Rossi: E-Cat Test for ‘Very Important’ New Customer in June

Well, what will happen with Rossi/IH is speculation. I cannot work out what Rossi will do because he is not entirely rational, and no doubt considers IH snakes, so speculation based on what is best for him is not safe.

It is easier to work out what IH will do. Unless their "blog-puppets" are lying, and I see no need for that complication, we have:

• IH firmly believe LENR exists and have other investments (no surprise given their remit)
• IH have had other investments from day 1, and seen Rossi as high-risk from day 1. That need not have been, but makes sense and shows Darden is not as great an idiot as might have been
• IH gave investors over the top warnings about Rossi. Not really over the top - since Rossi has nothing. This is what you'd expect if Draden is not an idiot.
• IH firmly believe that Rossi's stuff does not work AND HAS NEVER WORKED. They will have tried very hard to get it to work, so to think that in fact it works in Rossi's hands and magically stops working with IH is most implausible.
• IH will still in principle want the patents, bought for $10M, just in case they have residual value. You can never tell with patents. I'm not sure however that they will consider them worth $10M.
• IH will reckon the license agreement is worthless - except possibly for patents
• IH may well try to retrieve their $10M. The terms include that information provided (including tests) should be correct. If they can prove the tests are incorrect - should not be difficult - they may have a case. Also tests invalid may (legally) invalidate the patents. I don't know.
• IH will be willing to settle out of Court. They don't want or need to punish Rossi, and legal proceedings cost money and will hang over them.

Tom

Quote

P&F have been replicated many times.

I try (now) not to get into this argument. We bashed it to death on another thread when for me the one interesting new aspect was the idea that quantity of low quality positive evidence could not be used to prove near certainty since the results could be not independent in a number of ways due to selection of different sorts.

Therefore it comes down to what experiment do you consider to be sufficient to prove LENR. Skeptics, and the rest of the world, require a very high standard of proof which does not exist. They also play the: "if LENR did exist, it would sometimes be more obvious" card. This is quite complicated to explain and relates to consequences of the very large difference between nuclear and chemical enthalpies. I find it compelling.

LENR advocates who have not looked in great detail at the evidence reckon high enough quality single positives have been achieved. Those who have looked in great detail reckon there are loopholes in all the evidence but the quantity of different evidence is persuasive.

@ Epimetheus "The work of P&F has been replicated many times." Right, including replications by industrial giant conglomerates like Mitsubishi and Toyota.

But somehow these companies decided to ignore the results and renounce to the publicity of winning a Nobel Prize. I wish I were rich so I could offer a million pounds to anybody who would replicate excess heat, and finally end this BS about the hundreds of replications.

Quote from Alain

but what is said is only that IH could not "substantiate" those claims...

Quote from IH

Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success...Industrial Heat continues to be focused on a scientifically rigorous approach that includes thorough, robust and accurate testing of promising LENR technologies.

IH has said a little more than that, and you can see that it bears out the clear informal comment we are getting on IH's position.

It is also consistent with the Rossi tests, none of which validate excess heat.