a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > It is quite accurate at the flow rates used should you care to read the > specs (at worst would read 3% low) and Penon had it calibrated both before > and after the test at the flow rate and temperatures encountered. > Who told you that? It would be out of character.
> So to quote the name plate as damning in these circumstances is silly. > The name place shows the minimum capacity! Do you think they put the wrong name plate on it? If you can't trust the numbers there, where can you trust them? It says quite clearly 1.6 m^3/hour. > Why does IH not show the location of the flow meter? This is critical to > know whether it ran partly filled. > I expect they will, in due time. They left out many details. Apparently the flow meter can compensate for being partially filled too. > Not according to the manual. Quoting Exhibit 5: "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]." Are you suggesting the manual is incorrect? Or are you saying Exhibit 5 is wrong? All we have is this unsigned document claiming the flow rate was constant. > That's not all you have. I also told you Penon's data also shows that. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but anyway Exhibit 5 is not the only source. I'm a source too. Take it or leave it. You are relying on someone else to report that and say you have not seen > the complete log. > Let's just say I have seen enough to be sure this flow rate is impossible. Coming from IH this is not proof. > Coming from me, it is. To me, anyway. Maybe not to you. > Likewise there is no written record of the number of reactors working and > how would Murray know that anyway? > Uh . . . Because he saw the log book? Because he and others were there when the machine was operating? And when it was not operating. - Jed
