82 in total, 24 of which are slightly bigger, and I think these 24 are the roof reactor pumps, which can bee seen bolted to the back of the container in a Sept 18 2012 photo [Pop Sci article]).
            There are two large Tellarini pumps. These are labelled and used to send water to the outside reservoirs in the patent drawing from patent application 14262740.

            “[0017] The vapor is then passed through an air exchanger 1 and an air exchanger 2 until the steam condenses. The condensed water is then conveyed into the water reservoir which is placed inside of the reactor shelter in the experiment. The water is then conveyed to water tank 1 and water tank 2, where the temperature of the water is measured.

      1. Definitely way out of temperature range if they were measuring 101-103 C gasses. Seems it can report in gauge too, though, but that out of range temperature is the problem. Solid stainless steel with a silicon sensor should survive at 103 C, but will the reporting still function, and if so, what would the error bounds be? Unfortunately, they were closed for the weekend when I called to ask.

        1. Certainly the sensor can be purchased in Gauge pressure. What remains to be seen if the Report pressure does show zeros for pressure (if we ever see the report). And which sensor was actually installed.
          I have no idea how much the sensors can be overheated or what happens if they are. They are temperature compensating, though, which might have an unexpected effect when significantly above their operating temperature.

  6. That is still not the letter itself or evidence backing it, which is what I am curious to see. We should get it though fairly soon, as I doubt they could argue to keep it hidden with the protective order?

    The Court so far has thrown out IH’s challenges about the GPT test, so we’ll see how all this gets turned, it is indeed a huge point as you bring up. Still, IH knew all this well in advance we see, yet Darden brought several different groups of investors by to show it off, which significantly weakens their position about being “opposed”.

  7. No, that is not accurate. If the pipe is not full of water for the pump, it will push air too. It can’t pump what water isn’t physically there in the diameter cross section of the pipe. Also, if the pump was pushing water slow enough to fill the pipe behind it, the pipe infront of it would have to fill too.

    The only way your idea could work is if the pipe the meter is on is significantly larger than the pipe the pump is on, and if the narrowing of the pipes happened between the flowmeter and pump. That would be extremely obvious and there would be plenty of evidence of this. We also have some soft evidence from Exhibit 5 about the supposed inlet pipe size as well as actual photo evidence from the plant, and there is no size mismatch.

    The idea of a half filled pipe is simply busted.

    1. The issue is not air. The issue is the metering volume in the meter not being full of water. I’m not seeing an understanding here of how a passive water meter works. A certain pressure is needed to turn the meter, but it’s low. By the way, I have not studied this in great detail and I am not claiming certainty here. Rather I am claiming that plausible suggestions of possible artifact are being rejected for implausible reasons, such as impossibility arguments, when this is a known failure mode for water meters and is covered in manuals.

      There is no pumping forcing water to move in the return line. There would be some level of pressure from the steam at the other end, but this pressure is low. From what I see in Penon’s description, in Document 70.1, the condensed water flows, generally by gravity through the meter to an external tank, and then it flows by gravity through a float valve to the internal tank, from which it is pumped.

      “Generally by gravity.” The condensation relieves steam pressure, but if water were to accumulate and back up into the condenser, steam pressure would indeed blow it out. But the system does not create that condition, since, it appears, water flows freely from the condenser to the external tank (though the meter).

      It would appear that the water meter is *not* the lowest point in the system, since water flows by gravity from there to the external tank and by gravity again to the internal tank. As water is flowing through the return line and the flow meter by gravity, and unless the flow rate is high, we would expect that the return line will not be full, it would require back-pressure to fill it, probably more back-pressure than the meter flow resistance would create. That resistance is deliberately minimized in the design of these meters.

      The flow rate in the system is determined by the pumping rate. I would expect no noise in the return line. This is condensed water flowing by gravity. The role of air movement is unclear to me. Can air leak back through the flow meter? The flow rate appears to be too low to create a full pipe, which would require substantial pressure at that point.

      But details matter. What I find odd is that some people seem to be assuming details that they do not actually know, in order to create impossibility arguments. Fun, eh?

