Comments and Calculations on the 1MW Reactor Data (Michael Lammert)

Comments and Calculations on the 1MW Reactor Data

 Michael Lammert (AKA Dr. Mike)

February 5, 2017

      I along with most E-cat World readers have been patiently awaiting the “report” on the results of the nearly one year operation of Rossi’s 1MW reactor.  Although the data released as part of the Rossi vs. IH court case is without supporting explanations, I believe there is almost enough information just in this data to determine how successful the 1MW reactor was.  Some of my observations in the data include:

  1. The water flow was reduced by 10% in the calculation of total output power.  My assumption is that this is to allow for the steam being only 90% dry, that is, 90% of the input water is converted to steam and 10% of the input water travels in the steam as small water droplets.
  2. The “0” bar output pressure of the steam is assumed to mean the output steam is at atmospheric pressure (1atm).  Why the pressure was not measured with a sensor that gave a more exact value of the pressure is totally unexplainable.
  3. There is no data indicating how the water content of the steam was measured.  (This is the reason that I say the available data is “almost” sufficient to determine the success of the 1MW reactor.)
  4. It is evident that all four 250KW reactors were not working all of the time.  Calculations will be based on times that all four reactors were operating.
  5. The calculated COP’s are so high that the accuracy of the determination of the input power does not appear to be a critical issue in establishing the success of the 1MW reactor.

Calculations

Mass Flow and Heat Requirements

The water flow was 36000 Kg/day, or 417g/sec, or 23.12moles/sec.  Assuming that the steam is 90% dry, then the energy required to convert the ~69ºC input water to steam is:

Energy/sec to heat water to 100ºC = 417g/sec x 4.184J/g/ºC x (100-69)ºC = 54043J/sec

Energy/sec to boil 90% of water = 23.12moles/sec x 40.65KJ/mole x 0.9 = 849500J/sec

Total Energy/sec = 54043J/sec + 849500J/sec = 900000J/sec (.9MW-sec/sec)

Note that Rossi uses a 10% reduced flow to calculate the COP, which is equivalent to a full flow but assuming that only 90% of the water is converted to steam.  If all of the water was actually converted to steam, then the reactor would put out the full 1MW of power.  The COP figures in the data would actually be >10% higher than listed.

Steam Flow Rate

One issue with the 1MW reactor is the output steam flow velocity, which of course will depend on the output tube diameter, as it correlates to the output steam pressure.  For my calculation I assumed an output tube diameter of 15cm (~6 inches).  My calculation would scale with the square of the output tube diameters for other output tube diameters.  My initial calculation will assume 100% of the water is converted to steam.  Assuming a 15cm diameter output tube, the number of moles of steam in a one meter length of tube can be calculated from the ideal gas law where the volume is:

V = πr2l = 3.14 x 15cm/2 x15cm/2 x 100cm = 17670cm3 = 17.67L

And the number of moles per meter length of tube is:

#moles = n = PV/R/T = 1atm x 17.67L / 0.08206L-atm/mole/ºK / 377ºK = 0.571moles

The water flow rate is 23.12moles/sec, and therefore by mass balance the steam rate must also be 23.12moles/sec.  The steam velocity is:

Steam velocity = 23.12moles/sec / 0..571moles/m = 40.5m/sec

If the steam contains 10% water, the moles/meter of tube length will be 10% greater than calculated above and the flow rate would be 10% less (36.8m/sec) to maintain mass balance.  As stated above the velocity will ratio with the square of the tube diameter for other output tube diameters.  It has been discussed among e-catworld readers that the diameter of output steam tube was only 4cm, which would result in an unreasonable steam velocity of 569m/sec (supersonic).

Actually, the steam velocities would be much less than these simple calculations that are based on moving mass through the output tube.  The pressure would rise significantly above 1atm so that a unit volume would contain a much higher mass of steam.  It seems quite unlikely that 23.12 moles of water was being converted to steam each second if the output steam pressure was really 1atm.

