Hi Jed, Do you or your contact know by any chance who initially introduced the ERV to the project? Was it AR, IH, or someone else? It seems his role was not for the public verification of the plant but rather as an independent arbitrator between IH and AR.
There have been a lot of assumptions here that the ERV and AR were previously acquainted. Is that really the case? It maybe I suppose and if so I guess IH agreed. It seems from recent exchanged he was selected by both IH and AR from the very beginning and had the job of overseeing and evaluating all the tests for IH and AR as a kind of referee. Even woodford seem to have been involved much earlier than we originally thought and say they did due diligence. Did they have any independent ERV? Wouldn't it make sense to have ERV who understood Italian I think given its AR's mother tongue? Any way I prefer to look at information and try to see facts rather than judge on hearsay. I especially look deeper than the surface when I feel someone is attacked by mob culture. Accusation by a mob is different than being guilty in my opinion, and some one being difficult to get along with does not make them wrong or guilty they can be very good and smart too. I do respect and consider intelligent people's points of view on both sides. Especially where like you they are very likely better informed than me in their view point. I do think where there is doubt it's for the court to settle now. I think both sides are intelligent to follow this route. I don't think it's in the interest of either side to pressure them into releasing information before they are ready to give it. Although like all us following LENR I have huge curiosity is to see and know what is in there. > On 14 Apr 2016, at 05:40, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The value and quality of the ERV report is subjective, But in any contest >> where the referee is agreed upon beforehand. > > This is not a sporting event. > > >> If the referee makes a call that one side does not agree with, that >> aggrieved party cannot take their ball and go home no matter how incompetent >> the referee is. You take the loss with good sportsmanship and pay the 89M. > > You have no idea how business is conducted, or how contracts are disputed. If > the "referee" in this case issues a judgement call which is physically > impossible and which any credentialed expert agrees is nonsense, NO ONE WILL > EVERY PAY $89 MILLION. Nothing like that ever happened in the history of > business, and never would happen. That would be lunacy. Suppose Penon had > claimed the thing produces 100 MW, or a gigawatt? Do you think they should > pay up in that case? Suppose he said it produces more power than the sun? How > impossible does the claim have to become before you concede that a business > should not have to pay on the basis of a wild, absurd, untenable claim made > by an idiot? What would stop Rossi from handing Penon $10 million in a bribe? > > - Jed >