      1. Details matter and we can visibly see a lot of them, which you ignore. We also know all the specs of the flow meter quoted in Exhibit 5, so again no mystery, but known details you ignore (here: http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc ). You also seem to be lost on that whatever flowrate the pump is pushing out is the rate water must be coming in–mass doesn’t appear from no where. Water doesn’t just trickle through the flowmeter, and the flowmeter would under-report the flow rate if it isn’t above the minimum of the reporting range, and would report nothing if flow was trickling by with no pressure as that puts it below the minimum (pressure) flowrate. The manufacturer of the meter quantitated the error of that exact meter across a wide range of rates, so we already know how it behaves; and you ignore this.

        You seem to not understand how gravity works here. The reservoir of water above the pipe exerts pressure from its volume weight, and that pressure drives the water through the meter and to the pump which pushes it now against gravity by expending energy, and that is how a flow rate is established. The reservoir must be full of water to do this and push with gravity, so all pipes below it must also be full of water. A trickling stream in a half filled pipe would not have pressure (until the pipe filled and created a higher elevation reservoir), and a minimal pressure with its resulting velocity as required for the flowmeter to even start to turn, and would not have the volume enough in these pipes to keep the pump from going immediately dry. Furthermore, the pipe can be completely straight or even inclined upwards as long as it is below the volume reservoir that is pushing down on it by gravity (ever seen a water tower?), as that is what drives the pressure and flow rate in the pipe.

        You also ignore that the flow meter does not need to be the lowest point (and often isn’t; the water meter in your house is well above the feeder lines or the main line, but well below the rest of your water filled plumbing), as air is lighter than water and will fill all spaces above the meter first. This air-goes-to-higher-places-first is actually used to protect meters in certain settings. You can’t say this meter was in a half full pipe without all pipes and reservoirs above it being filled with air.

        The fact you don’t understand the air is telling. Put a flowmeter into open air–does it turn? No. Why? Because no mass is flowing by it to turn its wheel (propeller in this case). It is when air is flowing mixed with water, so that there is less water per unit volume than what is flowing through the meter, that you get over-reporting (proportional to the ratio). This is especially a concern for oil and other slurry operations for meters where air can easily get trapped in the mix, and is true for water too. If the air isn’t flowing, it isn’t contributing to the volume of mass passing through the meter. If the air is flowing with water, it makes turbulant flow as air compresses and decompresses, causing heavy vibrations and noise. If the pipe is fed by gravity by a reservoir then there can be no air pumped and flowing with it as there is no active pumping where air could get forced in. Do you get it now?

        The flow meter in question is a propeller based volumetric (velocity) meter. Air sitting there doing nothing can’t be read by it as it has a velocity of 0. Enough air and the propeller won’t even be in enough water to be turned (high and dry). Read the documentation of the meter which I linked. But again, if it is in air, then all the pipes above it are completely in air.

        With the Exhibit 5 quoted pipe size of DN80 (and what we size constraints we visibly see in photos), the pipe will be completely water full at anywhere remotely near these flow rates, and moving at a fair clip within engineering norms. This was already calculated and looked up back when we first found out about the meter.

  8. Hi all

    In reply to Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The courts will decide.

    In the mean time, like the initial Test Plan, the test results will get published, my guess would be a preemptive leak from an IH member of staff, possibly through one of their PR company shills along with some long winded Gordian knot of blabber as to why it should be ignored.

    Just going on the fact of how various shills spun the ID of customer’s representative as being an imaginary person. And how said shills spun the test plan as fake only for them to have to row back later. So now their new truth is that the initial test plan is not a complete test, hmm…

    I recognise the technique of: well if that is not the truth, then this version is the truth followed by well what I meant was this version of the truth, ah but that may be the case but we could not know that and anyway this the truth or in the alternative this is the truth. I have dealt the Lawyers expanding on reality.

    It is a funny thing about lying you have to concoct bigger and bigger lies to cover up the previous lies.

    Lies get bigger but the truth remains simple

    Rossi has a simple truth, he has a working reactor, he let the IH test it, they bought a limited License to the IP for $100 million (11 million deposit plus $89 on completion of a successful 1MW industrial test. The test is complete, they owe him $89 million.

