IHFB,
Jed has been mentioning that Exhibit 5 so much, I get the feeling you are simply blocking it whenever it is brought up? But maybe it is time for you to see it again, or maybe look at it for the first time...whatever. It is very damning by any account, even for a layperson that knows nothing about this stuff. Perhaps you could make a comment after reading? This is Murray questioning Penon :
At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the “test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off (apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How is that a credible outcome?
In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit
was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.
3. The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time.
As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large
reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been
operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).
Similarly, at the time you completed the “MW1-USA electrical measurement” chart on
October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors
(containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only
31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were
operational at the beginning of the “test.”
Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to
how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.