Engineer48 <https://disqus.com/by/engineer48/> wrote this on Ecatworld.
"Rossi did say the ERV had all his instruments pre calibrated. Also said
the flow meter was calibrated at the expected flow rate and fluid
temperature.
Plus after the trial, the ERV had all the instruments re calibrated.
Very hard to see how the flow meter could report 50x more flow than
recorded."
On 8/6/2016 10:26 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
Jed,
It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
(Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model
to get.
I notice their catalog does not specify a minimum rate and with flow
meters they generally run slower than they should below the bottom of
the scale.
As for the stain marks, without actually seeing them, I doubt they
mean much.
On 8/6/2016 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc
<http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc>
There are 2 products on this page, with very similar
specifications, mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact
specifications, save for the minimum volume. IH is probably
blowing some hot air to cause confusion in the case.
Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote
Exhibit 5 is an expert engineer. He was _looking at the flow meter_.
He quoted the numbers on the faceplate! He wrote:
"The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a
minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour."
He did not write that to "cause confusion." Penon never answered him.
It is case closed.
- Jed