    It is interesting to note that everything Rossi told us about the E-Cat and the plant was poo pooed by the various shades of shills, only for Rossi to post up the evidence each time.

    Kind Regards walker

  9. This is not about the E-cat working. It’s about IP and who controls it. A spokesman from Woodford stated as much on the Woodford website.
    Industrial heat obtained license for about 50% of the world market.
    Rossi must give Industrial heat 1st rights to any addition market license.

    Rossi and E-cat are contained and if/when E-cat goes to market is up to Industrial heat and all that entails. This technology can be delayed for at least 10 to 20 years. Note VC’s own 95% of Godes-(Brillouin). The VC’s/Elites have their grips on most all this technology.

    Loophole in the Contract: This 1st right to additional license does not apply to Leonardo/Rossi as it is not an additional licensing. Leonardo/Rossi already hold those rights.

    Leonardo/Rossi want to bring this technology to market. 89M$ goes a long way in making that happen. As to Darden speaking up in December when this became obvious(and Test nearing conclusion with positive results) is when the problem arrose. Rossi obviously couldn’t raise objections until the test was completed and 5 days after payment wasn’t made. Rossi had little legal standing until that took place.

    The Elite want to control and shape the world. LENR doesn’t fit into their plans at this time. Unlike Fossil fuels and high tech wind/solar & batteries, It is hard to redistribute huge amounts of wealth with the LENR energy model.

    This control and shaping of the world is not conspiracy crap from some web site. Information can be found from official Government sources and world agencies such as the UN. For all their education, the “Elite” are not very intelligent. They don’t understand that just when they think they’ve shaped the world like they want, Someone will get mad and smash all the toys.

  10. With the exception of Ampenergo, Everyone(including Darden) signed the amendment.

    If this goes to a jury trial, the jurors will be looking at intent. Dardens signature will rate very high as he was one of the originators of this deal. The jury may also look at the original agreement and see that Industrial heat had previously breached that agreement.

    Take your case before a judge, he has to follow the letter of the law and rule accordingly even if he thinks it’s wrong. He may see a lack of a single signature as an oversight, but must rule a contract not binding because of it. A jury does not have to. They don’t have the same constraints as a judge and can consider intent. It is the primary reason to have a jury trial. It allows the human element considerations.

    You may see decisions overturned because your lawyer did this or my lawyer did that of the judge made a flawed ruling, but you’ll seldom Ever see a juries verdict overturned no matter what anyone thinks of their decision.

    How much time and money is Darden & friends inc. willing to spend for IP that does not work. Seriously, the only reason this is going to court is for them to retain the IP. It’s simple. Rossi is saying relinquish all claims to my IP and I’ll return the 11.5M$ or give me my 89M$. Darden & friends inc. are trying to keep the IP without final payment.

    The fact they are willing to fight this in court strongly supports the E-cats producing excess heat. The question is how much excess heat and how reliable is it.

    1. We only have Rossis world for the offer “relinquish all claims to my IP and I’ll return the 11.5M$”. Deway Weaver have denied that Rossi made this offer and Darden has not confirmed it.

  11. Where did Rossi make this public offer to IH. That is something I have missed. The only thing I read about this is on Mats Lewans blog where Rossi told Mats “During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.” But I have seen no confirmation that Rossi is telling the truth about this. Only a denial from Deweay Weaver.

  12. I see I need to give you more help.

    How the meter handles air is not known to me. Can air leak back through the meter? The meter would be designed so that flow is one-way, depending on the rotation of the metering wheel. Are the metering compartments sealed?

    I already linked you to the documentation to the meter, why did you not read it? It answers all your questions.

    Well, since it appears you need it, I will give you further help and link you to more documentation: http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/water-meters/propeller-water-meters/mwn-mwn-130-nk, and http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Wodomierze/MWN_MWN_130_MWN-G/en-00045-2011-mwn.pdf . In case you you fail to read it, to be helpful, I will give you this quote, “Construction of the water meter gives possibility of mounting on horizontal, vertical and inclined water supply systems with counter set upwards, sidewards or in medium position H-V.” And, if you read the documentation, you would see the meter is airtight, and the typical error across more than the working range is reported (it is a pleasantly small error range).

