a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wasn't it claimed the meter was sent back to the manufacturer after the > test for a calibration check? > Rossi said that, but it is not true. However, I am sure the meter would test perfectly in a calibration check. There is nothing wrong with it. It gave the wrong answer because the flow rate was too low and the pipe was half full. In a proper installation I am sure it would give the right answer. > I doubt anyone specializes in reading stain marks. > Don't be ridiculous! > Without knowing the history of water levels for the whole life of the > meter what do they mean? > Are you serious? Do you think they are incapable of testing to find this out? > . . . ie it could have just sat there for a time when the plant was idle. > It seems most unlikely that the water level in the pipe would be constant > when the pipe was not filled completely. > It seems unlikely base on WHAT?!? Were you there? Do you think for one second this is the only evidence I.H. has? With $267 million at stake? - Jed
