On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I might add: It is damned craven of you to erase my messages. Despite your
> provocations and baseless accusations, I have remained civil with you, and
> in this instance I have provided only facts. Facts grounded in
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Just like Penon.
>
Penon did not respond to this letter. However expert Penon may be, he
cannot contradict what it says on the faceplate of the flow meter. It says:
Minimum operational flow rate 1.6 m3 /hour
Being an expert does give you license to
I might add: It is damned craven of you to erase my messages. Despite your
provocations and baseless accusations, I have remained civil with you, and
in this instance I have provided only facts. Facts grounded in conventional
engineering. By denying this, and by erasing messages, you have
Daniel Rocha wrote:
> "The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ." There is no proof
> that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
> questioning the type used and makes some calculations.
>
Give me a break! Of course he went there. Lots
Jed,
It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
(Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model to
get.
I notice their catalog does not specify a minimum rate and with flow
meters they generally run slower than they should below the bottom of
the
Thanks. Interesting read.
On 08/06/2016 07:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:
Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex
group on Yahoo.
Okay. I uploaded the document here:
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Alright. I am not in the mood for your temper tantrums.
>
I am not in the mood for your utter disregard for the facts. You should not
invent nonsensical accusations that Murray did not see the instrument he
described. He and the others looked at it
a.ashfield wrote:
> It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
> (Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model to
> get.
>
Oh, I expect they did consult. Then they deliberately selected an
instrument that gave the wrong
a.ashfield wrote:
As for the stain marks, without actually seeing them, I doubt they mean
> much.
>
Since you have not actually seen them, HOW CAN YOU DOUBT anything about
them??!? That's crazy.
Millions of dollars are at stake here. Has it not occurred to you that with
For anyone interested in the action, the minutiae of IH's reply are being
pored over on LENR Forum with great enthusiasm.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/
(In several threads.)
Eric
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Your link is apparently only
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on
> Yahoo.
>
Okay. I uploaded the document here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E
- Jed
Just like Penon.
2016-08-06 21:38 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
> .
> Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote Exhibit 5
> is an expert engineer.
>
All Exhibits are here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8
On exhibit there are some pictures of stuff which looks like flowmeters
(though I am not sure they are), page 3. They have a zigzag shape of
mp130-nc-80NC
and not the straight and chubby form of MWN130-80-NC
2016-08-06 22:32 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :
> It does give and it
Alright. I am not in the mood for your temper tantrums.
2016-08-06 23:09 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
> Stop making up impossible nonsense. It is OVER.
>
> - Jed
>
>
Your link is apparently only useful to members of the NewVortex group on
Yahoo.
It calls itself a "public" group but I couldn't get it to show me the
file, none the less, and didn't immediately see a way to join it (yet
another social networking site, just what everybody needs).
I found a
exhibit 3
2016-08-06 22:39 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :
> On exhibit there are some pictures of stuff which looks like flowmeters
> (though I am not sure they are), page 3. They have a zigzag shape of
> mp130-nc-80NC
> and not the straight and chubby form of MWN130-80-NC
>
I copied the message "Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document" to your blog. You deleted it, twice.
You need to face reality. When Rossi runs the wrong kind of flow meter in a
pipe half full of water, it produces the wrong answer. This was deliberate,
I am sure. People
http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc
There are 2 products on this page, with very similar specifications,
mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact specifications, save for the
minimum volume. IH is probably blowing some hot air to
Daniel Rocha wrote:
http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/
> volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc
>
> There are 2 products on this page, with very similar specifications,
> mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact specifications, save for the
>
It does give and it is simple.
For example:
"The turbine flow meter used for your measurements ." There is no proof
that the expert went there or how he got the information. He is just
questioning the type used and makes some calculations.
"was manufactured by Apator PoWoGaz. The model number
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-6-2016-lenr-war-news-in-development.html
let's see
peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
I stated here several times that in my opinion the flow meter used in the 1
year test of Rossi's 1-MW reactor was probably in error. It probably
over-estimated the flow. I said that in the data I have seen, it measured
36,000 kg of water every day, exactly. I found this number impossible to
23 matches
Mail list logo