[Green-India] The Suckers At Delhi Government

[Manu Sharma]

The Suckers At Delhi Government

An outdoor air purifying system made by Italian company Systemlife and installed at Connaught Place by NDMC is symbolic of cluelessness that prevails in the higher echelons of the government.

I returned home this morning, after an interview with a German researcher on Delhi government's climate initiatives, to find a newspaper report which made a perfect specimen for the central argument I tried to put across in the meeting -- the Delhi govt, just like its counterpart in the centre, has no clue what they are talking about, no clue about the scale of the climate crisis, what needs to be done and how ineffective will be their so-called plan.

The newspaper report I'm referring to touted "CP’s air cleaner than before" because of an outdoor air purifier installed there for the last month. You read that right, an outdoor air purifier. 

I cannot believe this scam has survived over one month. When I first saw news reports last month, I was aghast at the collective ignorance of the government and the media. Certain at the same time that I'd see a report in the next few days citing an expert clarifying that this had no chance of making any discernable impact on air quality of the region. Surely, I thought someone would point out that you don't install air purifiers in open areas!

The emperor-has-no-clothes moment I was expecting has not only not arrived, but the emperor is on to another round of parade. The news today is covered by several newspapers. It apparently originated with this release from the PTI: "Air purifier station at Delhi a big success." The source cited is not an air monitoring agency but the company that did the installation. 

The machine is claimed to have captured 2 kg of particulate matter but out of how much? All this claim proves is that the device does filter out the air it sucks but is it actually effectivein reducing pollution of that region? What is the reduction in particulate matter (in ppm) measured by nearby monitors? If it impacts a limited localised region, how much precisely is that area?

Systemlife, the Italian company behind this technology publishes no specifications of their products on their website. The site contains no technical details and there is no mention of peer-reviewed scientific papers or independent studies that corroborate that its products meant for the outdoors improves air quality of a localised region. 

Interestingly, the company's product page for Model Città, that was installed at CP, does not even make such a claim. All it says is that it cleans the air it sucks -- without specifying the quantity or the effect on the localised area. News reports from last month do provide an indication of capacity -- 10,000 cubic meter per hour. 

10,000 m^3 capacity effectively means an area less than 23 meter long, 23 meter wide and 20 meter high (air we breathe)! That certainly wouldn't cover much of CP.

But this is assuming that air stands still over a given area, which of course it doesn't. The rate of air flow over a 100m distance at just 1 m/s wind speed at the height of 20 m is 72 Lakh cubic meter per hour (7,200,000 m^3/hr), according to Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, a scientist associated with Desert Research Institute (Nevada, US) specialising in air pollution. This is taken from his post on Clean Air Portal -- the only online reference I could find where this scam has been exposed.

You don't need to be a scientist or a mathematician to know that air mixes rapidly in open areas. The question is, is our government incapable of both simple math and common sense? What about newspaper editors?

Proponents of the machine could argue that whatever little the machine is doing is still commendable. But that would be an argument made without any sense of scale. The scale in this case is like a 2.5 crore (which is what this machine cost) water purification system installed on the banks of Yamuna with a cleaning capacity of a home water purifier! 

Sure, it may be cleaning 10 litres of polluted Yamuna water per hour, at the rate of 0.003 litre per second, but does it matter in a river with a flow of 8.5 million litres per second? That is the scale of con that is being perpetrated here. 

The health chief of NDMC while launching the machine said that money does not matter when it comes to health of Delhi citizens. Systemlife intends to installl 100 such machines in Delhi. Ritika Modi, head of Uniglobe Travel South Asia, the Indian partner company of Systemlife, said every Indian city needs these machines. 

At 250 crore for hundred machines that promise to be as effective as the proverbial drop in the ocean, I hope that better sense will previal with the government. Thankfully, the current installation is only a pilot one and the government says it will monitor air quality for three months before taking a decision. If the process is honestly followed there is no chance of it getting through. 

The point is, the pilot was not needed had anyone done even the most rudimentary thinking. But I suspect the lure of a magical vaccum cleaner that sucks out all the city's pollution was too much to resist for any thought process.



