The contract saying no one could visit the customer's facility has been
widely reported.
Rossi stated it and as far as I know IH has not denied it.
AA
On 8/26/2016 12:41 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and
then you speculate yourself all the time. Where is the contract
between Rossi and IH saying they could not visit the "customer"
operations?
Again, please look the entire piece not single isolated bits.
We already discussed how the location of the "customer" was not
congruent with them using 1 MW for industrial processing in a retailer
zoned area in a small warehouse, we already discussed the homemade
business card with an not existing director of engineering (with no
real online presence of any kind), how the business card has a photo
of a plant in Japan that has nothing to do with the customer, a
strange name for the company JM Products, similar to a well known and
real chemical products company, but M stands for Matthew and no
Matthey (super weird), the flowmeter operating below specs, Fabiani
not giving raw data even if he promised to do so, Penon not answering
simple and direct questions from Murray and so and so on.
You may defend Rossi on one of these items but how you can conceive of
a defense that deals in a reasonable way with all these issues (and
the list is not exhaustive at all)?
It is clear you are simply in denial and cognitive dissonance if you
can ignore the whole picture.
Murky you say?
Giovanni
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Eric,
While the story is murky, I got the impression Murray was hired
late in the game, had an IT background, and was not allowed in the
plant;until the trial was over, let alone allowed in the customers
plant.
If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one
would be allowed in the customers plant, why should Murray be
allowed to visit it? It was the ERV's job to report on how well
the plant worked.
If I were Rossi, I too would be suspicious of of letting an
unknown IH employee snoop around. In retrospect it seems that
Rossi had already become suspicious of IH's motives.
It also seems extraordinary to me that IH would divulge details of
their dirty linen to an outsider like Jed. If it were Murray, an
independent consultant, who leaked the information, it doesn't
look good for him.
AA
On 8/26/2016 11:54 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general
point that should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance
to read all of the documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero
effort to involve IH in the planning and execution of the
alleged GPT, and at no point was there an effort to persuade
them of its validity. "
It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why
do you think they could have contributed anything to the
plant design or operation? They ultimately hired Murray, but
lacking tech expertise they hired someone with the wrong
experience. Likewise, it seems that they were unable to
understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do
something about it.
AA
That was me, not Jed. Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am
unfamiliar with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any
technical claims being made. Perhaps Murray was their only man.
Perhaps they retained one of the best engineering firms in the
world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to the point that was
being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done with IH's
participation. This is even more strange than the fact that
Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area. If the fact
about IH not being involved in the arrangements for the test does
not raise a red flag for you, I don't know what would. I suspect
that nothing would.
Eric