    Here is the generic schematic of a steam condenser https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Surface_Condenser.png
    . If you notice something, there is a reservoir of water; if the water meter was in air, then the entire reservoir of the condenser is also in air and empty. So note, the flow rate of the steam = flow rate of the pumps. Thus the flow rate filling the condenser reservoir = flow rate emptying the condenser reservoir, which = flow rate of the pumps in this closed loop system.

    Now, let’s look at the pipe. It is reported to be a DN80, which means 80 mm diameter standard. So, what does that mean for water velocity at a 1.5 cubic meter per hour flow rate as reported in Exhibit 5 and elsewhere? It equals 298.42 meters per hour, as we see from this handy calculator so you can do it yourself too http://www.1728.org/flowrate.htm . So, unless the pipe is 298 meters long (it isn’t, it looks to be around 12 meters or less based on all we visibly see and the space constraints) the water is traveling faster than the distance of the pipe and it will fill it completely at anywhere near the stated flow rate within an order of magnitude (necessary since the condenser reservoir would otherwise be empty); and notice that if the flow was even just half what it was stated to be let alone an order of magnitude, it would be below the minimal flow rates required to even start turning the flow meters propeller, and the result would have been 0 flow according to the meter.

    Maybe this will help illustrate some points too: here
    is the basic diagram of a water tower which supplies water by gravity flow http://uptownmessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/water-tower.jpg . Or maybe this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/68/SiphonStillWorksWithBigLeg.svg/220px-SiphonStillWorksWithBigLeg.svg.png . In all these cases, anything below the reservoir (condenser in this case) are water filled. If the diagram of the water tower had the outflow looping back to the pumps, that would be close to a match the description of the system here (just need a tank below the water tower (external tank, could say it is where the houses are) and then a tank below that (internal tank) directly ahead of the pumps).

    So, now that I have done some math for you and shown you it was not possible for that pipe to be anything less than full
    without all the shaking and noise of turbulent flow from air being actively pumped and forced through it, since you want to hold to the disreputed argument that somehow air (while not being forced despite the fact the meter only reads velocity of a sufficiently large mass (kinetic energy)) was in the pipe, why don’t you calculate for us all the error percentage that would occur if standing air was in the meter while water “trickled” past? What would the reading (flow rate) be for that little water to be moving through a DN80 pipe, and what would the percentage of error be for that reading? Give hard numbers, and hard numbers only. If you paid attention to Apator, you would know it would be under-reporting by several percentages, but I want you to do it yourself; no more hand holding from me. Ok ok, I’ll give you one more hint; since air is compressible, it cannot act as a narrowing of the pipe, as the water will just squeeze it down and replace it if water speed got anywhere near a velocity equal to the length of the pipe.

  13. The flow meter under reports if the flow is below minimal http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Wodomierze/MWN_MWN_130_MWN-G/en-00045-2011-mwn.pdf , and the flow velocity in the pipe would be 298 meters per hour at the cited flow rate, so it could not be half full (it would have to be full, as it is not 298 meters long), even if flow was an order of magnitude lower than reported. But if it was an order of magnitude lower, it would have been below the minimal starting flow needed to begin turning the meter’s propeller, and the flow would have registered 0.

    The pressure gauge is way out of operating temperature range, but it is stainless steel with a silicon sensor, so nothing 103 C should destroy a priori. Unfortunately, they are closed for the weekend when I called, so I can’t confirm what happens at that temp, but the error range would likely very much increase even if it doesn’t break.

    1. When you get a hold on an Omega specialist, I believe he will politely tell you that Omega cannot guarantee for the instrument to work when used out of operating range, and that Omega would be glad if you allow them (next time) to help you with the selection of the appropriate instruments. (Which acually means – in a not so polite way – which fre@king idi0t amateur had the idea to install that pressure transducer on a steam pipe!)

