The Playground

  • So that is not a "Rossi Says".


    Well, let's look at the (surely misleading) numbers you quote. Nominally from Woodford we have 50 million, and nominally from the Chinese we have 121 million. That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars. You're short by 79 million to get to your 250 million that you've mentioned on several occasions.


    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH. And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH. We are now far shorter the 250 million. Please stop repeating that IH raised 250 million as though it were a fact unless you can substantiate it. Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.

  • That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars.

    This is not just few money. I remember also other figures in the docs and I will search the exact document..... but ok lets take 171 for now

    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH.

    Please cite the aricle yourself. You have not.


    And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH.

    Are you sure ? The only internet articles I found with this figures are related to Darden visit. Remember that IH holds the rights for China.

    Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.


    As you see I'm not repeating.

    I feel, but of course I can be wrong, that there is a double standard here. People from IH can openly offend and insult other while I'm just trying to reconstruct how much money IH has rosen.

  • Are you sure ? The only internet articles I found with this figures are related to Darden visit. Remember that IH holds the rights for China.


    People from IH can openly offend and insult other while I'm just trying to reconstruct how much money IH has risen.


    ele


    The issue here is that the points made in favour of IH are all backed by hard facts. The points made in favour of Rossi are all speculation and RossiSays (not even Rossi says sworn evidence - though in some cases even that is provably inaccurate). And this difference needs to be called out.


    • We have in the mountains of Court evidence clear info re the 20M/ 30M split of that 50M.
    • We have no evidence to support the RossiSays 200+M


    The internet article here that you cite is typically loose. The figure in it will perhaps be real, but not necessarily definite, and not likely for LENR. If it had been IH would have more money now. Such articles from journalists are notoriously unreliable when it comes to what the sums of money mentioned actually represent: possibles, wishes, contingencies, etc.


    Darden clearly had (from Woodford alone, and for all I know China too) access to large amounts of money for working LENR. Which, had Rossi's stuff worked, would have been drawn upon. That is quite different from having been given this large amount. No-one of any sense would expect funders to provide this money until the next phase of validation was complete so lowering risk.


    None of this is surprising. It would be surprising if Darden could raise such large amounts for LENR when in the process of testing Rossi's device until it is proven working. If you claim IH did prove LENR working you have to ask why would Darden perjure himself when there must be other technical guys who know differently? Unlike Rossi, where he can control technical stuff with all other technical guys deferring to him, Darden and Vaughn rely on other technical expertise to tell them what is what. Murray would have to be willing to perjure himself and wreck his reputation. After all, working e-cats are not something that can get hidden if they are commercialised.

  • Well, let's look at the (surely misleading) numbers you quote. Nominally from Woodford we have 50 million, and nominally from the Chinese we have 121 million. That's 50 million + 121 million = 171 million dollars. You're short by 79 million to get to your 250 million that you've mentioned on several occasions.


    Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH. And let us recall that the Chinese number was probably a commitment and does not appear to have been intended to be directed to IH. We are now far shorter the 250 million. Please stop repeating that IH raised 250 million as though it were a fact unless you can substantiate it. Or, if you do repeat it as though it were a fact, your post will probably go into the bargain bin.

    I can not read all the public documents related to the trial .... they are really too many. However, I think that the amount of the investment can be in one of those. Anyway, is it really important to know if investors have given to IH $ 50 million or $ 250 million? The question remains the same: before collecting that money, IH should have been certain of the product they were buying. So either they were unwise, or the reactor worked fine. This is a fact.

  • Reading here and there.....

    Mail from McLaughlin (APCO) to Rossi (214-30)


    Quote


    - I spoke with Tom today and he reported that the 400 day test is about to commence. I wanted to share a new mantras with you around this event. [...] As guidance, I think we should call this event "a long term test and continued R&D" -

    From the very beginning, it seems that Darden had indoctrinated his PR group to make no one call the Doral test the "GPT" ... ;)

  • Reading here and there.....

    Mail from McLaughlin (APCO) to Rossi (214-30)


    From the very beginning, it seems that Darden had indoctrinated his PR group to make no one call the Doral test the "GPT" ... ;)

    Right. And could that possibly be because, as is obvious from Rossi's e-mail asking for it, it is not the GPT? Darden was perhaps alert to the possibility that Rossi might try to twist things?

  • Anyway, is it really important to know if investors have given to IH $ 50 million or $ 250 million? The question remains the same: before collecting that money, IH should have been certain of the product they were buying. So either they were unwise, or the reactor worked fine. This is a fact.

    No, this is your speculation, and your opinion. Not a fact. Whether something is unwise or not is a matter of opinion.


    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back. I have no idea whether such conditions are attached.


    What I know for a fact is that the test failed. Anyone can see that from Penon report.

  • No, this is your speculation, and your opinion. Not a fact. Whether something is unwise or not is a matter of opinion.


