Exhibit 5 Murray questions for Fabio
"As I noted above, the questions above are not all of the questions I have from my visit to the 1 MW Plant location, but if you can address these, it would be a good start to me better understanding what you were measuring and how you were measuring it in connection with the 1 MW Plant."
These are questions for Fabio not Penon. I too would like to see the answers. Murray has made assertions about the flow meter for a long time, but I still have not seen a dimensioned drawing of the piping layout necessary to judge whether the flow meter was full or not. It;s accuracy at lower flows is presumably available from the manufacturer
I read earlier that millions of readings were taken. I presume by computer. So what is on the reports are summaries. It would be necessary to see the actual record rather than just the summaries to understand what was going on.
I gather that the meters were sealed and some at least showed just the running totals. Some of the problems may have been just averaging these to show daily rates
Exhibit 1 Smith.
"To use “COP” as a measure of the efficiency of a heat producing device (the E-Cat), as opposed to a work absorbing device (an air conditioner), is a misapplication of the term."
Smith is pedantic and very long winded. He says he has never visited or seen the plant.
I didn't need the elementary lesson in thermodynamics.
When this first started I asked you to specify exactly what "irrefutable proof of fraud" you found in Penon's report and I have yet to see an answer. At the time you said it was confidential and you couldn't repeat it.
Smith's 34 pages of waffle does not answer that question.
I don't want to be dragged into an endless battle about who said what. Let's wait and see what the court decides.