      1. Instead of believing and deciding for them what they will say, why don’t we ask them. Their higher temp pressure gauges are only a small tweak from the one in question (less oil mostly it seems), and what we are interested in is not just if it will fail or not, but how, and why 85C is the max rating for this model (out of compensation range probably–but what will that actually do to the data from their device?). Then we will know what the data should look like, to compare claims against. Real knowledge is so much better than making up what we think that knowledge would be.

      1. It’s apparently specific to their meter’s propeller, hard bearing tech, so the meter used should not deviate much if at all (that is why it is included in this meter’s specsheet, obviously). None the less, the error ranges are quite tight on this type of meter, and the maximum uncetainty range is really small. One can say there is error, but that doesn’t mean anything unless it is quantitated or even estimated–thankfully Apator did all that for us.

  14. An exception does not disallow that something else is being practiced routinely. The visits almost entirely stopped with the Rossi declaration July 13, but Darden and Vaughn were still “welcome” to visit. So, once, in August, they both came with the two Woodford reps who had visited before (or one of them had). Maybe Rossi allowed them all in, maybe not. I suspect things had gotten tense by August, after the Murray exclusion in July. From numerous visits, down to one, until the end of the test, that’s a big difference, for more than half the year.

    The crucial exclusion was of Murray, the IH engineer. This was a clear violation of the Terms Sheet, and would be guaranteed to offend IH. It was their plant! So far, we do not know how IH responded to this. Rossi was still pretending, at the beginning of March, only a few weeks away from filing the lawsuit, that everything was fine with IH. Don’t listen to those rumors from snakes!

    1. It takes just one exception to falsify a hypothesis, or break down an absolute argument. Visitors came after, so that is that. Darden/Vaughn could have brought Murray along, or could have gotten the information and details Murray was looking for.

      Instead, they bring Woodford investors and then Woodford announces they invested in IH by that subsequent October, for no small sum of money. Which, by the way, disproved the arguments you used to make about Woodford’s involvement, as now we see they did see the plant, twice, and then decided to invest–there was direct interaction. If there were tensions and troubles, why did Darden bring them by in August?

      So far, all the investor groups we have heard hearsay on did indeed come visit the plant (Rossi was right on this apparently). And we see Rossi could not stop Darden or Vaughn from visiting and bringing whomever they chose with them. They could have brought Murray at any time, yet chose not to. If Murray showed up by himself and was turned away, oh well, he should have gone with Darden and Vaughn or told them what to look for. And if they suspected stuff, it was irresponsible if not dishonest to bring Woodford around to seek investment if fraud was suspected as IH claims in the counter-claims.

      A lot of strange stuff going on here; still more questions than answers.

  15. Water flow quantity is specifically defined in the spec sheets at multiple points, and we know the device is quite accurate if only slightly under reporting at the flows supposedly in the system (it is quite sensitive enough, but not optimal–through 3% under reporting is not bad), so which quantity is being ignored? Do you mean the total volume of water in the system? Indeed, you are right that we don’t know the full quantity of water contained in the system, and if it was sufficiently low enough, then water would just circuit around in a squirt; but in that case the meter would not be measuring a constant flow but only bursts. Unfortunately I can’t find any mathematical basis to begin calculating what that would do.

    What we do know, is there appears to be no pump between the meter and the external or internal tanks if I read the plan right, so if the meter was in air, then all the piping above it before and after would be even more so, including the condenser and the tubes feeding the external tank where they loop up to feed in (assuming standard design so it can’t flow back).

    Using this picture http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/E-CatDoral.jpg , we can estimate distances using the ~9 ft height of the container as a reference (and measuring things relative to each other when they are closest together, and then adding it all up). Using that, it seems the return pipe is about 2.5-3 feet above the ground and about 6.5″ in OD with the insulation (the bottom of the container door is about 2 feet high, and the pipe about a foot above that). That is the lowest point in the system we can see. The container floor, where the internal tank is supposedly, should be equal with the door, so about 2 feet above the ground (and there needs to be room for piping for feeding the pumps). If the internal tank is being fed by a valve and gravity, then the external tank must be higher than 2 feet (or at least its usable water level must be), which puts it quite close to the current return pipe height we see, and so there should be piping rising up to enter the tank from a higher level or the water would just drain back into the pipe (we see with the blue plant that the piping enters the external tank from the top, if that is still the same design used). This basically requires the external tank to be empty for the water meter to be partly in air if it is on the return pipe we see, and the condenser feeding all this from the top of the system would very much be empty if so, because, again, air is lighter than water.

