a.ashfield <[email protected]> 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 would be used in a lawsuit against them, which they were planning at that time. If there are any mistakes or misunderstandings in that document, it was extremely important for them to respond and correct these mistakes. There are no mistakes. Every assertion in that document is correct, and damning. > Your theory that the flow meter was reading significantly high has been > shot down. > This is not a theory. It is a fact. I.H. has rock-solid proof that the meter was wrong. > As the flow rate was controlled downstream of the meter, one would expect > it not to vary much. > For these numbers to be true it would not vary by one second per day for months. Furthermore, it was read manually. Someone would have to come in and read it the very same minute every day including weekends and holidays, for months. They would have to magically adjust it when daylight savings changes. This scenario is utterly ridiculous and impossible. Exhibit 5 has errors as pointed out earlier. > No it does not. If it did, Rossi and Penon would have pointed these errors out. $89 million is at stake. They would have made the effort to show that their claims are correct. > If the customer had a strongly endothermic process you would not get 1 MW > released into the building > There is no such thing as an industrial endothermic process which uses more than a tiny fraction of the heat. A typical endothermic process is baking bread. Bakeries are hot because most of the heat ends up as waste heat. > I don't know who is telling the truth, but is not yet proven that IH is. > I.H. is telling the truth. Exhibit 5 is correct in every respect. If it were not, Rossi and Penon would have responded with corrections. When I say it was in their interests I mean it is worth $89 million to them. That is a strong motivation! They did not respond with *one word*. > The theory (not yours) earlier about vapor in the line effecting the flow > meter neglects that the return from the customer is into a holding tank @ > 60 - 70C. Water drawn from that would not have free vapor. > Theory has nothing to do with this. The flowmeter was run in a pipe that was half empty. (Possibly two thirds empty; I do not know the details.) There is no way it could have given the right answer. The manual for this meter specifically warns against doing this. - Jed
