I don't understand the first paragraph. What you wrote was:
"As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal
question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the
absurd circumstances of the test. And my bets are on Jones Day with
regard to any legal questions."
No one that I know of is saying "tough luck" about a bad ERV
technology. My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow
improper instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with. It
doesn't make sense.
On 6/4/2016 6:44 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What
"absurd" circumstances for the test? You know what the ERV did?
I misquoted myself, above. That was Adrian, not me. The ERV report
is presumably technical. I look forward to seeing it if it ever
surfaces. I suppose it could provide a sufficient basis to conclude
that the testing of the 1MW plant was rigorous after all. I am
speaking hypothetically here, because what indications are available
are to the contrary.
What makes the question of the ERV's report a legal one has to do with
the argument that many have been making, that despite any reservations
or objections IH had to the ERV's methods, actions or conclusions, IH
signed off on a license agreement that said that the ERV was the one
to determine the matter. This argument seems to be that, even if the
testing was not rigorous and IH had specific reasons to doubt the
ERV's conclusions, tough luck. I find it fascinating that people who
support LENR would argue this position. But I do not dispute that IH
signed the license agreement, and that the agreement gave a lot of
power to decide to the ERV. This is ultimately a legal question,
though, for IH will no doubt raise a legal challenge if it becomes
necessary, bringing up all the relevant legal minutiae, at which point
this argument about the ERV will hinge on what the court finally decides.
Eric