Notes

The post was originally made on Orange Hues blog and copied to:

• The German researcher 
  
• Systemlife, the Italian company 
  
• Ritika Modi, head Uni Globe Travel South Asia, Indian partner of Systemlife Delhi government (several individuals) 
  
• Green-India 
  
• Indian Youth and Climate Network 
  
• Delhi Greens 
  
• Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, the scientist at Desert Research Institute (Nevada, US). He's also credited for the featured cartoon.

Manu Sharma

B-985 Ansals Palam Vihar

Gurgaon 122017

+91 9811576772

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Green-India
to discuss India's Energy Future and Sustainable Living.
 
Green-India
http://green-india.in
 
Rules and Disclaimer
http://groups.google.com/group/green-india/web
 
To unsubscribe, send email to
green-india...@googlegroups.com

[moresh kokane]

Manu

 

May be you are right that the cost (output air cleaned) and scope of these machines dont make it a viable proposition as of now.

 

But there are a few questions that need to be answered:

 

1) Their site mentions the system deployed at various places, where else has it been deployed and what is the performance like ?

 

2) Does it atleast do what it claims to (however meager it may be) or is it pure snake oil ?

 

3) What are the alternatives to achieve what it does and what would be the cost and performance of such an alternative mechanism (processes such as prevention and planting more trees) ?

 

4) Perhaps we can argue for spending more on preventive measures and reducing pollution. While I am fully for prevention, it will only reduce the rate at which we are heading towards a potential climate change disaster. I think we definetely need some sort of cleanup mechanisms similar to these which will act as a second means apart from prevention to counter climate change and get cleaner air. Now are there any other systems similar to these (I remember atleast one being developed here in the US which does something similar but it is still in experimental stage) and what would be the cost / performance of such systems be.

 

5) Will increasing green cover do anything to counter increase in particulate matter such as SO2 and other non Carbon Dioxide pollutants. This one is a honest question and I dont know if I fully understand this.

 

I think the intent of the system is good, and may be as innovation happens we will find more such systems get in use which will be more cost effective and better performing. Lets keep the parameters of this particular system aside and think if the concept itself deserve merit.

 

Regards

Moresh

[Manu Sharma]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM, moresh kokane <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we definetely need some sort of cleanup mechanisms similar to these which will act as a second means apart from prevention to counter climate change and get cleaner air. Now are there any other systems similar to these (I remember atleast one being developed here in the US which does something similar but it is still in experimental stage)

Moresh,

I'm a long-time proponent (see posts from Feb-07 and Jun-08) of carbon capture through air. The machine by Systemlife, however, doesn't suck carbon, only particulate matter. Air capture machines for carbon sequestration have a capture area several hundred times larger than this machine and they would need to be installed in millions or hundreds of millions to make a difference.  

Cost economics of air capture proposed by Klaus Lackner are extremely attractive but no information is available about energy consumption of the Systemlife. Compared to Lackner's synthetic trees, the Systemlife machine is nothing but an expensive toy.  

Google Klaus Lackner and GRT to learn more about that technology.

Manu

[moresh kokane]

But these 2 technologies have specefic applications. Systemlife doesnot capture Carbon, nor does it claim to. And Klaus Lackner doesnt do anything about particulate matter. So both are addressing two different aspects.

 

Or I missed something ?

 

Moresh

[Manu Sharma]

Yes, so?

[Manu Sharma]

The point is, yes Systemlife has a different application but that does not qualify it to be effective. The arguments I mentioned in the post remain unchanged.

Thanks,

Manu

[Sarath Guttikunda]

While this is an innovative and effective solution for indoor settings like tunnels and subway stations (smaller versions are used in the houses), I have my doubts for using a vacuum station in an outdoor setting like Delhi.

There is no silver bullet for improving air quality, which is a growing problem in a number of cities.

Mitigation is probably the best solution, if the goal is to reduce air pollution quickly and effectively. What Beijing officials did for Olympics was unorthodox, closing down industries and cutting down traffic for the two months, but the series of measures and the event itself gave a reason to think back and realize what is the footprint of the human activities (transport and industries) that we are experiencing in the form of air pollution and related health impacts. Same is true in case of Delhi.

