Jed,
The name plate for the flow meter gives the minimum flow rate for which
they guarantee extreme accuracy. It is fairly linear below that. As I
said, the maximum error would be less than 3% and on the low side,
contrary to what you wrote.
Yes I think Exhibit 5 is wrong in several places. Rossi will have no
trouble debunking it.
You said earlier you had not seen the log book so you can't know the
flow was reported as constant the whole time.
I note you skipped the pipe size error.
I read that Murray was not allowed in the plant until the end. When was
he allowed in?
I know neither you nor Penon. I prefer verifiable facts.
On 8/8/2016 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <[email protected] <mailto:[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