Steam Volume Calculation

Another calculation useful for evaluating the 1MW data is the volume of the steam generated again using the ideal gas law equation:

Vol steam/sec = nRT/P = 23.12moles/sec x 0.08206L-atm/mole/ºK x 377ºK / 1atm =

= 715.3L/sec

This volume can be compared to the total volume of the steam output tube, which for this calculation will be assumed to be the same 15cm diameter tube with a length of 10 meters:

Volume output tube = πr2l = 3.14 x 7.5cm x 7.5cm x 1000cm = 176700cm3 = 176.7L

Therefore, the steam generation rate per second would be about 715.3L / 176.7L = 4.05 times the volume of the output steam pipe.   The possible conclusions from this calculation are that the steam pressure in the output pipe would be much greater than 1atm or the steam generation rate was much less than 23.12moles/sec.

COP Calculation

The COP calculation in the data ignores the energy needed to heat the water to 100C and uses a 10% reduced water flow to calculate the output energy (energy needed to convert this amount of water to steam).  For example, on 2/26 the total input energy was 252000W-hr/day and the total energy to convert the 10% reduced flow of 32400Kg/day of water to steam was 2.03E7 W-hr/day, yielding a COP of 80.7.  If it had been assumed all of the water was converted to steam and the energy to heat the water to 100ºC was included in the COP calculation, the COP would have been about 95.

The COP can also be computed for just heating the water from about 69ºC to 100ºC using the calculation of “Energy/sec to heat water to 100ºC = 54043J/sec” from above:

COP = Energy Out/Energy In = 54043W-sec/sec x 24hr/day / 252000W-hr/day = 5.15

Therefore, even if no steam was produced, the system had a very respectable COP of greater than 5.  Also, only a little over 5% of the water flow would have had to be converted to steam to achieve a very good COP of >10.

Conclusions

The recent data released on the Rossi’s 1MW reactor indicates that he has achieved an excellent COP, even assuming that 10% of the water flow is not being converted to steam.  However, is this assumption correct?  There does not appear to be any information in the data that indicates the steam water content was actually measured.  Both a calculation of the volume of the steam generated for the measured water flow and the steam velocities in the steam output pipe indicate that it is unlikely a significant portion of the water flow was converted to steam if the output steam pressure was really 1atm.  Hopefully the real report will reconcile the uncertainty in the steam output pressure with additional data and will also give a reasonable methodology for determining the water content (dryness) of the steam.  It seems rather important that the output steam velocity was measured or some other measurement of steam dryness was made to confirm how much water was turned to steam in the reactor so that an accurate COP can be calculated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • TVulgaris

    Point to a government INVESTMENT in pipelines. Not a TIFF (which would be extremely rare for the federal government with existing businesses, and there’s little room for justification of direct research grants with very prosaic tech, business models, and procedures), any sort of actual direct funding- the more pipelines, the greater the tax revenues for EVERY level of government, regardless of how much (or any, even) gets pumped through them- they’re capital assets. Now, the companies are going to juice the pols to keep the taxes as low as possible, but they can’t eliminate all of them, just beat them back to a tolerable level for the industry. There’s absolutely no down side to the government at any level, provided you can keep the environmentalists at bay. That is obviously insufficient, however, to the new US administration, be prepared for lots of new public-private “partnerships” (or, as I’d prefer calling them, rackets.)

  • sam
  • Dr. Mike

    Nobody,
    LENR is real. Just go back and read Pons and Fleischmann’s published papers from the early 90’s and you will become a believer in “cold fusion” The e-cat is real and it puts out excess heat! However, the experimentally proven excess heat wasn’t really enough to create a business until the data came out on the 1MW plant. The COP’s on the 1MW reactor are certainly large enough to be useful in a commercial product if they can be verified. Since Rossi is spending most of his time working on the next generation of e-cat (QuarkX) rather than improving the 1MW reactor, I think his commercial focus in going to be the QuarkX. Perhaps the QuarkX is so much better than the technology used in the 1MW plant that Rossi is forced to wait until the QuarkX is perfected before he introduces a real commercial product.

