From: "Jack Cole" <jcol...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 12:24:13 PM
> The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam beyond > 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative. Does this > affect your analysis? With my engineering hat on, the result is probably valid. (Assuming the steam quality's 95% there's an extra 5% leeway). With my scientific/anti-pseudo-skeptic hat : a loophole as big as a barn. They probably could have rented a steam-quality meter for $100 for a day to do a spot check on vented steam. $1000 with an expert to run it. Or they could have installed a steam/water separator in the output pipe and monitored it continually. Or sparged the output. Or something.
