Rossi v. IH — Final Penon Report Published in Court Documents (Among Many Others); “Plant Consistently Produced Energy that is at Least Six Times Greater than the Energy Consumed”

There have been a great number of new documents posted in the Rossi v. Industrial Heat case. Over the last day documents 194-207, along with many accompanying exhibits, have been added to the court docket, and they can all be read here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk (thanks again to Eric Walker for making them available). I have not had time to go through them all so far, but I thought it would be important to bring attention to the document that many people have been hoping to see, which is the final report of Fabio Penon — who was chosen as the expert responsible for validation (ERV).

Some of the document below has already been published in a previous exhibit, as the “Daily Valuation of the Energy Multiple”, but the first five pages are new.

Penon, who visited the site four times during the course of the test, writes in conclusion:

“Consequently the ERV certifies that for a period of 350 days, not consecutives, the temperature of the steam produced by the plant was greater than 100 C, and the plant consistently produced energy that is at least six times greater than the energy consumed by the Plant.”

“Definitely the guaranteed performances standards have been achieved for the test period”

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/197-03-Exhibit-3.pdf

197-03 – Exhibit 3

I am sure there will be lots of analysis and discussion of this and the other documents in the court release, and I would hope we can keep the discussion about it on this thread to avoid going off-topic on others.

  • BillH

    AR apparently bought 10Kg of Platinum sponges, they would be worth quite a lot of money, I wonder where they went?

    http://www.specialtymetals.com/blog/2014/4/9/3-things-you-probably-never-knew-about-platinum-sponges

    • Mike Rion

      If you read further it seems it was only a quote he received from Johnson Mathey, which was never finalized as a purchase. Instead he bought a particular filter from a JM distributor, which he mined for a few ounces of the Platinum material that he needed for experimentation.

      • BillH

        I’ll recheck that, it seemed like a nice portable pension fund.

        • BillH

          Document 245-24, while not conclusive, there doesn’t appear to be a cancellation email.

  • GiveADogABone

    You are right about the BF internals. We need a ‘Rossi says’ for that.

  • GiveADogABone

    http://www.multifan.co.uk/fans/
    Fans for installation in the wall of a glasshouse, tunnel or any other building where efficient high volume air extraction is required.
    Summary of wall fan specifications

    71cm diameter 900rpm 13,000m^3 600watts

    • Bruce__H

      Excellent! You are like a dog on a bone!

      So if each fan is 25,000 m^3 capacity (rather than 250,000 m^3 as I previously thought) then 2 fans would need something like 2.4 kW.

      • GiveADogABone

        In a glasshouse, the fan operates with no pressure drop in its circuit. If you are blowing through tube bundles you produce a pressure drop and that shifts the fan’s duty point. In other words more power needed but how much is an unknown.

        On a heat balance basis I have a crude estimate of about 70,000m^3/h. The calc is just above. Both points seem to push things close to 10kw.

  • GiveADogABone

    Type ‘superheat’ into the search box at the top of the ECW home page. That should get you to all the discussion. There is a ‘Rossi says’ that states the E-cat superheats.

    There is also a photo of an E-cat module with the top removed. The fins on the heat exchanger reach almost to the top of the steam space and when the E-cat operates at half-a-glass there is a length of fin above the internal water level. That length of fin above the water level is the superheater.

  • GiveADogABone

    Websearch on ‘prominent gamma 23w’
    There is a photo of the data plate of a BF feed pump in the court evidence that states it is a 23w. These pumps appear to no longer be manufactured.

    The pump performance is dictated by stroke rate, stroke length and backpressure. 32L/h is the rating at high backpressure. The medium pressure rating is 36l/h. So what is the backpressure of the E-cat pumps?

    The target total flowrate is 1500kg/h, so 1500/24=62.5kg/h per pump which is well above 36l/h, so there is a query here. There is something we do not know. A modification to the pumps for very low backpressure operation is a contender for the solution perhaps?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    You would have to increase the stroke rate beyond the maximum of 180/min (see http://www.prominentfluid.com.au/uploads/Files%202016/Manuals%202/Solenoid%20pumps/GALA%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf ). Not the most elegant solution since it would certainly reduce the lifetime of the pump.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    235-10 contains tons of new photos and other information. This will take some time to analyze.

    • BillH

      Indeed. Much more detailed than his first report having had access to the plant.

    • GiveADogABone

      235-10 : p23/4
      ‘In Mr. Penon’s report, he is reporting alleged steam temperatures that are slightly superheated’
      True!

      ‘The construction of the BF units precludes the use of internal superheaters.’
      Wrong!