  • Dr. Mike

    Steve D,
    The court has a wide range of remedies to settle a contract dispute. If IH is found to have breached the contract, Rossi will receive some additional compensation provided the court feels he is damaged more than what he has already received. Since it is obvious Rossi and IH no longer want to work with each other, I can’t possibly see the court ordering any remedy that forces them to continue to work together. IH will probably have to return all IP that they have received, but because they will not receive additional IP worth many millions, I can’t see where Rossi will collect much of the $89M. Rossi’s lawyers have to prove damages for Rossi to collect more. Was $11.5M for the work Rossi completed sufficient? Maybe. (My opinion is based on a single business law course that I took 40+ years ago- at least the fundamentals of contract law have not changed much in that time.)
    Dr. Mike

  • Obvious

    “It is not me who gave names to all the reactors, have been the workers of the Team. Some name is from their fiancèe, some from the movie stars…Windy and Cindy you already know, then we have Rambo, Angiolina and so on. Officially every reactor is listed by a matrix ( like EC 1, EC 2,…) but they preferred give real names, for fun. One that had given a lot of troubles at the beginning of the operation has been named “Mothersucker”. So it is not rare hear some of the Team say “how’s going Mothersucker?” and the answer ( presently) “not bad”

    – A.R., Feb 28, 2015
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=874&cpage=7#comment-1059003

  • Omega Z

    People reference many things as she.

    The USS Enterprise. She was an amazing ship.
    Until a decade or so ago, hurricanes in the U.S. always had female names. There’s also references to him and male names and this is also a practice by both sexes.

  • Omega Z

    Even if everyone is walking around with there own zero-point energy cube, As long as there is oil and natural gas obtainable, they will always be building pipelines. When it’s no longer available, they will merely produce them synthetically and still need pipelines.

  • US_Citizen71

    Don’t think so…

    Leonardo Corporation Issues Press Release Announcing Termination of Industrial Heat License

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/02/leonardo-corporation-issues-press-release-announcing-termination-of-industrial-heat-license

    • Steve D

      Thanks US_Citizen71. The article even suggests that the IP would longer be IH’s to use, however they did pay $11M. (Some have said IH would still have IP rights). IH would need to have been compensated as I guess other former licensees would have been. With the $89M dispute there might be some wriggle room here.

  • I initially trusted Rossi because of two heuristics.
    First was that a tycoon funded him… not a solid heuristic, as tuconn can take risk or be fooled.
    Second was the reality of a client, who would do the best calorimetry you can expect, using the heat for an industrial process where heat is money.

    Rossi’s profile is very bad but I could not find a definitive evidence that he was a full fraudster…
    The gold smuggling was explained as “recycling business”, but recent article s propose a really different scale , and I’m devastated to having been so tolerant.
    Anyway the only question for us and the pretended long time test, is the reality of the client.

    If you have an answer to that point, you can make your own opinion…
    I keep my own opinion for myself, even if you can guess.

  • Gerard McEk

    Nobody knows….;)

  • Jonnyb

    Hi Christopher I respect your point of view and it is possible there maybe segments of truths, half truths or conjecture. On the other side I believe Rossi has produced many tests and many results, more published than most. I will let the courts decide, if they get the chance, if or not the customer was real. None (or very few) of us here have enough information to know either way for definite. My money is on Rossi, well Woodford, so I hope you are wrong, however never say never.

  • Gerard McEk

    Just to say something about EgoOut, Peter Gluck’s blog.
    This old Rumanian chemical scientist is the greatest fighter for the Ecat and Rossi. He is rational and sharp in his discussions. He is fiercely attacked by the Sceptopaths and the anti-Rossi lobby. His point of view is simple: The ERV report is true, unless one can prove it is not. Many sceptic people come with unproven arguments. An example: “It is impossible that the assumed amount of steam of 0 Barg (one atmosphere pressure) can pass a 40 mm (DN40) pipe”. His response, “Please show me the drawing the indicates that the steam-pipe to the ‘customer’ is only a DN40”. He does not get this drawing or the prove he wants. This is going on for nearly a year now. In many, many ways they try to convince Peter, but they never prove what they say is the truth. I admire Peter for his steadfastness! Please go on Peter!

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerald,
      My thoughts on the ERV report: I think it will be honest, but not necessarily true and complete, very similar to the Lugano report. The Lugano report was very honest as I believe the authors considered everything in it to be true. The issues with the Lugano report have been well discussed- a poor control, improper calibration of key measurement equipment, details omitted, uncertainties in the data presented, and failure to take measurements others might consider important. I believe the ERV report would have been much more valuable for Rossi’s court case if it had been published a preliminary draft, it had been peer reviewed, then it had been revised to answer all questions brought up by the reviewers. The information that I will be looking for in the ERV report includes: the calibration of of each device or sensor used for taking data, the measurements taken to determine how much water was converted to steam, the piping diameters and lengths from each reactor to the main output pipe, and the length and diameter of the output pipe.
      Dr. Mike

      • Gerald

        It stays somewhat funny, the name Gerard adressed as Gerald because i’m used to it the other way in normal life. I agree with Gerard McEk, the blogs of Peter Gluck are a good read well balanced and civil. He is positive unless proven otherwise. Real proof not someone shouting something like with 1MW of heat you get boiled in the building and if you don’t understand you are an idiot.

