Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> wrote: To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there > is any weaknesses > in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or > two. There is abolutely no > sane argument for not doing such a test. >
I agree. I think that the test should be done by a licensed HVAC engineer rather than a scientist. > Rossi has no arguments against doing that. > You would be surprised what arguments he has! As you saw in the Lewan interview, he objected to allowing anyone into the customer site. The expert sent by I.H. said that access was vitally important but Rossi and Penon said it was not necessary. That is a large difference of opinion. Why on earth > must a judge decide what's science, better rule that science decide. > In cases like this they let engineering decide, not science. The judge does not decide what is science. Expert witnesses are summoned and they decide. They are licensed professionals and recognized authorities. Problems arise when the experts disagree with one another, or when there is no recognized professional qualification. In this case, there is a licensed category of experts: HVAC engineers. Based on what I know, I am confident that all of them will agree with I.H. I am also confident that none of them would agree with Penon that is not necessary to see the equipment in the customer site. I expect it will be an open and shut case. But lawyers can be clever and perhaps they can find an expert witness who goes along with Rossi, or they can sow doubt some other way. - Jed
