a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and then at > the end complained about it? > They complained about it all along, as I said. But you don't speak language, so you don't get that. > In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to know the > results) . . . > It was impossible to be *certain* of the results. Rossi set it up to prevent that. Anyone can make a reasonable estimate, based on Rossi's own data. All indications point to no excess heat. Or *possibly* a little excess. > a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it down after say a > week, not waited a year. > They couldn't even get access to the pretend customer site. Rossi told you that he was in charge, and he dictated ito them what they would and would not be allowed to do. What makes you think they could "fire" the "ERV"? Fortunately, I gather they were able to make a better analysis later on. I have no information on that, but that's what they said. - Jed
