a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: Murray an "expert"? He wasn't even an engineer, he was an IT guy with > connections to DOD. >
And yet he discovered a long list of reasons why the test was invalid. So did I, for that matter, and I am no engineer. > "According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or > for 3 ERV reports), > > 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November > 2015 was on > average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*. > Yes, I overlooked that, as I said. That number is impossible. The report also describes a month in which the figure was exactly 36,000 per day. That is also impossible. What is your point? > 2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C and > 102.8º C*, respectively.. > Yes. Rossi reported the water was 60ºC in his data that I have, and in his interview with Lewan. That is what I reported earlier. Perhaps it varied from 60 to 68. But again, what is your point? No one disputes these temperature. > 3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be *0 kPaG, > *so the steam was dry > That pressure is impossible, for the reasons given by Murray. Also, if that were the pressure, it is another reason the flow meter did not work. It has to have higher pressure. > 4) The only power consumption figure we have is from Lewan ~20 kW. > *"* > That is correct as far as I know. What is your point about it? - Jed