We need to try everything from promoting the use of public transport, clearing the dust on the roads, changing fuel characteristics at the refineries (which was introduced in the big cities in April), curbing garbage burning in the residential areas, and controlling emissions at the industrial stacks, before we can think of vacuum cleaners for outdoors !!

http://urbanemissions.blogspot.com/2010/03/jumbo-size-vacuum-cleaners-to-purify.html

--
Sarath Guttikunda
New Delhi, India
Phone: +91 9891 315 946
@ http://www.urbanemissions.info
@ http://www.dri.edu/People/Sarath.Guttikunda/

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

The point is, yes Systemlife has a different application but that does not qualify it to be effective. The arguments I mentioned in the post remain unchanged.

Thanks,

Manu

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, so?

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:09 PM, moresh kokane <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

But these 2 technologies have specefic applications. Systemlife doesnot capture Carbon, nor does it claim to. And Klaus Lackner doesnt do anything about particulate matter. So both are addressing two different aspects.

 

Or I missed something ?

 

Moresh

[Manu Sharma]

Dear Laura Drigo,

I'm pleased to have Systemlife respond to my critique. The criticism I have put forth is well supported by fundamental principles of atmospheric sciences with relation to air flow movement as illustrated originally in my message. It is also based on a rare commodity known as common sense. 

I'm happy also to know that you have commissioned a scientific expert to respond to the criticism. In particular, it would be very helpful if you could request Dr. Stefano Montanari to include the following inputs in his response: 

 

1. A detailed technical specification sheet of Model Citta installed at Delhi. 
    
2. Scientific papers or studies published in a peer-reviewed journal that corroborate the claim that your product meant for the outdoors significantly reduces particulate matter in the air of a localised region measured by air monitoring instruments in the same vicinity. 
    
3. Designation and the nature of his association with Systemlife - consultant, employee, lawyer etc.   
    
4. Replies to the following five questions: 
    
1. What is the effective operational area of a single machine? Effective operational area can be defined here as the area from which the machine would eliminate all particulate matter in a high-traffic urban outdoor environment. 
    
2. How many machines would be required to capture 100% of particulate matter emitted within a region of 1 square KM  of a high-traffic urban outdoor environment. 
    
3. How much particulate matter (in percentage basis) emitted in its effective operational area is captured by a single machine in a high-traffic urban outdoor environment. 
    
4. What is the the source of energy and energy consumption of the machine on hourly basis. 
    
5. How is the captured particulate matter disposed off and by whom?

I eagerly look forward to hearing from Dr. Montanari regarding the above points.

Kind regards,

Manu Sharma 

 

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Laura Drigo <laura...@systemlife.eu> wrote:

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Much to our surprise we received an e-mail signed by a Mr Manu Sharma containing critic remarks regarding the piece of equipment we produce and which is now undergoing a pilot test in New Delhi.
Since those criticisms are not supported by any evidence and look completely deprived of any scientific ground, we asked Dr. Stefano Montanari (Nanodiagnostics – Italy) and Dr. Antonietta Gatti (University of Modena – Italy) who tested our machine go supply an answer which you will presently be receiving directly from them.

Yours sincerely,

System Life

systemlife srl

Tel. 049/9302180
Fax 049/9300496

Via M. Visentin, 14/A
35012 Camposampiero (PD)
P.I./C.F. 03419330166
Registro Imprese di Padova
R.E.A. PD.374328
Cap. Soc. € 910.000,00



Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione sono riservate.  L’utilizzo, la diffusione, distribuzione e/o copiatura del documento trasmesso da parte di qualsiasi soggetto diverso dal destinatario è proibita, sia ai sensi dell’art. 616 c.p. che ai sensi del D. Lgs. n. 196/2003. Nel caso in cui noi riscontrassimo che la comunicazione sia stata inviata a causa di un virus, noi decliniamo da qualsiasi responsabilità per eventuali perdite o danni causati al vostro sistema dalla nostra comunicazione. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore, Vi preghiamo di distruggerlo e di informarci immediatamente rispondendo a laura...@systemlife.eu. Grazie.

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. It can not be used, transmitted or copied. Whilst we check the communications we send for virus infection, we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage caused to your systems by this communication. If you have received it unintentionally please destroy it and notify us immediately replying to: laura...@systemlife.eu. Thank you.

Ai sensi e per gli effetti della Legge sulla tutela del trattamento dei dati (D.Lgs 196/2003) questa @mail è destinata unicamente agli enti indicati e le informazioni in essa contenute sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. E' proibito leggere, copiare, usare o diffondere il contenuto della presente @mail senza autorizzazione. Se avete ricevuto questo messaggio per errore siete pregati di rispedire la stessa al mittente. Grazie

Confidentially notice. This mail transmission may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. Please do not read it if you are not the intended recipient(S). Any use, distribution, reproduction or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please notify the sender and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner.