    So, where does this leave us? Not much of anywhere, as you point out, because we have no pictures form that side of the plant. We don’t know exactly where the meter is, contrary to all the huge assumptions being made of the design. All we know is “It is located along the line of return of the water, between the plant of the Customer andthe 1 MW E—Cat”, which doesn’t tell us where (just “along” the line somewhere) or how the setup is. Maybe the flowmeter is placed at the top of the upward loop of piping before it goes down into the external tank, which would be the worst place to put it. Or maybe it is in the proper spot Apator recommends, which is above the lowest level but below the highest level of piping. We have no accurate idea, as you very correctly state, as we lack the pictures we need to see how the pipes and tanks and meter are arranged, so I can’t pursue this with math any father, as we’ve explored our assumptions the best we can. But we do know a lot of people saw this thing, and built this thing, and they would know, and would have known from the start; if any of them want to speak up (Darden, Vaughn, any of the investors…).

    Looking at the internal design, and the gauge glasses we see, I don’t see how water would overflow into the steam pipe, which is quite a way above the reactors, as there are only pumps before the reactors and not after–and the reactors are apparently only half full. We know at these 103 C temps, that the steam should be 100% unless directly and intentionally pressurized above the native pressure steam at that temp and flow should have (it is moving against gravity now with the only pumps being before the reactors, so how?), but even if it was 50% steam-water mix, the COP would be well over 10 or even 20 (heating of water from 70 C to 100 C is ignored, but is around 52.3 kW power at the supposed flows). A lot of math on that was done back when too. So, small bits of water really doesn’t make much difference to the outcome, but should not exist at the reported 103 C (super heated) steam.

    After that, from as far as we can see, the steam condenses into water at 70 C in the steam condenser and collects in its reservoir, which exerts the force needed to gravity flow water through the downstream pipes and between the two tanks, like a water tower, and the whole thing loops.

    And this is as far as our assumptions can take us without more actual data and pictures of the plant (on the side we can’t see).

    1. Ged, although we cannot see the outside of the container on the far side, we can see quite a lot of the inside. There are no pipes going through the wall on the Tiger end, and it would be rather messy (but possible) to get pipes through the wall on the small module end. This leaves the middle of the container, between the Tigers and the smallcats. This is where the large Steam pipe can be seen (ceiling), and possibly a little bit of the internal reservoir (floor). (The position of the external tank is unimportant if it is just for topping up).


      1. This is excellent, thank you for pointing that out in this pic; definitely looks like that is it. Seems it’s filled to be above the return pipe’s height, as far as I can measure by pixels, as I wondered. You are very right that it doesn’t matter where the external tank is in height relation to the internal (or return pipe), as long as there is a reservoir of water at a higher elevation to push the water against gravity if the external is below internal when the valve opens (since this part is not being actively pumped, as far as it seems described).

  16. Yes, the actual part model stated has A for absolute. If Murray actually saw and read all this, how would he not know? Though, Exhibit 5 is not signed or dated by him, and written/formatted like a legal document, not a letter. But anyways, if it broke and stopped reporting, then… actually I’m not sure what it would report–it could report 0, or a pegged out max value. We have to talk to Omega to find out if it could survive (what the reason is that its rated for 85 C) and what it would do if or if not, as their sheets are lacking in details on that.

    1. I did follow up on that a bit last night. Omega does, of course, make pressure sensors that go above 100°C. This type of sensor has a mechanical seal, and a thin oil layer, which are both affected by temperature. (The oil presses on the actual sensor array.) The high temp units have significantly less oil, which apparently is very T and moisture sensitive (hygroscopic). Reducing the quantity of oil reduces the T and moisture problems. The temperature compensation for the pressure sensor is accomplished by a combination of the oil thermoproperties and mechanical design.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *