Having an independent customer use the heat and with the customer knowing how much heat is required to keep his product line running, would have been a wonderful confirmation that the measurements on the Rossi side of the wall were correct. Certainly that was the spirit of the contract terms for the GPT. Making the customer's side secret, and the customer's log of the heat coming into his factory a secret, certainly looks bad for Rossi and makes the whole contrived test look like a scam. If I were Rossi (and not running a scam), I would want that independent customer's validation that I had delivered the heat - it would make the test incontrovertible. Instead, so far the opposite has happened - at least until the customer is subpoenaed to testify in court to the heat consumption of his "factory".
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to the > contract. It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a problem > after their hired gun failed to do so. > It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you don't > believe the measured exit temperature so you are going to measure the main > drain to see how much it warmed. >
