a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: The flow meter works at the reported flow. >
No, it does not. > It should give a good reading if it was calibrated. > No, especially not when the pipe is half full. It was, definitely, half full. There is physical proof of that. > There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for Murray's > speculations. > Those are observations, not speculations. He did not suppose, imagine or wonder if there is rust in the pipe and in the flow meter. He and others *observed that fact*. You should not distort the facts by calling an observation "speculation." > A piping drawing would probably clear up the controversy but you can't > apparently provide such basic evidence. > I don't need to. The rust is all the proof you need. As I said, if you don't believe that Murray and the others observed rust, you will not believe a piping drawing from them either. I would advise you not to believe what Rossi said about this. He lied. > So you keep repeating speculations. > Again, calling an observation or measurement "speculation" does not make it speculation. You don't get to redefine English words. - Jed
