a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed. "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a > COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million." > > That is a gross over simplification. Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example of a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue. > The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and > that the outcome would indeed depend on his report. But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80 times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89 million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry. > He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the > performance with reasonable accuracy. I know I could have done so. > He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the reports, but it is better than nothing. They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has to be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making the mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side? You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry. > What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to > start (delaying it for almost a year?). > I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents. > As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well as > has been reported > Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon it. - Jed
