On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
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. > Anyone who argues that IH agreed to the ERV, and that now that the ERV says something they don't like they're jumping ship, but too bad for them because they signed the license agreement, is making a "tough luck" argument. This argument has been made several times here and ad nauseum on LENR Forum. 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. > Jed has said that IH objected to the test from the beginning. Jed is privy to information I am not. People are free to go along with what he says or to question it. But the suggestion is that IH didn't want improper instrumentation, and that Rossi was headstrong and bulldozed ahead anyway. Is this a plausible scenario? To me it seems not only plausible but likely. Eric
