There is no verifiable proof about the flow rates over time. I doubt Penon would be stupid enough to report it constant for a year..

On 8/8/2016 12:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
A large part of the discussion about the flow meter ignores a bigger problem. Whether the meter could possibly have correct measurements at that flow rate is irrelevant. The numbers are fake! 36000 kg/day even when the plant is not running.



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    Bob,

    If the flow meter was mounted at the bottom outlet of the water
    tank, that presumably is outside and therefore a couple of feet
    lower than the plant, it would always be full


    On 8/8/2016 10:06 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
    Jed,

    Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only
    possible to have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted
horizontally (a mistake for use of this type of flow meter). That problem could have been totally eliminated if the flow meter
    were oriented vertically.

    An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow
    measurements are really measurements of the flow speed of the
    medium (water).  The flow meter presumes a full pipe in
    calculation of the volumetric flow rate.  The turbine blade is
    meant to turn with the smallest possible friction so as to create
    as to minimize flow resistance.  If the flow meter was mounted
    horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the turbine would turn
    at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) - since a
    full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
    error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume
    and the pipe partly filled volume.

    On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell
    <jedrothw...@gmail.com <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        I wrote:

            Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told
            Lewan. The temperature is just over 100°C and the flow
            rate is 36,000 kg per day. The pressure is 0 bar. It is
            the same every day, including days when the reactor was
            shut down, according to Exhibit 5.

            If you assume there was actually some pressure, then
            there was only hot water, not steam, where the
            temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume there was 20
            kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .


        Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit
        5 shows the water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was
        102.8°C, a temperature difference of 34.1°C.

        As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is
        unlikely because it would mean the reactor room is in a
        vacuum. "Given the foregoing, this would require that the
        pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly
        below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at
        extraordinary velocity."

        Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm.
        That means the fluid was pressurized and it was probably not
        steam. It was probably hot water. Assume it was hot water and
        the temperature increased by 34.1°C. Input power was 20,000
        J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate of 140
        g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
        indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a
        factor of ~3.

        As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the
        pipe was half full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.

        - Jed




Reply via email to