Susan Gipp <[email protected]> wrote: Jed have you had any a chance to live in Italy for some time ? > The test location is just in the middle of an industrial area. > - At any time any business facility around could have drown an abnormal > water consumption (there is a car wash nearby) >
At this flow rate I doubt that. This requires a fairly large main water feed, which will not lose much pressure. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument it is true. We can be certain of the following: 1. The temperature would rise. In this test, once the Delta T reached 5°C Delta it did not rise or fluctuate significantly, so we know the pressure and flow rate did not change. 2. If the temperature had risen, fallen, or fluctuated, the first thing anyone would check is the flow rate. You claimed that the instantaneous flow reading is a little difficult to read accurately with this meter. Perhaps that is so, but it can't be that difficult to read, since people use these meters extensively. In any case, the temperature did not fluctuate, so they did not have to check the flow rate, so this is a moot point. 3. The meter shows total water consumption, so even if the instantaneous indicator is hard to read, you can still compute instantaneous flow. 4. For this heat to be an artifact caused by a change in flow rate, the flow rate would have to drop from ~1 L/s down to 4 ml/s, and it would have to stay that way for 18 hours. That is a big drop! I am sure they would notice that. Would you have any difficulty seeing the difference between 60 L per minute and 0.24 L per minute? - Jed
