:-) 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 scale.
"Not _/necessarily/_ faked at all" -- I don't believe it's necessary to
assume the meter readings where grossly incorrect on a continuous basis
in order to conclude that the overall demonstration was bogus; the lack
of 1 MW of effluent heat already proves that. Everything else is
details. The claimed excess heat could have been faked by another
means, and in particular the claim of high velocity low pressure steam
in one of the lines looks very dubious.
And if you write again and say "That's stupid!" I'll say "Oh well,
perhaps you're right" and concede your point. I confess I haven't
studied the setup the way I should.
On 08/09/2016 09:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 this to happen.
This is simply _not possible_.
If Penon had said "these are approximate values" in response to
Exhibit 5, that would be reasonable. Sloppy, but reasonable. No
response at all is tantamount to admitting it is fake data.
- Jed
