a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
> results.  That is not the same thing.
>

They say the one-year test did not work. Believe me, that is what they say.



> As far as we know the ERV report said that it did work.
>

Yes, the ERV report said the gadget works. That is what the lawsuit papers
say. I.H. disagrees with ERV report.

Let me try to clear up a few points of confusion regarding this subject.

I did not mean I know there is a second, formal report. I just meant that
I.H. has sent experts, and they disagree with the Penon report. I know they
have written a report. I don't know if it is another official ERV listed in
the contract. That is not really relevant. Let me explain --

Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the
contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides.
Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must
pay up. It does not work that way. If that were the case, Penon could
submit a two-sentence report:

"I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."


No one would pay on that basis. No judge would enforce payment. It makes no
difference what a contract says; common sense always applies. No one would
insist I.H. must pay based on such a ludicrous 2-sentence document. The
question is: How much does the Penon report resemble that imaginary
2-sentence document? Would experts say it is absurd and it presents no
credible evidence? Or, at the other extreme, would most experts agree that
it is correct, and I.H. should pay up?

Unfortunately, the report will probably not be published, so you will never
know what it says, or whether it is credible.

- Jed

Reply via email to