You believe what Rossi said about this?
If the flowmeter went back to the manufacturer, they would certify that it was in proper operating condition. This would not provide any calibration at the below-rated flow. This meter was operated out of the device specifications, such that the rotor was turning lower than the design rate for accuracy.
However, it gets worse. The meter apparently showed signs that it was operated when not full of water. This would cause a higher than correct flow indication, and it could be much higher than correct. And, again, the factory calibration would not reveal this.
IH has not yet pulled out the Big Gun. Infrared survey of the building, showing that power dissipation in the building could not possibly have been 1 MW, nor even 100 kW. (Assuming that Dewey has told the truth about that.)
So far, what Dewey has said is confirmed by the Answer (beyond what has not been mentioned, such as IR imaging).
Display More
They would test it in whatever range they were told to test it in. And not necessarily the manufacturer, it could be any certified testing agency, maybe Underwriters Laboratories or another company.
What evidence do you or Jed have of this air in the feed line? Anyone can fantasize what is necessary to make
Penon must be an incompetent fool if he has not thought of this. And he does not strike me as such.
And IH would be complete jackasses, if a recalibration be independent company was not part of the agreement. They claim that the Florida test was NOT the "Guaranteed performance", but I find it very difficult to believe that Rossi and his people would spent 350 of their lives operating that plant if they did not believe that they were performing that test.
For IH to now claim that it was NOT that test, when Penon has handed them 3 quarterly reports and one final report which he was hired to do as part of the "Guaranteed performance test", it seems very obvious that the tactic used here is to deny the validity of the result by denying that the test was the "Guaranteed performance test".
About the infrared imaging, that proves nothing. It would be based on the assumption that the heat was vented out inside the building, which they cannot know when they haven't entered the "production facilities".
And again, what the heat was used for is irrelevant for the performance results, but IH wants to use this as another point to denounce the 350 day test. Well, they clearly haven't made this point clear during the test and before getting sued. When it comes time to pay, suddenly everything is a sham.
To say that IH NEVER saw any excess heat from any Rossi device is just ridiculous. If that is true, then they really are completely incompetent. And I don't believe that.
But magically THEY managed to improve his process (which now, according the IH, does not work) and apply for patents with his name as the inventor. Give me a break.