No. that is not what I said or meant. To repeat it, why wouldn't IH
have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be
satisfactory before the test started? IF they accepted it, it's no
good complaining later.
Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was
improper. I need to see what was actually used before jumping to
conclusions. To keep on stating that Rossi stopped them is a red herring.
On 6/4/2016 9:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
