When a test is designed, a test plan is generated that defines what the test is going to do and how it is going to do it in detail. Both parties look at the test plan and sign off on that plan.
This I.H. test plan should had the test procedures defined in detail which includes how energy production was to be determined. If the test plan was not implemented as documented at the start of the test, any party that has exceptions to the details of the implementation should have resolved that exception before the test was performed. It sounds crazy to me... that standard testing signoff procedures were not followed in this case. I have written test plans and managed tests where each step of the test was signed off one excruciating detail at a time. If I.H. did not agree with the test procedure, the test should have been terminated on the first day and redone to the satisfaction of I.H. and restarted. This situation comes out of La La land and violates the well established processes of conducting a contractual based test. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > "No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with >> experiments." >> >> It would require BOTH the inlet and outlet to be blocked. > > > Good point. Maybe it was just a boil-off reactor? I do not know. Jim said > the outlet was blocked so the temperature and pressure were rising. You > should ask him for details. > > - Jed > >
