On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Eric. > > You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not > being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What > we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking the expert from > seeing the facility. It is likely that what you say, that the IH's expert > later complained, but that's a matter of speculation. > > > What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no necessity > for IH to visit the customer's plant. Hardly the same thing as the ERV > "blocking" the visit. > Yes -- thank you for the clarification. From Mats Lewan's article: "IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance." Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know that he was blocked by the ERV. Note however that we are to understand from Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV thought that access to the customer's area had no importance. We are each left to our own conclusions about the objectivity, independence and qualifications of the ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans. Eric