        Myself I haven’t drawn a conclusion if the e-cat real or not, I’ll sit the ride out and wait for more info to come. Putting people like me in the box believer of planet Rossi doesn’t affect my opinion at all. Hence, for most people not reading about LENR I’m already half way just thinking LENR is a real. More energy out then in, you must be joking.

        Did like comment and calculation, it helps me better the put experience in place to form understanding. I know what 1MW of heat in a room means and I know how an insulated pipe with overheated steam feels from the outside. Putting it all in perspective is somewhat more difficult. 1MWis just a lot, really a lot. If thing are possible or not I’ll rather learn for guys like you calculating it on a fair basis. For me its simple to cool it down there has to be a production proces taking up the energy at the consumer side, or a lot of power from the grid(more then the bills) or a real lot of cold taken from the water surply. Then again maybe the e-cat didn’t work, not decided yet, i’ll wait and see.

    • sam

      The Bold Romanian is a fighter.
      A.R. Must agree also as has a link to
      Peters blog daily.

      • Gerard McEk

        Sam, thanks for copying it to EgoOut comment!

    • LT

      In the past I found a picture on internet that I thought might have been of a prototype of the 1MW plant. (have that picture not available anymore)
      On the front of the container, on the righthandside (as seen from the entrance of the container) at about two third ‘s high a large pipe was sticking out. I compared that pipe with the standard container dimensions and found that the pipe must have been about 40 cm in diameter. So maybe it is DN 40 cm ?

      • Gerard McEk

        Interesting LT, seems a bit large though. Was it insulated perhaps?
        DN40 is ~40 mm internal diameter.
        40 cm is 400 mm (15.7″) (DN400).
        According to Peter Gluck 200 mm is sufficient.

        • LT

          I don’t think it was insulated. Picture quality was not that good. The pipe had an black outer surface and was not hooked-up anymore. (Sticked out 1 a 1.5 meter i would estimate)
          If it was isolated i would have expected to see the silver look. of the isolation.
          But if 200 mm will do, then 400 mm certainly will do !

    • LT

      Maybe it was indeed isolated and was it the kind of piping shown in the link
      At least it had as far as can be concluded from the bad picture about the same black outside

      http://www.thermacor.com/fiber-therm/

  • Obvious

    COPs over 120 were discussed in August, mid test.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/02/cop-ecat-between-125-and-143/

  • Dr. Mike

    bachcole,
    I hope the report is independent and therefore most likely true. Will the report show that sufficient data was taken that everyone will agree with the report’s conclusions? The conclusions should be extremely positive based on the COP calculations in the data recently released.
    Dr. Mike

  • LindbergofSwed

    Does anybody know where Rossi has got the money to have a team working for him? Is it from selling E-cats before? Who bought it? How many has he sold? Did IH already paid him some money? Is it possible IH now know the Rossi effect secret? Why don’t IH want to continue with Rossi? Will Rossis lawyers say the motive for IH to drop out is that they think they can produce LENR by themself? Thank you. I think Mats Levan have material for another book about this amazing story.

    • SG

      “Will Rossis lawyers say the motive for IH to drop out is that they think they can produce LENR by themself?”

      Not sure if Rossi’s lawyers will argue this. But I think you are probably on to something.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      where Rossi has got the money to have a team? Partly his own money obtained by selling his biofuel business.
      Did IH already paid him some money? Yes, 10 million.
      Is it possible IH now know the Rossi effect secret? Low COP version yes.
      Why don’t IH want to continue with Rossi? Perhaps if they haven’t learned from Rossi how to make high-COP version.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has other associations besides IH/Darden that provides some funding.

      As to the situation with Rossi/IH Darden-

      If one studies up on Venture Capitalists, you’ll find many such VC deals similar to the RvD scenario. Merely change the names and the story is the same.

