Bob, We don't know how often Penon was there do we? It seems to me like he wasn't often there but was said to be remotely monitoring.
Fabiani, one of the contractors, was named as a co-counter defendant by IH. I have a feeling West was not a lackey of AR, since he was not named in the counter-claims. Fabiani is from Italy and had prior history with AR as I understand it. It seems his primary alliance (or only) all along was to AR. These things are addressed in the counter-claims by IH. The agreement makes clear that any derived technologies are to be shared with IH and licensed by IH. He has no right to keep that from them, but it doesn't matter anyway. It is a magic machine that generates anything you want (i.e., too good to be true). Part of Fabiani's contract included sharing any modifications or advancements of the E-Cat IP with IH, which he did not do. He refused to turn over raw data as he was contractually obligated. Jack On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with > Rossi, the ERV and the other Rossi helper? I think that they were part > of the IH team Rossi frequently spoke of. As I recall they were impressed > with the plant’s performance. > > > > I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape. > It seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on > to insure against naysayers. That’s what I would have done, if I were > spending a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary > to earn the additional $89 M. > > > > As I have said before, if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would > upstage the E-Cat. However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP > Rossi was selling to IH IMHO based on reading the Agreement. The one- > year test was not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > *Sent: *Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too! > > > As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the > ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further. > > > > On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > 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 > > >
