The flow meter works at the reported flow. It should give a good
reading if it was calibrated.
There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for Murray's
speculations.
A piping drawing would probably clear up the controversy but you can't
apparently provide such basic evidence.
So you keep repeating speculations.
AA
On 8/25/2016 1:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
The writer said there was "No evidence". There obviously was.
The only evidence available indicates the flow meter was wrong and the
test failed. There is no evidence that it worked.
You cited a calibration as evidence that the flow meter was correct.
That is not evidence. That is like saying a car can run, therefore a
car with no gasoline can run. The flow meter was the wrong size and it
was used incorrectly. Therefore, it gave the wrong answer. That is a
fact. Calibrating it five times a day would not make the flow meter
give the right answer when you use it the wrong way.
Pointing to a calibration in response to Murray's comments is a good
example of a Rossi evasion. Instead of answering a question, he throws
out a irrelevant assertion.
You ask: How could the flow meter work when the pipe was half full?
He responds: It was calibrated.
You ask: The flow rates and pressures physically impossible. How can
this be?
He responds: Penon is a nuclear reactor expert.
You can claim it was wrong but not that there was no evidence.
As shown in Exhibit 5, the evidence proves it is wrong. There is no
evidence the flow meter or pressure were right.
Where is the piping drawing necessary to figure out who is right?
A drawing is not necessary. The rust in the pipe and flow meter proved
the piping was wrong. If you trust I.H. and Murray, and you think they
are telling the truth, the rust alone is enough proof. You do not need
a piping drawing. If you do not trust them, a piping drawing will not
convince you, because you will say it is fake.
- Jed
