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.


    http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/…-energy-nuclear-reaction/


    he talk of rossi's patent



    i cannot say more for now...
    BIG

  • An article that consider the British interest too
    http://energycatalyzer3.com/in…could-put-money-into-lenr


    there is also interesting quote about


    Quote


    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:
    https://www.linkedin.com/grp/p…32340-6054342817583546371

    Quote


    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)
    https://disqus.com/home/discus…gence/#comment-2285192954


    There is two funds,
    one is Woodford Patient Capital Trust plc Portfolio
    https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/
    where you find

    Quote

    #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
    https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/weif/fullportfolio/ (have to register)


    with this line

    Quote

    #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 :
    http://www.morningstar.co.uk/u…arns-a-bronze-rating.aspx

    Quote


    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.

  • 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: