a.ashfield wrote:
I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong.
>
So you think, but I disagree.
> You continue to ignore that.
> It was not Penon's job to correct the mistakes.
>
Yes, it was. He was paid large sums of money to correct his own mistakes,
Jed,
You are right that nobody here knows the details of Rossi's signature
but the plain fact is that IH was formed after Rossi's discussions only
a couple of days before he had to sign the contract.
I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong. You continue
to ignore that.
It
a.ashfield wrote:
> After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from
> somewhere to continue.
>
I do not know about this, but I suppose he had enough leeway to wait a few
days while consulting with his lawyer.
Also, It is possible that I.H.
Jed
After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from
somewhere to continue. He had been funding everything himself for a
long time. As for Cherokee/IH's behavior, see Mats Lewan's take here.
a.ashfield wrote:
It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short of
> funds when he signed the contract.
>
Where did you hear this?
It sure looks like dirty pool to pull that switch at the last moment.
>
He couldn't wait a week? He couldn't
It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short
of funds when he signed the contract. It sure looks like dirty pool to
pull that switch at the last moment. But you will support IH whatever
they do apparently.
Do you deny you made a mistake when you wrote "You made
a.ashfield wrote:
> But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 2 days before the signing
> and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the deal, guess what, he is told
> by Darden that he now must ink a deal with a totally new clean skin
> startup, IH, which did not
Background to Rossi's deal with Cherokee/IH
Engineer48 writes:
"Interesting sequence of events.
IH was formed 24 October, 2012.
Rossi visits Cherokee on 26 October to ink the deal with Cherokee that
he and Darden had hammered out.
Rossi negotiates with Darden / Cherokee and expects to sign
Jed,
I was not suggesting the steam was vented directly to the outside. What
I said was that it would not matter if it were.
To repeat:
AA. "Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn."
Jed. "You made that up, and now you believe it."
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no outcome
> that is going to release useful information to the LENR community.
>
If the matter goes to trial and additional exhibits become available
a.ashfield wrote:
Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the output
> is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure . . .
NOT possible. There were pumps pushing the water. It was not at 1 atm.
> Also the electric power into the plant for the COP. It
Jed,
I don't know why you are having trouble grasping a simple basic fact as
outlined in my previous post. It doesn't matter what happened to the
steam. It could have been condensed in a heat exchanger cooled by mains
water, for all the difference that makes to the case.
On 8/9/2016 10:18
Further to my comment about Penon's report being key to the court case,
consider this.
Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the
output is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure, the output is dry steam and
the heat transferred can be calculated. Also the electric power
a.ashfield wrote:
> 3. It doesn't matter a damn what the customer's plant did, only whether
> Rossi's plant provided 1 MW with a COP>6
>
The pretend customer's plant did nothing, and no significant heat radiated
from it. Therefore the COP was 1. Data from customer's
AA. "Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn."
Jed. "You made that up, and now you believe it."
You owe me an apology. Also you should quit the ad hominem attacks.
Jed, a foreign company doing bisiness in the US is certified by the
government. You are being lied to.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
Jed,
1. Look at my earlier post giving the actual statement by Day Jones that
Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee.
https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See the bottom highlighted in red and then repeat that I am making it up.
2. I have already
Please answer the question.
Nobody told me they didn't given the information to you. But you claim
to have it. Are you now claiming you shouldn't have it?
On 8/9/2016 9:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
The question
Don't confuse the issue with the facts ;-) They lied about Vaughn, lied
about the error in the flow meter just below the minimum shown on the
name plate, used an electronics guy as a piping expert who thinks the
output steam pipe is DN40 and apparently is thought to be expert on
stains. If
a.ashfield wrote:
Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn.
>
You made that up, and now you believe it.
So far I have not seen any solid proof of IH's claims.
>
Then you have not looked at Exhibit 5. Or you imagine that there are
answers to it, but Rossi
a.ashfield wrote:
> The question is why have they given this information to you?
>
Who told you they have not? And who told you I even want this information,
or asked for it? What I know is none of your damn business. Furthermore, it
has nothing to do with this
Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn. So far I have not
seen any solid proof of IH's claims.
The contract says the ERV's report is key. They have to show that it is
wrong by an order of magnitude.
It seems they (and you) find it easier make ad hominems attacks on Rossi
than come
No surprise they haven't given me the information. The question is why
have they given this information to you? What do they want you to do
with it? Make their case for them?
On 8/9/2016 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
Axil Axil wrote:
FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
> the company has be verified by the U.S. government.
>
The company is a fraud owned by Rossi's lawyer.
- Jed
FYI...The company is a chinese company based in England. The validity of
the company has be verified by the U.S. government.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> a.ashfield wrote:
>
> Everything else besides the ERV's report are
a.ashfield wrote:
Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that are
> unlikely to effect the jury's decision.
>
Are you serious?!? I.H. will present iron-clad proof that Rossi is a fraud,
with a fake company, no excess heat, and no machine in the fake
a.ashfield wrote:
So - why has the piping layout not been provided?
>
Why do you think I.H. would provide this to you? Who are you? Did they
provide you with any other evidence? There was a great deal uploaded the
other day. Did they send any of it to you beforehand? I
So - why has the piping layout not been provided?
I'm still waiting for these other "experts" to surface.
On 8/9/2016 6:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full
Everything else besides the ERV's report are technicalities that are
unlikely to effect the jury's decision. IH has to prove Penon's report
was wrong by an order of magnitude.
On 8/9/2016 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no
outcome
Jed,
Exhibit 5 has errors as I've pointed out. It is useless as proof.
You are relying on the word of an electronics guy, without even a photo,
about the "stains". The pipe could have been stained before it was
assembled. What is key is a drawing of the pipe layout - that so far
you decline
a.ashfield wrote:
> It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full from a
> plan of the piping. Without that you have nothing.
>
Who told you I do not have that? What on earth makes you think *I.H. does
not have that*?!?
Do you think their only
The real point is that Rossi would not have bothered to do anything if
they were not working in the first place.
On 8/9/2016 5:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..
a.ashfield wrote:
> As others have iout, IH has failed to supply simple proof that the plant
> didn't work.
>
IH has provided simple proof the plant did not work! Look at Exhibit 5.
Rossi inadvertently provided simple proof that the plant does not work. His
data shows
Jed,
It would be really simple to figure if the pipe was only half full from
a plan of the piping. Without that you have nothing.
On 8/9/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Peter Gluck > wrote:
I told tyht what yoiu said- re cheating
As I have previously said, this is a private legal dispute with no outcome
that is going to release useful information to the LENR community.
It is a quite uphill battle for Rossi. He has to prove that he met ALL of
the requirements of the license agreement that entitle him to the next
round of
Bob,
I read that Penon had all the instruments connected, but of course that
is not proof he did.
If I had been responsible for monitoring a plant with so much riding on
the outcome I know I would log everything automatically. No one would
want to spend 24 hours a day there, so it is logical
a.ashfield wrote:
> That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..
>
Do you mean that they were mechanically plugged up? It is not a stretch.
The water was reportedly filthy. It was circulating around for a long time.
Water used in radiators and industrial
Jed,
That is an unbelievable stretch using recirculated water..
On 8/9/2016 1:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?
I presume they were mechanically
Jack Cole wrote:
Jed,
>
> Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.
>
> "85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the
> conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani
> committed to send certain data and
Peter Gluck wrote:
I told tyht what yoiu said- re cheating with flowmeters is totally false
> and imoral.
>
It is not false at all. It is true, and there is physical proof of that, in
the stains in the pipe and elsewhere.
> Youi have shown that the flowmeter used by
Jed,
your ;logic is flawed but you must demonstrate no heat excess and Rossi
was scamming.
I know well what errors cn you make with many instruments I have worked 40
years in the chemical industry. You are here lying shemelessly with" ou
claimed that it is impossible to make mistakes with
Jed,
Here is the information from the counter-complaint regarding data.
"85. As just one example, in late February 2016, shortly after the
conclusion of the purported Guaranteed Performance test, USQL and Fabiani
committed to send certain data and a report by the end of March 2016 that
would
Bob Higgins wrote:
The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
> mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
> However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
> apparently pulses for
Peter Gluck wrote:
which schematic?
>
It has not been published. You will have to wait to see it.
I realize you do not like to wait. You prefer to jump to conclusions with
no knowledge at all, while you attack me and others even though you have no
idea what we are
David Roberson wrote:
You might well be correct Jed. But, he had, I believe about 100 individual
> test devices. Is it likely that every one failed?
>
The data I have seen, which is described in Exhibit 5, is for the entire
system. It is calorimetry applied to the outlet
The flow meter used only seems to read out visually in integer m^3 with a
mechanical digital roll-over indicator (probably readable to 1/2 digit).
However, the flow meter is available optionally with a pulse output that
apparently pulses for each 0.5 liter passing. Do we know if there was
which schematic? say a horizontal pipe, flowmeter, valve, vertical
pipe= descending or ascending, valve, no air injection in the ssytem.
again, a schematic of the schematic!
peter
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck
Peter Gluck wrote:
tell this to APATOR, was air injected in the circuit?
>
How would Apator know? Their manual warns you not allow air into the pipe,
but they were not present in this installation.
Again I ask: Why would the Apator manual warn against this if it is
tell this to APATOR, was air injected in the circuit? I repeat this half
full pipe idea is too X to be possible. Think a bit, are you losing
your sense of reality?
peter
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
a.ashfield wrote:
I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer and
> recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to compare the
> data logged with what Jed is claiming
>
I am not claiming anything about computer data. I do not
Russ George wrote:
Hmm. So we are to believe that the observation of Rossi’s e-cat not working
> is so simple and obvious that anyone can so surmise without any special
> abilities.
>
Who said that? That I.H. experts have special abilities. More than Penon
does, as you
Peter Gluck wrote:
the idea of half full pipes and half full flowmeter is a total idiocy
>
No, it is not. That is easy to arrange. That is why the manual for this
flow meter specifically *warns you not to do it*. If it were impossible,
why would they say that?
All
I now read that all the ERV's equipment was connected to his computer
and recorded the readings electronically. It will be interesting to
compare the data logged with what Jed is claiming
Engineer48, who has direct contacy with Rossi, writes:
"Rossi told me this meter registers zero for
David Roberson wrote:
Jed, do your sources confirm that the readings were made on a daily basis
> and not calculated at the end of the experiment?
I.H. was sent periodic reports during the test with daily totals. Since the
temperature varied slightly someone must have been
ntroversial
> question.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
>
the money’ is most appropriate here. Let’s
see where is the most money, let’s start looking there.
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 8:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
Bob
the idea of half full pipes and half full flowmeter is a total idiocy
you have no idea how water flows in the pipes and in the flowmeter.
peter
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>
>> the pipes were half, 1/3
a.ashfield wrote:
> If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?
>
I presume they were mechanically plugged up.
They did not 'work' in the sense that they did not produce anomalous heat,
but Rossi pretended they did. It was all a facade.
- Jed
a.ashfield wrote:
> You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite the errors
> I pointed out in Exhibit 5.
>
There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If there were, Rossi and Penon would have
pointed them out. They were contractually obligated to point out
Peter Gluck wrote:
> the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.?
>
How would that work? Explain what you mean. Either that, or stop making
flippant, stupid comments.
- Jed
the tank and located ahead of the pump? Do you have a reference
drawing that shows the system layout?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi'
their
presence. If they fail to mention this then pox on them all.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in co
rtex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
As I stated, I have many concerns about his system. On the other hand, I have
a much more positiv
question.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Interesting that IH in their response deny that Vaughn was a manager at
Cherokee.
See his current CV. http://cherokeefund.com/jt-vaughn/
Jed,
If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?
On 8/9/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bob Higgins > wrote:
Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
I have a diagram but I do not
Jed,
You keep repeating that what you say is absolutely true despite the
errors I pointed out in Exhibit 5.
