BIG: Tom Darden interviewed in Fortune on his LENR insvestment...

  • Peter Gluck report on his blog this Fortune article about Tom Darden.
    No Understatement, Fleischman work is discussed, as much as the fact that current consensus will look stupid soon.…-energy-nuclear-reaction/

    he talk of rossi's patent

    i cannot say more for now...

  • An article that consider the British interest too…could-put-money-into-lenr

    there is also interesting quote about


    When asked why he invested in LENR, Darden noted that he is aware of nearly 50 reported positive cold fusion tests. He mentioned work at the US National Laboratories at Oak Ride and Los Alamos and SRI (possibly Michael McKubre’s work). He also mentioned work at the Electric Power Research Institute or EPRI. The EPRI is a think tank and research organization associated with the US electric power industry.

    I know propably what he talks about at EPRI, Oak Ridge...
    He have done his homework.

  • Rob Woudenberg on Linked In group LENR add some details on the British investor:…32340-6054342817583546371


    Some more details on Woodford's investment in LENR: Their Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc fund participates currently in [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] for 1.73% of the fund's total portfolio. Private investors can invest in this fund as well. Mind you that there are at least three parties charging costs: The broker, Woodford and [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon].

  • A question was asked on a Woodford Fund :

    I’m very unhappy to see the fund investing 1.72% in [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon], a “cold fusion” specialist. I wonder what due diligence was done given the widespread scepticism about this technology which would appear to violate all the known laws of Physics.I am led to question the diligence applied to the other investments. I’ll be pleasantly amazed if this company is still in the portfolio in six years.

    Pall Farrow answered

    Hi John,

    Many thanks for your comment and we’d like to reassure you that we do follow a thorough due diligence process for all our investments, irrespective of their size or the fund they are invested in.With regard to [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon], we were, and have been, very aware of the scepticism about this technology. We have undertaken a rigorous due diligence process that has taken two and half years. The company is currently working with numerous scientists and is acquiring both the technology and teams required to maximise the potential of this, and other, new energy technologies.

    The company recently said that it is willing to invest time and resources to see if this technology might be an area of useful research in its quest to eliminate pollution. We share this quest for what we believe will be a significant development and exploitation of new energy sources.

  • It's not that much of an exaggeration to say that Neil Woodford is the UK's Warren Buffet.

    By any metric he's probably 'our' top fund manager, and has been for years... He has returned large and highly consistent profits on investments for roughly the last two decades.

  • This is what you need to start some industrial scale infrastructure. Not so much in fact compared to the need.

    I make a quick computation based on some rules of thumb I've heard of.

    With such capital, you can leverage more money and borrow maybe 10x.

    And with that movey (investment, payroll, parts) you can start production of good of similar value (margin, even in hightech is not much more than 50%)...
    200Mn borrowed, 400Mn manufactured products... 400 1MW E-cat ?
    Once they are paid, you can build more with the cashflow...
    Not so fast growth, even if money turn fast.
    They will need partnership to leverage.

  • From ECW (Mats lewan)…gence/#comment-2285192954

    There is two funds,
    one is Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc Portfolio
    where you find


    #22 [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] (unquoted) 1.73%

    1.73%*844.8M GBP=14.6M GBP -> 22M$

    There is also CF Woodford Equity Income Fund (have to register)

    with this line


    #64 [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] (unquoted) 0.26%

    6940M GBP * .26%=18M GBP -> 27M$

    I don't know if it is independent investments, of if one contain the other indirectly, but if you add them that is nearly 50M$ of capital.

  • Much diligence definitely due on that one.

    Mind you, to play devil's advocate: Black Light Power have also received figures of the same order, and they don't seem any closer to releasing a product. I wonder if large institutional investors have also performed the necessary due diligence on them?

    Having said that, no-one at Woodford could fail to notice the controversy surrounding Rossi, they even tacitly acknowledge the fact by suggesting the due diligence took 2.5yrs. Yet the investment was made?

  • For Blacklight Power the investment was made in the 90s, when the hop of shor term application was far, sot it was a bet.
    [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] does not propose long term research on mW devices, but industrial devices for MW applications. The due diligence is not the same, the target is not either.

    Anyway it is risky, and I know any investment in a working LENR reactor can fail miserably for thousands of non technical reasons.

    The fund seems recognized :…arns-a-bronze-rating.aspx


    Morningstar OBSR analysts have awarded the CF Woodford Equity Income fund a Bronze rating. The fund is managed by Neil Woodford, who founded Woodford IM in 2014 after his departure from Invesco Perpetual, where he'd earned himself a legendary reputation as the long-term manager of the IP Income and High Income funds as well as the Edinburgh Investment Trust (EDIN).

  • There is no credible evidence that Blacklight Power's scheme works nor that there is a single working high power (over 100W) source of power from LENR anywhere. Credible evidence is a test from a renown university officially, not by a few peculiar professors. It could also be from a national laboratory or major completely independent testing institution. It would need to be replicated at least once. Those criteria have not been met even though Rossi said he heated an entire building with an ecat in 2007. THAT should tell you something but it doesn't seem to!

    Woodford's principals will regret their investment.

  • Tyy: and why is the US NAVY Lab agreeing the results of Rossi, based on their own work?

    They made multiple repeatable experiments with excess heat, and seem to be able to identify the optimal settings for a working LENR fuel.

    Are they also crackpots?

    I guess your time is over. You should better look for vacuum energy or UFO technology or something else and troll such communities.

  • I don't known why, that's what keeps me interested.

    And Barty, I don't have an intent to troll, but to say what I honestly think. I am able and willing to do that as myself, and face the facts if I am wrong.

    Maybe it is hard for you to believe, but I am trying to be as honest as I can. For my aggressive style, I am truly sorry.

    UFO and stuff is far too trivial to debunk. This is far more interesting, because I can see a slight chance I am wrong. Would actually make me as happy as you. You see, I would be fascinated to look at new picture of the reality.

    What would be more thrilling than that?

  • Okay, so you are doing it for the risk that YOU could be wrong? For the adrenalin rush like a thrillseeker?
    Nice to know. But please be more factual.

    I don't have anything against other oppinions. au contraire. It's good that someone points out mistakes in experiments etc. But please stay factual while doing this.

    Then no one will be angry with you.
    But it feels like you intend exactly this.

  • Tyy: and why is the US NAVY Lab agreeing the results of Rossi, based on their own work?

    It's important to know more about the involvement of the Navy lab. Sometimes the opinions of employees of an organization are just their own, even when a slide deck carries the logo of the institution they work for. The logos on the slide deck generally cannot be taken to imply that an official position is being communicated.