You ought to remember who lent you those quatloos.
You are right, Smith was wrong, and possibly malevolent. I say that because there is a pattern of misdirection in his report, some of which I've pointed out before. He said nothing of "conservative conditions." He said nothing of error margins, back pressure, or any qualifying language whatsoever. I might end up generously marking it up as a just a big mistake, but I'll make that determination once we see Alan's numbers.
At the end of the day, if they were mistakes, it appears that they cost IH some leverage during the settlement negotiations.
Well that's pretty speculative, as you have no evidence to back that up, other than possibly Rossi's interview with Mats, if you squint and look at it kind of sideways. What Rossi's statement about the pump actually shows is that he's either knowledgeably spinning fabrications to the ignorant, or he's just ignorant himself. Because his statements regarding solenoid driven dosimetric pumps are simply false. The pump issue was just one in a long line of damning evidence for anyone with technical knowledge. But the jury was not likely to be technically inclined, and therein lies the risk.
And you'll find that out soon enough how dosimetric pumps perform, once Allan posts his results.
Regarding Smith, he was using the flow rate given by the manufacturer on a dosimetric pump. The reason that pump costs 8 to 10 times more than the Grundfos centrifugal 'circulation' pump (that Rossi hid in the JMP side), is because it doesn't fluctuate much based on back pressure and other conditions. Why? Because it's dosimetric. It uses a solenoid to 'inject' a very predictable amount of fluid per time under a variety of conditions because that's what it is designed to do. BTW, notice how flat the back pressure curve is. That is quite strikingly different than the characteristics of a centrifugal pump. And the linear relationship on the manufacturers graph with stroke and rate is simply pointing out how stable the pump is and capable of highly controlled flow rates, by varying either the stroke length or the stroke rate).
So it wasn't unreasonable for Smith to use the manufacturers rating given the type of pump involved. Because the whole purpose of using a highly controllable dosimetric pump is to have precise control over the 'dose' (flow rate). Running the pump at the max rate AND max stroke makes little sense, since operation at the limit prevents there from being any control of flow (above the max, since it will have 'maxed out'). The rating the manufacturer gave is the upper end of what someone needing a precisely controlled pump could expect to work in their application. If you need to have precise flow higher than 32 l/h on a continuous basis, the solution is to buy the pump that is the next size up.
Why would anyone (except the Dottore) buy an expensive dosimetric pump and then run it continually at max stroke length and max stroke speed? You will then have lost the very capability that you paid so much extra for: the ability to precisely control the flow. Did Fabiani design computer control circuits for those pumps only to then set them continuously at their max? According to Rossi, not only were they at their max, they were running at almost double their max (which you will soon find out is impossible).
I got to hand it to the Dottore, he is a master of surfing plausible deniability to infinity and beyond!
So far, it's netted him 11.5 million dollars (minus legal fees) for rather crude stage craft. Not bad pay, if you can find the work!
Those digital readouts and the ability to control them with computers does make for good theatre, though, so there's that.