How a single photograph taken at a particular point in time proves anything in terms of daily data? Also Jed point was that the flowmeter could not read any flow that was smaller than 36 kg/day as stated in the manual.
Giovanni On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Engineer48 gives flow rates from the digital controlled pumps on ECat > World here: > http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/19/analyzing-e-cat- > plant-pumps-indicate-cop1-engineer48/ > > He goes on to comment that some data from the ERV's report is given by IH > in Item 5 > > * "WE HAVE ERV DATA* > > IH exhibit item 5 states: > > According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or > for 3 ERV reports), > > 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November > 2015 was on > average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*. > > 2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C and > 102.8º C*, respectively. > > 3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be *0 kPaG* > > > *Surprise, Surprise Jed's claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I mean does > that really surprise anybody?" * > > As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be drawn > through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly lower > pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side of the heat > exchanger. > > So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input water temp, > flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and pressure that seems to > be more realistic than Jed's flow statement > > "It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied". > Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*. > > (He shows a picture of the actual report below that can't be reproduced > here.) > > As I've commented several times already, it is better to wait for that > actual facts before jumping to conclusions on second hand reports. > > >
