Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: I would assume that the ERV would exclude either party in this test to > participate in the calorimetry.. >
You assume wrong, as usual. - Jed
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Robert Dorr
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Robert Dorr
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Daniel Rocha
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Axil Axil
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Lennart Thornros
- Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Jed Rothwell
