David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis > and not calculated at the end of the experiment?
I.H. was sent periodic reports during the test with daily totals. Since the temperature varied slightly someone must have been keeping a daily log. Eyewitnesses told me there were handwritten logs. Perhaps you are suggesting the flow rate was the average for a long period. If that were the case, it would be a different average for each interim report, but it was the same in all cases. Also, it makes no sense to use an average flow rate when temperature and other parameters change and when reactors are taken off-line. I suppose the flow rate must have changed when reactors were off-line, so an average would give you the wrong answer. > Does the flow meter reset its total reading at the end of each day? Not as far as I know. Look at the manual. > Lewan says that the average was 36000 kg/day which can be derived in many > different ways. > That's silly. Anyway, it was not listed as an average. If it was an average, or an estimate, Penon should have said so in response to Exhibit 5. > Suppose you read a large number after the completion of the test. If you > divide that large number by the number of days during which the test takes > place you will likely get a fractional value. Since other conditions change, this would give you the wrong answer, as I said. > We can eliminate that possibility if you can confirm that the meter was > reset each day after the reading was taken. Can you verify this occurred? > I cannot, but I do not see a reset button on the meter and I have never heard of such a thing. This would be inaccurate. It would throw away the volume above 36,000 kg, which might be as much as 3% (36/37). If you let the thing run, and after a week or so you would see approximately how much volume above 36,000 there is. More to the point, using an instrument that registers only 36 units per day is insane. A properly sized flowmeter would register thousands of times a day. > I am attempting to uncover what actually took place during the testing and > do not have a horse in the race. This should not be a controversial > question. > Everything about the flowmeter is not just controversial, it ridiculous. It is unprofessional, half-assed and outrageous. With $89 million at stake you *do not* select an instrument that anyone can see is unfit for the purpose. This is another example of Rossi deliberately introducing confusion into a test, making it impossible to do a proper evaluation. - Jed