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Manu Sharma [mailto:orang...@gmail.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 28 aprile 2010 16.11
A: Green-India
Cc: sgutt...@gmail.com; sgutt...@urbanemissions.info; Alexander Farsan; gov...@delhigreens.org; in...@systemlife.eu; director.p...@ndmcmail.gov.in; chair...@ndmcmail.gov.in; secr...@ndmcmail.gov.in; cmd...@nic.in; se...@nic.in; dr.anilk...@gmail.com; sso1en...@nic.in; rm...@uniglobetravel.co.in; ritik...@uniglobetravel.co.in; rit...@uniglobetravel.co.in; IYCN
Oggetto: *****SPAM***** The Suckers At Delhi Government

Spam detection software, running on the system "mxavas3.ad.aruba.it", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
http://vademecum.aruba.it/start/mail/antispam/ for details.

Content preview:  The Suckers At Delhi Government *An outdoor air purifying

  system made by Italian company Systemlife and installed at Connaught Place
  by NDMC is symbolic of cluelessness that prevails in the higher echelons

 of the government.* [...]

Content analysis details:   (5.1 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 5.0 BAYES_99               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
                           [score: 0.9967]
 0.0 HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10   BODY: Message is 5% to 10% HTML obfuscation
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 0.1 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

[gireesh nair]

Hi Manu, According to me pilot project is OK, but if such innovation is adopted on large scale without proper testing then it is serious. In this case I fear there is a probability that the same will be installed in large scale without any proper evaluation report by impartial experts. It will be interesting to know what the experts designated by the manufacturer has to say. It is good that you bought up the issue, hope the media will also take it up. Though it is important that government should support new innovative technologies, it has to done through a process that is transparent and involves proper checks.Gireesh --- On Thu, 4/29/10, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

[moresh kokane]

Perhaps you are right that this particular system is not effective. But whats the harm in a pilot test. As we understand the test system is installed for free. If it doesnt do what it claims or what it does is far too less then the requisite decision making body can take an informed decision. Ofcourse it is good that we are discussing this so that public money is not spent on chasing Unicorns, scrutiny and transparency is essential in a Democracy.

 

Secondly, if Klaus Lackner does not address particulate matter then we cannot claim either is better/ cost effective than the other. So at this stage there is no comparable system. Prevention will form bulk of the solution but we need systems like these which will do cleanup.

 

Finally I see that you have introduced experts to comment on this. Lets see what they say.

 

Regards

Moresh

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Moresh,

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:15 PM, moresh kokane <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:

But whats the harm in a pilot test.

Would you do a test run to check whether a domestic water purifier would clean up Yamuna?

 

As we understand the test system is installed for free.

I do not see any evidence of that. Where did you get that idea?

 

Secondly, if Klaus Lackner does not address particulate matter then we cannot claim either is better/ cost effective than the other. 

Let's leave CO2 capture from air aside. There's no comparison between the two systems, their aims their technologies or their costs. 

Finally I see that you have introduced experts to comment on this. Lets see what they say.

Experts were called in by the company, not me. Most people commenting on this seem to agree with the commonsense arguments put in the original message. 

Regardless, Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, an authority on air pollution, has been kind enough to voluntarily join the group and you have seen his remarks.

Thanks,

Manu

[moresh kokane]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Machine-clears-air-outside-Palika/H1-Article1-516778.aspx

 

“Polluted air, dust particles present in the air not only cause respiratory problems but also lead to a number of bacterial and fungal infections. The filtering system will trap all the obnoxious gases and pollutants through a five-stage filtering process and will release clean air in the atmosphere by working as a deodoriser,” said P.K. Sharma, Medical Officer of Health, NDMC.

A private company called System Life has installed and will maintain the filtering

station. “The company has installed the system free of cost and if it is successful, we will install them at various places in the NDMC area,” added Sharma.

Note that I pretty much share your perception on the efficacy of the system. But whats the harm in listening to the other side, the pilot is free and lets say what the company has to say for itself.

