a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something > about it until after the test was completed. >
It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things long before the test ended. Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does not exist. This is a delusion. > You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated. Still > no piping diagram, still no ERV report. > 1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data. It is as believable as the ERV report itself. 2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the summary is inadequate. 3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report, you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are forgeries. > The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days What it was on > any particular day is another story. > The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned off, and days when witnesses saw it was off. > I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee > means Vaughn was not a legal manager. > Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used. - Jed
