AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people -
later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant.
Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
Eric. No. It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from
seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.
AA. What do you mean "no"? What you state was not in my sentence.
On 6/5/2016 10:41 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people -
later - complain about not being able to see the customer's
plant. Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what
was wrong with it.
No. It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from
seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan. We
haven't heard that specific complaint from IH or IH's expert, except
from parties that are one step removed. It is reasonable to infer,
however, that IH and their expert would have complained. No one has
suggested in the last few weeks that IH replaced the ERV. Perhaps
that is a reference to a misunderstanding in earlier discussions. They
simply brought in someone in whose qualifications they had some
confidence, presumably in contrast to their assessment of the ERV's
qualifications.
The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.
How do we know that the only thing that Rossi stopped the IH employee
from doing was visiting the customer plant? We don't have access to
the details.
As has already been covered IH agreed in writing not to.
And hopefully Jones Day will be able to make expert use of what was in
writing to bring the matter to justice.
As has already been covered, it should not be necessary to see how
the heat was used in order to measure the output of the plant.
And as has been effectively rebutted many times, this is incorrect.
IH's expert will have wanted to know how the heat was being made use
of in order to verify that 1MW was being produced. It's a theoretical
argument to speculate that once presented with all of the data all
that one needs to do is run the numbers. No expert would be satisfied
at leaving it at that.
Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT
THE BEGINNING.
Show us that IH did not say that the test was unacceptable at the
beginning. Show us that IH will have needed to object to the test at
the beginning for their objections to be valid.
Eric
