a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: Jed, > IH have two problems. > 1. They did not display good faith and keep their side of the agreement > when they failed to pay Rossi $89 million. >
Good faith?!? Are you joking? Rossi's reactor does not work. It does not produce any excess heat. They tested multiple reactors and none of them worked. Do you seriously think any company would pay $89 million for a machine that does not work? Why????? No one would pay even one dollar for a cold fusion reactor that does not produce any excess heat. There is no point. It makes no difference what the contract says, or what Penon said. No sane person will pay money for a machine that does not do what it is supposed to do. If Rossi built an airplane that does not fly, they would not pay. If he built a computer that never computes the right answer, they would not pay. This is how the real world works. Contract or no contract; agreement or no agreement; when a product fails to do the primary thing it is supposed to do, NO ONE EVER PAYS FOR IT. You may have the notion that it did work, but the data from Rossi proves it did not, as does an additional data collected by IH experts. > 2. It is not clear if the agreement with Rossi covered the later > development of the QuarkX. > I wouldn't know about that. Lawyers tell me the QuarkX is covered. Anyway, that is not relevant to the lawsuit, and it is not relevant to whether the one year test worked or not. I think it is unlikely the QuarkX exists. - Jed
