a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: The writer said there was "No evidence". There obviously was. >
The only evidence available indicates the flow meter was wrong and the test failed. There is no evidence that it worked. You cited a calibration as evidence that the flow meter was correct. That is not evidence. That is like saying a car can run, therefore a car with no gasoline can run. The flow meter was the wrong size and it was used incorrectly. Therefore, it gave the wrong answer. That is a fact. Calibrating it five times a day would not make the flow meter give the right answer when you use it the wrong way. Pointing to a calibration in response to Murray's comments is a good example of a Rossi evasion. Instead of answering a question, he throws out a irrelevant assertion. You ask: How could the flow meter work when the pipe was half full? He responds: It was calibrated. You ask: The flow rates and pressures physically impossible. How can this be? He responds: Penon is a nuclear reactor expert. > You can claim it was wrong but not that there was no evidence. > As shown in Exhibit 5, the evidence proves it is wrong. There is no evidence the flow meter or pressure were right. > Where is the piping drawing necessary to figure out who is right? > A drawing is not necessary. The rust in the pipe and flow meter proved the piping was wrong. If you trust I.H. and Murray, and you think they are telling the truth, the rust alone is enough proof. You do not need a piping drawing. If you do not trust them, a piping drawing will not convince you, because you will say it is fake. - Jed