 

Moresh

[Manu Sharma]

Thanks for that reference. This is the original article in HT from last month. Good to know that the system is free but there still can be no excuse for pursuing a trial run with zero due diligence.

What's most troubling in that piece is the last sentence:

"A final analysis of the filter will be done in an Italian laboratory accredited by the World Health Organisation (WHO)."

If you look at Systemlife website, they also provide their own measurement apparatus and then take the data to Italy for analysis! Why should the govt. allow measurement to be done by the vendor? Why is standard operating equipment and procedures for measurement of particulate matter in India not being followed here?

Thanks,

Manu  

[moresh kokane]

If the vendor is responsible for measurements then its like students grading their own exams. And quite frankly hilarious if true !

Thanks for pointing this out, hope the Govt takes notice on this.

 

Moresh

[Sarath Guttikunda]

It is not the question of whether it is free or only a pilot. It is a question of feasibility and more than that common sense.

I have seen the box after it was unveiled at CP and met the guys in charge their. Any given day, they have these print outs, nearly 50 odd pages, saying look we have the details on the machine. They will also open the laptops and show the online measurements at the box, claiming that there is a 70% reduction in the PM concentrations. But, the trick is that the reduction is between the inlet and the outlet of the machine.

If I took an open pipe and let 10,000 m3/hr of air at one end and covered the other end with a 8 fold cloth and measured the concentrations at either ends, I will get some reductions. In the bigger picture, does it make a difference, though I am doing it cheaper (not spending 2.5 crores) and possibly less than 70% reduction?

This is heavy machinery and has been used in the indoor environments, tunnels, and subways to circulate and clean air. It has been effective in these situations, where one is dealing with the a fixed volume of air and fairly steady flow of air. No doubt about the technology used, but the electricity consumption is high for maintaining the Electrostatic Precipitater (ESP) to run at the required efficiency (so, if certain amount of PM is sucked at the machine, some of it is released at a power plant near by).

They did not operate any monitors in the vicinity of the machines, at least not in the first ten days when I visited them. Does one expect to see a change in the readings at ITO monitoring station, because we have one vacuum cleaner in the city. I am NOT saying there should be more.

When I asked if the maths of operating a vacuum cleaner in an open outdoor environment made sense. I got a reply for questions.. our experts will get back to you?

In general, the actions for clean air are at minimum in the city. Products like these, even in pilot stage, only gives the officials an excuse to say, "see, we are testing all the innovative ideas to clean air". But, at what cost and what reason?

For example, there is an equipment called DPF - diesel particle filters, mostly used for the heavy duty diesel vehicles, functions similar to a catalytic converter, costs around $2,500, and very effective (~90% capture).

How often do we see garbage burning along the roads, a major cause of air pollution and hard to account for, in any number crunching - though it is strictly banned from doing so. This is a pure waste management issue. For the money they MIGHT plan on investing on these machines, wouldn't be better to buy a few more garbage collection trucks, ramp up the collection and segregation processes, so less is burnt and contributing to the air pollution.

As a suggestion, wouldn't it be an effective solution to mandate things like these and go after the sources than meddling with the outdoor atmospherics?

With regards,
Sarath

--
Sarath Guttikunda
New Delhi, India
Phone: +91 9891 315 946
@ http://www.urbanemissions.info
@ http://www.dri.edu/People/Sarath.Guttikunda/

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:55 PM, gireesh nair <girees...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Manu, According to me pilot project is OK, but if such innovation is adopted on large scale without proper testing then it is serious. In this case I fear there is a probability that the same will be installed in large scale without any proper evaluation report by impartial experts. It will be interesting to know what the experts designated by the manufacturer has to say. It is good that you bought up the issue, hope the media will also take it up. Though it is important that government should support new innovative technologies, it has to done through a process that is transparent and involves proper checks.Gireesh

[Manu Sharma]

Thank you, Sarath. And yes, absolutely, mitigation through policy is any day better than this thoughtless and wasteful exercise.