      ‘All the heating elements of the BF units are submerged in water, which means that they can only generate saturated “steam”.’
      Wrong!

      ‘there are no heating elements above the alleged water line, there can be no internal superheat.’
      Wrong on both counts!

      ‘Are there external superheaters on the BF units?’
      No!

      Perhaps Mr Rick Smith would care to explain how a steam outlet pipe can be flooded when the boiler gauge glass shows a level at mid height?
      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/06/12/quarkx-news-watch-thread/

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I have noticed that, too. There could be easily an internal superheater. I think that he is also wrong about the atmospheric pressure in the plant inlet, since Penon said that the circuit has been opened only once in a while in order to refill the auxiliary tank.

        However, the question how both a pressure differential and a surprisingly constant outlet pressure could fit together remains open. Steam velocity is also a problem. Even with a 4.5’’ ID pipe I get about 247 km/h for 1500 kg steam/h – maybe somebody wants to check. 100% steam would not have been required, but even an insignificant mistake might damage the credibility of the report.

    • GiveADogABone

      235-10: p19 Water Flow Issues

      http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html
      Coefficient of thermal expansion steel 12*10^-6 m/m C
      Length of pipe 30m
      dt=100-20=80C
      Expansion pipe from E-cat to black box = 30*80*12/10^6 = 0.0288m – 28.8mm. Call it 3cm.
      It looks to me like the ‘Serpentine heat exchanger’ is a set of flexibility bends to relieve the thermal expansion of the pipework from the E-cat to the black box.
      http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/steam-distribution/pipe-expansion-and-support.aspx
      Is a good read for the beginner.
      Hint: Turn Fig 10.4.9 on its side and clockwise and compare to Mr Smith’s diagram of the ‘Serpentine Ht Ex’. OK, add a few more bends to the fig.

      I would agree with Mr Smith that the ‘Serpentine heat exchanger’ is probably a water circuit driven by the Grunfos pump with a filter. It is a flushing and startup system. To keep temperatures uniform as you start up a once-through boiler system, you must flood the boiler and circulate the water to all parts.

      What you should never do is switch on the heaters in the BF units with the water at half a glass and let the water boil when other parts of the system are stone cold. Has Mr Smith ever worked on a once-through boiler power station? I have. You should heat and circulate the working fluid throughout the system to provide a steady, gentle ramp rate for metal temperatures (constrained 70C temperature changes reach yield stress like railway lines buckle in the hot sun). Annoyingly, I have read a startup procedure for the E-cat and I have now lost it among all the documents. The start-up procedure ends with a boil-back to normal operating level.

  • Stephen

    An interesting observation:

    If I understood correctly each generator unit consumes between 1.1 kW and 2.5 kW for heating and other power needs.

    So the Tiger modules containing 15 generator units would each consume between 16.5 kW and 32.5 kW. And the Tiger module containing 16 generator units would consume between 17.6 kW and 35 kW.

    The total power consumed for heating etc would then be:

    Between 67.1 kW and 132.5 kW if all units in all 4 Tigers were being used.

    Between 49.5 kW and 100 kW if one Tiger is Off and all units in 3 Tigers were used.

    If we take the first case this would be consistent with a COP of between about 7.6 and 15 if 1MW is out put. Which is close to the original specified COP for the device. And also similar to some of the COPs mentioned by IH in some tests on some device.

    Curiously though according to the data the actual power useage was closer to 10 kW. And the actual COP correspondingly much higher.

    One possibility is that the 1.1 to 2.5 kW refers to each Tiger rather than each unit but I don’t think that is the case from the text.

    I suppose this could mean a number of things but I wonder if it tells us something about “steady state” and “self sustain mode”.

    Could it be that in one of these modes (maybe steady state) it only requires one of the devices in each Tiger to be powered. And the remaining 14 to 15 units are sustained by this single unit excess heat instead of requiring external heat?

    If so could Self sustain mode be one step further when the units continuously sustain each other.

    It seems to me this is how he has multiplied the actual COP up from 7.5 kW to closer to 100kW. And looks consistent with the data. And that the normal specified COP for the device is for 100% powered mode with no steady state or self sustain mode?

    Could this much lower than specified power usage be further proof that excess heat must have occurred?

    • BillH

      Since most of this detail isn’t in the final report it’s hard to say, but Bruce_H below did come across intermediate testing done by Penon on one of his site visits which indicated that some of the cores within the Frankies were actually powered down, i.e. they had no Current input. Interestingly Darden/Vaughn seemed to indicated that a subset of the reactors within the container might be used for “testing”, but this isn’t reflected in the actual test document as written by Penon.

