The flow meter problem is just a tiny part of the picture. You don't need to go beyond the paragraph below to throw it all out of the window. Despite that fact, they do go well beyond what they say below in the document. Best to not get hung up on a debatable matter like the flow meter. You'd need empirical tests and expert testimony on that matter, except it was operated outside of the accepted range which invalidates the test. It should have been empirically calibrated in situ and ran at proper flow rates. No further debate it needed there.
The flow meter is irrelevant to the extent that IH's experts even with AR's help couldn't make the purported IP work. Nobody else has credibly or repeatedly done so despite trials probably numbering well over 200. Massive fail and IH would be insane to pay for something they can't make work. "9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million payment. Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both." On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Jed, > Just because you think he is an expert is not proof. From his background > he is an electronics engineer and you have not shown he knows anything > about fluid flow and measurement, or stains. He was the only one (that I > have seen) who has pontificated on the flow rate and other measurement > problems. If there are others, why have they not also stated something > specific? > > You keep repeating Penon is stupid but I have never seen a specific > example - only your broad generalizations.. > > > > > On 8/7/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think he is an >> expert engineer . . . > > > I know he is. But it does not take a rocket scientist super expert to > compare the minimum flow rate shown on the face plate with the data in the > log book. Even I had no trouble doing that. > > Also, it does not take an expert to see that the same flow rate was > recorded every day, even on days when the log book showed the reactor was > turned off and disassembled. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see > that's mighty suspicious! > > > >> and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is an idiot? >> > > Based on his reports and data, I think he is one of the stupidest people I > have ever encountered. I think if he does not cooperate with the > authorities and admit the customer site was faked, and much of his data was > faked, he may end up in jail. I think anyone who would record a flow rate > of 36,000 kg and 1 MW of excess heat on days when the log book shows the > reactor was turned off and disassembled -- and when witnesses saw it was > turned off -- is extraordinarily stupid. I would say he is Rossi's lab dog. > I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to jail, > instead of going himself. > > - Jed > > >