  • sam

    JPR
    February 6, 2017 at 3:07 AM
    Can you say at which Sigma are you now?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 6, 2017 at 7:28 PM
    JPR:
    Not considering the recent stop, we are at Sigma4.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Vinney

    An ‘un-expected’ February demo of the QuarkX would be nice.

  • Dr. Mike

    Christopher,
    I think Rossi will get a fair hearing in court. If he can show the data to verify the 1MW reactor met the conditions specified by contract, and he met all other conditions related to the contract with regard to transfer of IP, then he should be awarded the money specified by the contract.
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    adriano,
    I don’t think Rossi released any numbers about the 1MW reactor. The calculated COP values in the data are higher than any I had heard or seen before (50-60 in previously filed court documents). By calling the reactor a 1MW reactor, anyone can calculate the amount of water he expected to boil in the reactor so everyone already knew what the water flow input rate would be for the reactor. The new data include the daily input power used and the “0” output pressure.
    I agree that Rossi has made a number of possibly misleading statements in the past, but I don’t recall any such statements about the 1MW reactor.

  • Dr. Mike

    Another Dr. Mike,
    Since the reactor is supposed to be delivering steam as heat, I can see why this application is not the same as typical for a low pressure steam boiler. Data on the reactor’s output piping should enable a calculation of the expected output pressure (by an engineer knowledgeable in this field).
    Dr. Mike

  • Jonnyb

    Hi Christopher, profound statement, however how do you get to this conclusion? Do you have actual irrefutable evidence for such a strong defamation of Rossi.

  • GiveADogABone

    Dr. Mike,
    I would like to suggest that the word ‘almost’ in your first paragraph could be discarded. Your main concern seems to be steam dryness. Please be assured that superheated steam is dry and the E-cat produces superheated steam.

    To determine the declared COP on any of the 350 days of the test you need just four numbers :-
    the arbitrary reduction factor: 0.9

    the specific enthalpy change of the working fluid: 2257kJ/kg if the water is boiled to steam at atmospheric pressure and you discard the heating of water to boiling point from the calculation. The E-cat superheats and the recorded outlet temperature in excess of 100C at atmospheric pressure guarantees dry steam and that the 2257kJ/kg is a conservative number. To make it even more conservative the arbitrary factor of 0.9 is applied. When the test report states the E-cat was producing about 847kw, the actual heat production was at 1Mw and the real COP proportionally higher.

    the measured average electrical power on that day e.g. 10.29 kwh/h on day 1

    the measured water flow on the day e.g. 36000kg/d on day 1

    COP=Energy Out/Energy In
    = (36000*0.9*2257/(24*60*60))/10.29
    =82.25
    Rossi reported 82.3. The real COP was about 97.

    That COP number, reported for each of 350 days is all that the test required in essence. The pass mark is 6 or higher for full payment.

    • Gerard McEk

      Dr. Mike makes rightly a remark about the pressure. To ensure that the steam is indeed superheated you need to know the steam pressure. It is unlikely that this is 0 bar using a relatively small tube diameter and the assumed steam flow. The pressure needs to be clear first before you can say that the steam is super heated.

      • GiveADogABone

        Agreed. A vent pipe to atmosphere fixes that issue and then no more numbers than the basic four need to be calculated.

        • Jonnyb

          Yeah get steam out then above 0 Bar and 99.97+ Deg C unless the plant is in the skies.

    • Dr. Mike

      GiveADogABone,
      I totally agree with your COP calculation of 97 for dry steam, but I am not “assured” that the output steam of the reactor is superheated and dry. I believe Rossi easily met his pass mark of a COP of 6, but I want to see the data that shows how the dryness of the steam was measured. I want to see the “why” behind using the 0.9 factor in the COP calculation. Is it reasonable that the output pressure of steam being generated at 715L/sec is 1atm? For the amount of money on the line, one would think that the metrolo0gy on the reactor would be very precise, perhaps with some redundancy. I hope that when we see the final report that the 0.9 correction factor is based on measured data.
      Dr. Mike

  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you Dr. Mike for this balanced evaluation. Allow me to ask some questions about this:
    1. I have assumed that the pressure indicator is a differential one, measuring the pressure between the atmospheric and the ‘steam’. According to your calculations, this pressure indicator should have shown a pressure. Based on the dimensions (15 cm/10m), can you give an indication how high this pressure would be if it were all real steam?
    2. The outlet temperature is about 103C, and with your indicated pressure, I assume there would be no or only a little bit of steam, is that right?
    3. What would the differential pressure be if only water would flow there?
    Thanks, Gerard