Contrary to what you write, it would be to Rossi's advantage for IH to
summit errors of fact. It would not be in Penon's interest to correct
them with a court case pending, without
zjed,
the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.?
peter
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
>>
>
> I have a diagram but
:-) OK. I actually meant exactly what I said, and nothing more -- "Not
convinced they were /totally/ faked" ... maybe they were approximately
what was claimed (most of the time, obviously not all the time) and
maybe the meter didn't go totally into lala land when it hit the bottom
end of its
Bob Higgins wrote:
Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
>
I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer this
question.
If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken
> off line, I would design in
Bob Higgins wrote:
I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be extrapolating his
> behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum". The truth is seldom so black and
> white.
>
It is black-and-white in this case. Read Exhibit 5. If there were answers
to any of
a.ashfield wrote:
> There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answer Murray.
>
No, there are no reasons. He was being paid to respond to Murray. He was
contractually obligated. He and Rossi must have known that if he did not
respond to that document
Bob,
My point of view too
On 8/9/2016 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be
extrapolating his behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum". The truth
is seldom so black and white. Rossi is known to shrewdly lead people
on wild goose chases to
Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit? If I were
Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken off line, I
would design in bypass valves.
Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off?
Even if the reactors themselves were shut
Jed,
There are several reasons why Penon might have declined to answer Murray.
Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high has been
shot down.
As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would
expect it not to vary much.
Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out
I think that claiming Rossi is lying or scamming could be extrapolating his
behavior akin to "reductio ad absurdum". The truth is seldom so black and
white. Rossi is known to shrewdly lead people on wild goose chases to
obfuscate what he does know. He may well exaggerate the performance of his
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
> necessarily faked at all.
>
Then explain how they could be exactly 36,000 per day for weeks. As I
pointed out, the flow rate would have to be exactly the same to 1 second
per day for
David Roberson wrote:
As I stated, I have many concerns about his system. On the other hand, I
> have a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen,
> lithium gas system might generate additional heat. As long as that
> possibility exists within my mind I
David Roberson wrote:
I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if
> he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact. Is that not
> giving him the benefit of the doubt? Can anyone be 100% confident that he
> is completely lying?
>
: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document
In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:
*You said:*
OK, interesting
com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something likethis:
"So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much
lower than a megawatt,"
There was no requirement for the power produced to be a megawatt in the
licence agreement. A system producing 750 KW is acceptable to
meet daily payment.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Stephen A.
Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
You don't seem to get it.
Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabrica
:-)OK. I'll stop bugging you about it.
On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am
not ashamed of this possibility.
2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence >:
t it
I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am not
ashamed of this possibility.
2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :
> t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.
>
>
>
-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document
If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive
doublethink he
;sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging inmassive
doublethink here.
You're trying to exp
You don't seem to get it.
Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.
ROSSI.
ROSSI is not to be believed. His "experiments" are consequently
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.
quite interesting results that you can find in the list archives if
interested.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow met
a conceptual idea to digest.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document
I was thinking more of the cooli
.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanis
On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the
truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact. Is
that not giving him the benefit of the doubt? Can anyone be 100%
confident that he is completely lying?
ect: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have concluded,
but I am attempting to give him the benefit
He was contributing in his point of view why this kind of discussion
happens and you just tell him to shut up, just because you think that is
not serious. LOL.
2016-08-09 0:03 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>
> Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this
Daniel Rocha wrote:
LOL. Wow.
>
LOL yourself. Would you care to explain how a flow meter might register
exactly 36,000 kg every day for months, without variation?
Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this particular
nonsense from Rossi because Rossi
LOL. Wow.
2016-08-08 23:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
> suggest you shut up.
>
> - Jed
>
>
Russ George wrote:
There is no blacker hole than the hole of social media speculation and
> pontification, therein lies universes filled with churlish senseless time
> wasting bullshit…
>
You do realize, I hope, that I am looking at actual data from the
experiment, from
]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:
This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of
‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follo
I wrote:
> Nope. Not possible, I think. That would require the flow to be
> synchronized to the clock such that it clicks *exactly* every 40 minutes,
> to the nearest second, every day for months. If it were a little late on
> the last click, it would show 35,000 that day, pushing the next click
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and
when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending
on
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo