A recent filing in the Rossi vs. IH case has revealed a particularly scathing expert technological report by Rick A. Smith, P.E., which claims to invalidate Fabio Penon’s data and even goes so far as to call it “fictitious.” Smith further contends the water flow numbers were caused by a hot water flow circuit and not any steam flow as advertised by Rossi.
The full report may be read here.
Conclusions
Based on the preceding and my more than forty years’ experience as a professional engineer engaged in facility and utility engineering and operations, it is within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that I conclude the following:
1. There was no steam flow from the E-cat to the black box, based on both a pressure difference analysis and a heat transfer (temperature difference) analysis. In fact steam flow (other than de minimus amounts to warm the piping) was impossible with the configuration at the time of the validation period. Thus, any steam flow numbers appearing in Mr. Penon’s report are not valid, therefore the whole report is invalid.
2. If there were a heat exchanger and cooling fans in the mezzanine, there is absolutely no physical evidence of their existence.
3. Because of anomalies in the reported data which violate the laws of thermodynamics, and major discrepancies between Mr. Fabiani’s data and Mr. Penon’s data, the data reported by Mr. Penon must be viewed with extreme skepticism.
4. Only the four BF units were running during the majority of the validation period. At times, some units were down for repair or maintenance. Their combined maximum “steam” output is 482 KW thermal. Despite this, Mr. Penon reported significantly higher produced energy numbers for the entire test. It is the author’s opinion that the produced energy numbers in Mr. Penon’s report are incorrect and therefore, his entire report is invalid.
5. It is the author’s opinion that the water flow numbers found in Mr. Penon’s report were not generated by condensate returning from the black box. The alleged steam and condensate system was in reality a hot water flow circuit using the Grundfos pump to circulate the water through the piping and the water meter. Because of this, any “steam” flow numbers in the Penon report are fictitious and the whole report must be invalidated.
6. As the photos of the BF units illustrate, there are no superheaters, thus there can be no superheated steam. Because of this, Mr. Penon’s reported steam temperature numbers are not valid, thus his whole report is invalid.