Thanks,

Manu

[Sudarshan Kumar]

On Apr 29, 8:17 pm, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What's most troubling in that piece is the last sentence:
>
> "A final analysis of the filter will be done in an Italian laboratory
> accredited by the World Health Organisation (WHO)."
>
> If you look at Systemlife website, they also provide their own measurement
> apparatus and then take the data to Italy for analysis! Why should the govt.
> allow measurement to be done by the vendor? Why is standard operating
> equipment and procedures for measurement of particulate matter in India not
> being followed here?
>
> Thanks,
> Manu

Hmm, this conversation is strongly reminiscent of another one earlier
on this group, regarding the Suncube. However, in that case curiously,
Manu was on the other side of the fence, strongly supporting a company
that had conducted some questionable testing of its products:

http://groups.google.com/group/green-india/msg/4fd35a4230e87408
http://connect.sierraclub.org/forums/FindPost4325965.aspx

But then, in Manu's defence, the government is (I assume) not impacted
by any of Suncube's claims, though it appears to be directly involved
with Systemlife's products...

:)
Sudarshan

[Manu Sharma]

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Sudarshan Kumar <sudarsha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm, this conversation is strongly reminiscent of another one earlier on this group, regarding the Suncube. However, in that case curiously, Manu was on the other side of the fence, strongly supporting a company that had conducted some questionable testing of its products:

Only except in that case we weren't dealing with a company selling snake oil :-). If someone had made the same statements about SunCube as I made about Systemlife, that person would have been dragged to court by Greg and rightly so. 

He has a technically competent product whose claims can be checked by anyone knowing basic math. You're welcome to visit the factory, purchase the product to validate it yourself or check with the vendor he's sourcing cells from. 

Systemlife cannot dare challenge me in court because they know they will lose. After that last email, I haven't heard from them and don't expect to. They don't have answers to those questions. It's a scam. As simple as that.

 

Manu

[Thaddeus Ward]

Manu,

Nice work on this. There absolutely his harm done here, even if it is
'free' pilot project. These kinds of ploys create the illusion of
easy solutions and distract people from the hard work that really has
to be done. Those who would most heavily be called to sacrifice (or
compensate for their actions) are all to eager to point us in the
direction of any distraction. It creates noise, churn, confusion that
sap the already fragile public will to do the things that really need
to be done.

Further, it sets poor standards for the scientific rigor needed in all
of this work. Shams such as this call into question all of our
legitimate and sincere efforts, again weakening public will.

It is great that you have gone after these bastards.

Thank you,
-TW

On May 1, 6:24 am, Manu Sharma <orangeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Sudarshan Kumar <sudarshan.kuma...@yahoo.com

>
> > wrote:
>
> > Hmm, this conversation is strongly reminiscent of another one earlier on
> > this group, regarding the Suncube. However, in that case curiously, Manu was
> > on the other side of the fence, strongly supporting a company that had
> > conducted some questionable testing of its products:
>
> Only except in that case we weren't dealing with a company selling snake oil
> :-). If someone had made the same statements about SunCube as I made about
> Systemlife, that person would have been dragged to court by Greg and rightly
> so.
>
> He has a technically competent product whose claims can be checked by anyone
> knowing basic math. You're welcome to visit the factory, purchase the
> product to validate it yourself or check with the vendor he's sourcing cells
> from.
>
> Systemlife cannot dare challenge me in court because they know they will
> lose. After that last email, I haven't heard from them and don't expect to.
> They don't have answers to those questions. It's a scam. As simple as that.
>
> Manu
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to Green-India
> to discuss India's Energy Future and Sustainable Living.
>
> Green-Indiahttp://green-india.in
>

> Rules and Disclaimerhttp://groups.google.com/group/green-india/web

[Manu Sharma]

Thank you, Thaddeus for recognising these issues. 

Manu

[Sarath Guttikunda]

Dear Manu,

did you get any response back from them.

See this article in Times on India
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP%2F2010%2F04%2F28&ViewMode=GIF&GZ=T&PageLabel=4&EntityId=Ar00400&AppName=1

With regards,
Sarath

--
Sarath Guttikunda
New Delhi, India
Phone: +91 9891 315 946
@ http://www.urbanemissions.info
@ http://www.dri.edu/People/Sarath.Guttikunda/

[Manu Sharma]

Dear Sarath,

Thanks for posting this TOI article from 28-Apr (my original post was in response to a HT article of same date). And no, I have not received any response from Systemlife to my questions sent to them in my email dated 29-Apr. 

This clever article is so misleading that it seems as if it's written by Systemlife itself. There are far too many inaccurate and deliberately misleading statements to recount here. 

Thanks,

Manu