      • BillH

        Reference document 214-33 Exhibit 33 starting around page 17 of 36.
        This document also shows much clearer diagrams of the steam and water lines than the one that appears in the final report.

        • Stephen

          Thanks for that document link BillH I have a feeling that some parts of that document could be a kind of gold mine if it can be correctly interpreted.

          The powering of individual units in BF1 to BF3 is interesting…

    • GiveADogABone

      It is an interesting thought that the high CoPs reported by the 1yr test are a product of the ‘Tiger’ (aka BF) unit internal design and the collaborative performance of the 16 modules inside. The inverse logic is that the 1yr test back up plant, with individual modules, was only capable of about CoP=6.

      That would explain why Rossi was determined not to use the backup plant, if he could possibly avoid it.

      It is noteworthy that when one BF unit came off line in the test, the remaining three BF units in service continued to deliver high CoPs.

      What would have happened if the roles of backup and main were reversed? Would IH have accepted CoP just above six without a big falling out?

      There are immediately obvious IP issues here. The backup plant with 51 modules was obsolete kit, with its IP exposed in patents and worth little. The additional IP of the BF units was the high value component and I guess that is what IH lacked (until they came up with the money?)

      • Stephen

        Yup it’s interesting I’ve just been re-reading your past threads about the ECat from last year after reviewing this document. Lots of interesting stuff was covered back then especially your exchanges with Engineer 48.

        • GiveADogABone

          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/21/rossi-for-1mw-plant-test-maximum-possible-input-300kw-average-output-1-mw/
          What was the maximum electricity input available to the 1MW E-Cat plant during the year long test?
          Answer: 300 kW

          If the test plant was running at CoP=4 (the minimum required for payment under the Licence Agreement), then the electrical power requirement would have been 250kW for 1MW of heat. Hence the need for a 300kW power supply. For 51 modules in the backup plant that would be 4.9kW per module.

          The measured power during the test using the BF units was more like 10kW total, so 2.5kW per BF. From 214-33, as pointed out by BillH, page 29 contains a power diagram for the test. The 3-phase, 300kW power supply supplied only the main modules and the PCE830 power meter only recorded the 3-phase module power. The single phase power supply coming from the secondary supply to the E-cat supplied the pumps, computers, control boards & sensors, lights and data-switches.

          You state, ‘One possibility is that the 1.1 to 2.5 kW refers to each Tiger’. I agree 2.5kW per ‘Tiger’ (aka BF) as above.

          • Stephen

            Yup I think he found away to improve on the original configurations in the Tiger design by grouping the 15 or 16 units in 1 module to take advantage of some parameter maybe heat or maybe something else to support to process in this configuration.

            To me it looks like the advantage of the Tiger configuration is that each Tiger is self contained and self sustaining in some way. But I’m speculating of course.

      • Bruce__H

        Barry West’s testimony is that the individual-reactor units were shut down because they were shorting to ground and couldn’t be fixed. So really, it is the Tigers that are acting as backups here after the primary system couldn’t get off the ground.

        • GiveADogABone

          An interesting idea that Rossi was forced to use the BF units for the test. Clearly, the Licence Agreement expected CoPs at the 10 level. The production of CoPs at the 100 level from the outset, as shown by the ERV report, seems to have started a train of events that ran out of control.

    • wpj

      Sorry, but everyone knows that Penon is a blabbering idiot as Jed (and DW) says so and so it has to be true.

      IH were also very generous to him in not correcting him when he stupidly believed that this was a one year test as per the agreement (page 22 of 214-33).

      He deserves to take all those independently calibrated pieces of equipment and put them somewhere dark.

    • Omega Z

      The input variance is the difference between “powered state” and “self sustain state”. Even self sustain requires power input, but at a substantially lower setting. 100KW/10KW their abouts.

  • GiveADogABone

    A first ‘back of an envelope’ calc of fan power to shift 1MW of heat :-
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html
    Air @60C 1.067kg/m^3
    Cp 1.009 kJ/kg K

    Systemair Fan
    6500 m^3/h @550watts

    dt air 70-30=40C
    Ht Tx = 1.009*40*6500*1.067 = 280916 kJ/h = 77.75kJ/s = 77.75 kw for 550watts of electrical power.

    • GiveADogABone

      At 250,000m^3/h, the Systemair fan would need 0.55*250,000/6500 = 21.15kw.
      A bigger fan ought to be more efficient?
      I wonder if they had speed control?