At 09:20 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct
feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as
their impromptu flow meter.
I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the
machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter.
The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone
flushing a toilet.
I'm only half-joking.
It's not a joke, that's a real possibility.
No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just
instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time
the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up
in the final numbers.
Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very
short time. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water
consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively.
That would be true even if they used the building meter.
However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that
short time. Gremlins?
What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as
proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables.
