What I now think happened was that IH suddenly became interested in
disputing the ERV's findings/report, rather than the other way around
that they were looking for evidence to boost its believabllity. as Jed
suggested.
Just why is not clear, but we know of 89 million reasons.
As stated at the beginning we will have to wait for more facts.
I remain optimistic that Rossi's current 7 day test of the QuarkX will
open things up without a long delay.
On 6/5/2016 2:03 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Eric.
You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain
about not being able to see the customer's plant." We don't
really know this. What we know is what Rossi himself said, about
Penon blocking the expert from seeing the facility. It is likely
that what you say, that the IH's expert later complained, but
that's a matter of speculation.
What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no
necessity for IH to visit the customer's plant. Hardly the same
thing as the ERV "blocking" the visit.
Yes -- thank you for the clarification. From Mats Lewan's article:
"IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test,
an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where
the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this
had no importance."
Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know
that he was blocked by the ERV. Note however that we are to
understand from Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV
thought that access to the customer's area had no importance. We are
each left to our own conclusions about the objectivity, independence
and qualifications of the ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans.
Eric
