internal insulation of the main steam pipe is about 35cm.
Perhaps that photo of the internal pipe is large.....
But the photo of the external pipe, which is the one that is in question, looks to be no where near the size of the internal one you mention!
What should I base my opinion on ... a memo from a directly related party, that is asking a very logical and reasonable question... that states a specific pipe size... and yet that request was never answered NOR challenged NOR disputed....
or
statements from parties that have had no direct connection to the situation, making assumptions without factual measurement and a history of making all the observations "fit their narrative"?
We even have to remember.... the memo stating that pipe size was DN40, does not even designate where the pipe was in the system. Many are simply assuming it is the exit pipe shown in the photo. Can anyone truly confirm that is what Murray was discussing? The pipe could be anywhere in the system, in the container, the exit pipe coming out of the container, a pipe/fitting on the other side of the wall. There can be a DN200 pipe in the container and a DN200 pipe on the other side of the wall, but if there is a single value or small stretch of pipe between the two, that pipe becomes the restrictive element.
The memo probably is referring to that exit pipe. I cannot prove it nor I do not believe you can either. I am just saying that the peanut gallery is stating "We know what is really happening... We know the true pipe size" and yet none has been there, actually seen the facility and have no facts. Murray on the other hand was there, was hired to investigate and ask questions and was in a position to know these things. Which is most likely correct? The peanut gallery or Murray? hmmmmm....