    • Dr. Mike

      Gerald,
      Thanks for your questions. My background is electrical engineering so I’m probably not the best person to answer your questions. I was hoping that by writing this post that someone with a good background in steam flow could answer both your and my questions- especially question #2. The real question that needs answered is: will the final report report show that sufficient data was taken on the output steam to show that most or all of the water was really converted to steam? (Or as I said in my post only about 5% of the water has to be converted to steam to achieve a good COP of >10.) I think that if the final report gives the output steam pipe diameter and the length of pipe to the use point, it should be possible to calculate or estimate the pressure in your question #1.
      In looking a little more into steam flow, I found that the low viscosity of steam permits it to flow at the output volume of Rossi’s reactor through larger diameter (10-15cm) pipes with quite low pressure drops. However, if the steam output pipe was really DN40 (4cm diameter), the pipe would have been too small to handle to steam flow from the reactor.
      Dr. Mike

      • Gerard McEk

        We can shake hands, I’m an electrical engineer too.
        Let us hope an engineer with a lot of experience in steam systems can answer these questions. Thanks anyway.

      • Gerard McEk

        From today’s EgoOut where the same issue is being discussed:

        “a) If Murray has measured correctly the size of the steam pipe- 40 mm then the maximum flow of steam from the plant can be roughly 80 kg/hr, while for the design value fpr the Plant, 1500 kg/hr a DN 200 pipe is necessary having a section 25 times greater.

        • Dr. Mike

          Gerald,
          If DN40 pipe was really used for the output steam, there would definitely be something wrong with the assumptions that Rossi has made in the amount of water being converted to steam in his reactor. The problem would be that he is making assumptions, rather than taking proper measurements, such as measuring the steam velocity in the output pipe and comparing it to a calculated value. If the output pipe was really DN40, I would assume that calculations of the output pipe steam velocity with steam being generated at 1500kg/hr were never made.
          Dr. Mike

  • Billy Jackson

    Pardon my ignorance….. but your calculations for water flow of 417g/sec (is that gallons?)

  • Lars Lindberg

    This is really good news, thank you, but how will Rossi be able to prove this? Will he try to prove for a judge that is not an expert in energy calculation or who is going to decide who are right? If he cant totally prove his case I guess he will loose?

    • Frank Acland

      Rossi says he is confident because he has evidence, and has also said that the evidence will only be presented in court. So I guess we will just have wait and see how strong that evidence is.

      Andrea Rossi
      February 5, 2017 at 9:29 AM
      Janell Thurnes:
      My optimism is based on two pillars: truth and evidence.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • LindbergofSwed

        But I think the question is: What counts as evidence? If they have agreed that the ERV report is the key, why do IH think they have a case?

    • Dr. Mike

      Lars,
      Rossi can easily prove his case if the report on the 1MW plant shows he took measurements necessary to verify he was generating the amount of steam claimed in the data we have seen so far. A judge would count on the testimony of experts to come to any decision.
      Dr. Mike

    • GiveADogABone

      Lars,
      I need to rehearse old discussions to answer your questions. In times past Chapman nailed this. Hopefully, I quote the argument accurately. Rossi and IH bound themselves by contract to accept the ERV report. Assuming that report presents identical numbers to those recently submitted as evidence to the court, then Rossi achieved a COP greater than 6 over 350 days. If IH wish to discredit the ERV report and claim a conspiracy to fake it, then it is for IH to produce evidence to support their claim. In other words, until proven wrong by IH, the ERV report is right and Rossi simply says, “I am bound by contract to accept the ERV report.”.

      Hence the major importance of the recent claim by IH that the E-cat electricity consumption graph falls below the FLP supply graph and that this is evidence of data manipulation, implying organised fraud. This claim is presented on E-catworld at this thread :-
      Rossi vs. IH — New Exhibit Shows Penon/Fabiani Power Usage vs. Utility Data

      In the absence of any further evidence, it is possible that the FLP curve is wrong and that the Fabiani/Penon curve is right. Do IH have such further evidence? Is there a perfectly reasonable explanation for the perceived overlap that Rossi could present at a time of his choosing? I believe that the answer to the latter question is yes. Please note the ‘perceived’.