I stated here several times that in my opinion the flow meter used in the 1 year test of Rossi's 1-MW reactor was probably in error. It probably over-estimated the flow. I said that in the data I have seen, it measured 36,000 kg of water every day, exactly. I found this number impossible to believe. I was not free to explain the problems with the flow meter. In the response filed by I.H. in response to the suit, there is a letter from an I.H. expert, Murray, to Penon. This is Exhibit 5, Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 29-5.
groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/ Read this exhibit carefully and you will know everything I learned about the flow meter from Rossi's data, and more. Let me quote part of it: "The turbine flow meter used for your measurements was manufactured by Apator PoWoGaz. The model number is MWN130-80-NC. The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour. That is a minimum of 38.4 m3 /day. Using 977.8 kg/m3 as the density of water at 70ºC, the minimum operational mass flow rate measurable with this sensor is 37,548 kg/day. With few exceptions, your daily valuation reports reflect a flow rate clearly below this level. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when they are consistently below the minimum operating value? The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2- 003/2013, Operating Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]. The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid. See Exhibit A. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the pipe volume was far less than full?" Some time ago, I said that the meter data shows exactly 36,000 kg per day. In the interview with Lewan, Rossi hinted that this is a round number, and the actual amount might be 35,792 kg (for example). From the specifications of this meter, you see that this is not a round number. This flow meter measures in increments of 1,000 kg. That's the minimum reading. There are several problems with this: Rossi and Penon claim that it clicked over 36 times every day, or once every 40 minutes. EXACTLY once every 40 minutes; exactly 36 times a day. Not 35 some days, 37 others. That's ridiculous. Even if the flow was remarkably stable, surely there would be days when the instrument clicked over at 5 minutes to midnight (37 times that day), so the next day it would click only 35 times. As you see in this exhibit, Penon recorded this flow rate of 36,000 kg for every day in the ERV, including days when the reactor was not operating. More to the point, a flow meter operated well below its minimum recommend range will give the wrong answer. In my experience, when instruments measure below the minimum threshold, they tend to measure too high, tending toward the threshold. Also as described in the exhibit, a meter that is supposed to work with a full pipe will give the wrong answer when the pipe is half empty. Those are the two main problems with the meter. I believe there may be others. Both of those problems are described in the Omega guide I referenced earlier: omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html "The accuracy requirements should be separately stated at minimum, normal, and maximum flowrates. Unless you know these requirements, your flow meter's performance may not be acceptable over its full range. . . . Expected minimum and maximum pressure and temperature values should be given in addition to the normal operating values when selecting flow meters. Whether flow can reverse, whether it does not always fill the pipe, whether slug flow can develop (air-solids-liquid) . . . In other words, these are known problems, described in the literature and in the manuals for the flow meters affected by these problems. I believe these problems caused the flow meter to measure the flow too high by a considerable margin. I believe the COP was 1, not 50. This flow meter problem alone is probably not enough to account for the apparent COP of 50, but this combined with other errors inflated the COP. I have estimated the flow meter error, but I would like to carefully examine the data released by I.H. before publishing my estimate. - Jed