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

  • I am agnostic about LENR. I doubt it but I don't have a way of knowing for sure. But there is essentially no chance of being wrong about Rossi. His entire history and all his experiments which have been reported are consistent with crookery and completely inconsistent with someone who has the greatest invention of the last hundred years! And before you say "replication," WHICH replication? None that I have seen described here and elsewhere has been credible.


    As for the Navy Lab, they do research on all sorts of things. For example, the military wasted millions on Rossi's thermoelectric converter prototype which never existed or never worked and they spend many more millions on "remote viewing" which is one of the easiest to test and dumbest claims of paranormal activity ever proposed. Their participation means little.


    Anyway, as I asked before, show me where a Navy Lab officially "agrees with Rossi" please. Cite and link please. I don't believe it happened.

  • The story of Rossi, is absolutely incoheren with crookery...
    He is not an angel, nor a perfect engineer, but only someone blind can imagine there is nothing behind this story.


    If you want to criticize, find something more credible than the full scam conspiracy.


    For thermoelectric test, they tested industrialisation of an anisotropic structure very expensive to produce in lab (I said it 100x times), from a dozen of different ideas and providers, and it failed. That is the game.


    Navsea just accepted their logo and the presentation to be published, and yes, there is people supporting LENR and many more not supporting it in navy...
    Same in Nasa, INFN, ENEA, Airbus, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland...

  • Alain, you can say it a thousand times but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter what you THINK "they tested". Rossi said he had an efficient prototype which was tested at the U of NH. That wasn't true. Nobody saw the prototype and nobody tested it. If you doubt that, get me the cite and link to the test at U of NH and the name of the professor who performed it. Rossi allowed DOD to spend millions and gave them garbage -- junk from a San Diego company originating from Russia. Every part was defective. No "anisotropic" structure was ever shown. None was provided to DOD. None is mentioned in the DOD 150 page document.


    Where do you get this crappola, Alain?


    Did you get it from Rossi? One problem with this whole story is that people tend to trust and believe Rossi. And Rossi is an accomplished con man and a consistent liar who knows exactly how to choose his marks. That is his main skill set!

  • Alain why do you get involved with these exchanges? George doesn't know hydrogen fusion from a hole in the ground. He just has some personal vendetta involving Dr. Rossi.


    &"I am agnostic about LENR."

    Now he's getting religious, and brings God into the picture. What's next, although this appears to be a final move of desperation?

  • Times Magazine publishes an article on Fusion startups...
    They just name [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] of Raleigh, without any reference to Cold Fusion/LENR.


    Inside the Quest for Fusion, Clean Energy’s Holy Grail
    http://time.com/4082939/inside…clean-energys-holy-grail/



    And there are others. [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] in Raleigh, N.C.


    No comments allowed, as it is evolving on all elite media. Now you know why.

  • I've updated information on Woodford investment


    WPCT now own 2.17% as [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] shares (total 729.6Mn GPB) thus about 22.3Mn$
    WEIF own 0.27% as [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] shares (total 8020Mn GBP) thus about 30.5Mn$


    Total moved from 49Mn$ to nearly 53Mn$


    On Cobraf there are claims that 100Mn$ have been invested in E-cat since December, but Nevalinna recently retracted as the price of shares depend on the class of shares
    http://www.monetazione.it/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747 (03 Marzo 2016 11:45)





    this shares record of [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] show the history of investments, done with shares of various kind (some that seems free, some expensive) :
    222k$ (cheap shares Ordinary) probably at incorporation on 7 may 2015
    50M$ (expensive shares Serie A) probably by Woodford on 13 may 2015
    20k$ (cheap shares serie B) on 21 dec 2015
    308$ (cheap shares serie B) on 15 Jan 2015


    I imagine that cheap shares are preferential, for founders or those investing something else money.
    This kind of finance engineering is not clear for me ... maybe someone can explain ?



    Edit:


    the source seems to be that registry
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09553031


    This document describe the typ of shares
    http://www.monetazione.it/forum/immagini/R_123617921_1.pdf

    • Ordinary (0.01$): voting right 1/share, dividend equally by share
    • Serie A (45$) voting right 1/share, dividend identically to ordinary. In case of "winding up" (liquidation?) may receive distribution in priority to ordinary.
    • Serie B : no vote , dividend equally to ordinary and serie A. in case of winding up, they are entitle redistribution after serie A and ordinary are served...

    For me reading that

    • Ordinary shares are for the founders, cheap but reserved, that will be rich if the company get public, and they will have powers to vote, to control the company.
    • Serie A are investors shares, expensive, eligible to best treatment if the company close, allowed to vote but a a high cost per share, preventing them to take control.
    • Serie B is another kind of cheap shares, without right to vote, last to be paid if it turns bad. It looks like premium to people who will be rich if thing turn good...


    In the company statutes documents I also see "anti-dilution" articles... I'm not expert, so I cannot be sure if it applies here...


    Franck on ECW have also studied the people who signed the act of association, who are big names
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…rected-company-in-the-uk/


    Quote
    • Brickhaven II, LLC
    • Atwood Partners, Ltd.
    • JT Vaughn
    • Hamilton Group, LLC
    • Hargett Advisors, LLC (corrected)
    • The 2007 Henry Rice Kaestner Living Trust
    • Deep River Ventures, LLC
    • Briarcliff Trust
    • The 2008 Thomas R Sloan Living Trust
    • The Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Company
    • Stuart M Frantz
    • Griffin Family Holdings Company, LLC
    • Jesse T Correll
    • Ellison Capital II, LLC
    • JPIH Holdings, LLC
    • Hady Hartano
    • Calimus, LLC
    • Ampenergo Inc
    • The 2013 Haynes G. Griffin Living Trust
    • Atwood [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], LLC
  • On Woodford Funds Q&A two questions were about [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon], and have been answered.
    Same we are prudent and be patient answers ;) .



  • On Woodford Funds Q&A two questions were about [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon], and have been answered.
    There is slightly different answers in the mood of: we are prudent and be patient ;) .









    And then talk Mary and they say they have been prudent and we should be patient. :rolleyes:


  • Hi all


    PR Flack from ACPO Worldwide at a guess.


    Very say nothing, loose lips sink ships.


    This makes me grin. A lot of money being spent to ensure everyone says nothing other than yes we are working on LENR and yes we did the due diligence before we invested in it.


    They have put their heads above the parapet, which they would not do unless they had something.


    I get the undeniable sense in their replies they are grinning from ear to ear. Like the cat who got the cream. The other discoveries that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are busy grabbing LENR patents with both fists like their is no tomorrow leads me to a positive frame of mind. The MY sock-puppet seems singularly miffed.


    Kind Regards Walker

  • What we hear is not what could frighten usual consensusal denier :
    - no enthusiastic fund manager -> just building team and structure to maximise ...
    - clear skepticism -> they know the consensus and checked
    - no prediction of big result -> just trying to get some benefit from it among other


    the communication promote calm, moderation, prudences...


    far from our expectation or hope.

  • I wonder if the goals of Woodford Funds are aligned with those of very risky LENR research. I suspect you could bury a lot of money into LENR research and not see a return on investment. If Woodford were not aware of this, I think they might not have been diligent enough in their due diligence.

  • Woodford invest in many startup in medical domain too.
    This is not so less risky, with much less expectations.
    The risk with an LENR startup is not mostly technological, but strategic and commercial. As if you were marketing antibiotic in 1930, or electricity in 1890.



    All is risky today, especially riskless assets. they are fragile, not even just risky. See how Neil Woodford say he is cautious and pessimistic about banking sector.


    Nassim Taleb explains that midl risk assets are in fact the worst of all as they are not so productive, but are much more sensible to unexpected risk than others.
    Very risky/hopeful assets are in fact very undervalued. You just need to invest in many to expect catching a blackswan.
    He say you should backup you risks with really safe asset, but today I don't see anything safe except human adaptability to the unexpected.

  • Walker not Eric wrote:

    They have put their heads above the parapet, which they would not do unless they had something.


    Darden, and the Woodford fund, from comments, appear to be putting their hopes in the LENR field "we know there is something there, even though the science establishment, biassed, does not believe, we just need time and money to understand it".


    That is understandable, and it is a superficially convincing position. It means that the commercial return is both very long-term and risky, but also potentially very high. That is what Woodford patient capital looks for, and Darden we know puts money into this area philanthropically because he can't see how else we can be saved from the ecological hole we have dug.


    Given this position, what would you expect them to say? They would be cagey about specifics, not because they do have them, but because they don't, and furthermore they know well that any one venture (e.g. Rossi) may not pan out.


    It does not matter to them if one beneficiary is just wrong, and chasing moonbeams. They are funding others and anyway they may well consider than one person can be wrong but nevertheless contribute to overall expertise.


    They will never consider the matter of deliberate fraud from one of their beneficiaries unless it is so proven they cannot ignore it. That would be a legal case. The history here is that free energy vapourware merchants who might colloquially be called "frauds" because they continue to make obviously rubbish claims with broken demos, and take money, are not in fact ever proven fraudulent. That would require them to know that their ideas do not work. Impossible to prove. Individual demos that are spoofed may be so innocently. Inventors often are genuinely convinced their (crackpot) inventions work. In this area it is caveat emptor.


    Finally, inasfar as they delayed investing till after the Lugano Report it is clear that their science evidence is very poor. That report, as well as being seriously flawed in its incorrect usage of IR thermography, was throughout showing bad science practice, as documented by Pomp et al and (less pithily) by me. No doubt Rossi could explain the non-result - because such bad practice leaves you with much wiggle-room - as:
    (1) they scientists miscalculated temperature and therefore never heated the thing up enough for anything to happen
    (2) it is not Rossi's fault they did this
    (3) publicly to question the report would put patent applications at risk and therefore must not be done.


    The whole thing is seriously embarrassing, but you can see how somone convinced Rossi was genuine (like Rossi himself) could spin it. That Woodford invested would be testament to the judgement of their science advisor(s) - and let us face it VCs are not in the business of evaluating fringe science. They evaluate people, or technological possibility. All they need is the wrong choice of an advisor - one who believes fringe science is in fact proven.


    Also remember that VCs do not require certainty, or even probability, that a given investment will pan out. If the returns are 100 to 1 they can afford a 1 in 10 chance. Would Rossi, even given a non-scientist's evaluation of the negative evidence, seem like that? Possibly.

  • Quote

    I get the undeniable sense in their replies they are grinning from ear to ear. Like the cat who got the cream ..... The MY sock-puppet seems singularly miffed.


    This is emotive and essentially factless language. Calling MY a sock puppet is insulting and does not advance your argument. It is only compliant with this site's rules because MY is no longer a participant here having been permanently banned.


    Quote

    The other discoveries that IHare busy grabbing LENR patents with both fists like their is no tomorrow leads me to a positive frame of mind.


    That, given money to lawyer up, Rossi/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon] write passable patent applications should surprise no-one. Their game is long-term and all they can hope is that by being in the scene from the start they can seal up enough of the IP to have leverage. That means everyone is in maximum "grab patent app" mode, and short-term success is judged by patent stack. However that is a given, irrespective of whether Rossi or anyone else has something real. Further, the fact that patents are granted speaks nothing to the validity of the things being patented.

  • Hi all


    For me actions always speak louder than words.


    We can all see that this and the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] statement are speaking like PR Flacks, so just words with little on no meat.


    Woodford have invested. A big cost.
    Woodford putting their head above the parapet is an action. A risk to capitol.


    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have invested. A big cost.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have done multiple tests. A cost
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have done long term tests. A big cost.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are still investing. A sign of continued interest.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have made multiple public statements of interest in LENR.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have set up a number of subsidiaries to increase the investment in LENR up to figure of $1 Billion a substantial investment of capitol.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is making a statement and is an action. A risk to capitol.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is employing ACPO Worlwide is an action. A cost.
    [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is buying up patents in the field. A big cost.


    ACPO Worldwide is the worlds's second biggest PR company its other companies include Microsoft, the Clintons and IKEA (owner is the 4th richest person in the world) ACPO Worldwide specializes in major political and economic events.


    What is the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] strategy from what they do?
    Their strategy is to own as much LENR IP as possible.
    Their Strategy is to increase investment in LENR.


    What is Woodford Trust's strategy from what they do?
    Woodford has put its head above the parapet. A risk to capitol.
    Woodford appear to have at least doubled their investment in LENR, I need to check this!


    PAUL FARROW (MODERATOR) was the person who answered these questions,
    Who is he?
    Where did he come from?
    What is his job description?


    Kind Regards walke