On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What "absurd" >> circumstances for the test? You know what the ERV did? >> > I misquoted myself, above. That was Adrian, not me. The ERV report is presumably technical. I look forward to seeing it if it ever surfaces. I suppose it could provide a sufficient basis to conclude that the testing of the 1MW plant was rigorous after all. I am speaking hypothetically here, because what indications are available are to the contrary. What makes the question of the ERV's report a legal one has to do with the argument that many have been making, that despite any reservations or objections IH had to the ERV's methods, actions or conclusions, IH signed off on a license agreement that said that the ERV was the one to determine the matter. This argument seems to be that, even if the testing was not rigorous and IH had specific reasons to doubt the ERV's conclusions, tough luck. I find it fascinating that people who support LENR would argue this position. But I do not dispute that IH signed the license agreement, and that the agreement gave a lot of power to decide to the ERV. This is ultimately a legal question, though, for IH will no doubt raise a legal challenge if it becomes necessary, bringing up all the relevant legal minutiae, at which point this argument about the ERV will hinge on what the court finally decides. Eric