    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back. I have no idea whether such conditions are attached.


    What I know for a fact is that the test failed. Anyone can see that from Penon report.

    Also, there are definite hints of the classic criminal's "logic" in SSC and ele's repeated opinions/insinuations of other's motives: that being "...I wouldn't have robbed that bank, if they hadn't LET me rob it...". Or: "....if anyone is "unwise" (or risk-taking, uninformed, etc) enough to give Rossi money, they deserve to have it stolen....".

  • The main question remains, had IH the full sum of money in order to meet the obligations of the license agreement at any time available?. The answer is no!

    Speculation as to how they could have raised money is superfluous, because they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test - because they did not have that $89 million at no time!

  • Quote

    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back.

    Uh....no. You don't give a convicted felon with no record of credible accomplishments and a long history of claims which turned out to be lies -- you don't give him MILLIONS on another claim AHEAD OF TIME. If you even consider wasting time on him, you require him to PROPERLY and CONCLUSIVELY prove that the device works FIRST -- BEFORE he is entrusted with millions. That is done BEFORE money changes hands. And you get a proper test done-- not one entirely in the charges of the supposed inventor; not one lasting for an entirely useless and senseless entire year when it could be accomplished properly in at most a few weeks. You might offer to pay for some of the equipment rentals and perhaps some of the machining charges but really, the inventor, having presumably proven the device to work BEFORE making the claims, would have all that already. And you don't test dozens of subunits when testing a single one accomplishes the same thing! Rossi's proposal was OBVIOUSLY defective and BOGUS from the start to anyone with any experience in scientific method and testing.


    You don't need a complete or proven theory. You don't need anything ready for market. But you'd better do a competent test with your own, well vetted, experts, including for certain, some who are skeptical about the device. All must have special training and proven accomplishment in the appropriate fields. In Rossi's case that would be nuclear physics, thermal and fluid physics and engineering, and sleight of hand methods, not necessarily in that order. Unwise is a vast understatement. And of course, Woodford was so hopelessly negligent with the investment that when asked how Rossi was vetted, in their own Q&A web-based conversations, they refused to state-- even in the most general of terms. Even the method was "proprietary" which I take to mean "negligent" and "woefully inadequate" and not done by appropriate experts if done at all.


    What in the world leads you to think it would be possible to get money back from Rossi by asking for it? Probably not even from IH. But Woodford knew a lot of the money they gave IH to invest was going to Rossi. Rossi was IH's showcase project (ROTFWL!).

  • The main question remains, had IH the full sum of money in order to meet the obligations of the license agreement at any time available?. The answer is no!

    Speculation as to how they could have raised money is superfluous, because they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test - because they did not have that $89 million at no time!


    Rends


    They had commitments from Woodford (looking at documents it is clear) to supply $200M+ should they be able to reproduce working reactors. Basically, had Rossi done IP transfer (and had working reactors), they were in a position to exploit this. That included paying off Rossi. See the Cassarino notes. It is pretty obvious they would be able to do this. IP transfer comes strictly before the GPT - so without IP transfer they are not obligated to pay) even if the GPT is real and OK).


    The arguments from you and SSC here are particularly bankrupt, and notably they contradict each other. SSC and Ele seem to think IH was at fault for having too much money. You claim they are at fault for having too little.


    When it is on record that they had access to lots more money but the conditions to get this never happened.

  • Eric: Now let us recall the article that clarified that only 20 or so million from Woodford had been disbursed to IH.

    Please cite the aricle yourself. You have not.


    In this post, I convert the values found in a Citywire article from pounds into dollars. The Citywire article mentions two Woodford stakes, of approx. 20 and 25 million dollars, one or both of which apply to IH (it's not clear from the wording of the article exactly what goes to IH). In this post Dewey Weaver contests 250 million number. In this post joshg clarifies that the Chinese number is not a direct investment in IH.


    You may disagree with one or another interpretation, but at minimum the 250 million number is at best doubtful, and more likely far wide of the mark.

  • Anyway, is it really important to know if investors have given to IH $ 50 million or $ 250 million? The question remains the same: before collecting that money, IH should have been certain of the product they were buying. So either they were unwise, or the reactor worked fine. This is a fact.


    Details matter when you're having a conversation with people, seeking to come to mutual understanding. Whether a "Six-Cylinder" E-Cat or a 1MW plant was used. Whether a test started within the first 30 days of the arrival of the equipment. Whether there was a signature from Ampenergo. Whether something was referred to in correspondence as a "Guaranteed Performance Test." Whether there was a real, bona fide customer. Whether IH obtained 50 million or 250 million or some other amount in funding.

  • This is much ado about nothing. I'm not going to dig it up again, but Woodford and the Chinese were willing to invest $150 mil, and $200 mil more (respectively) had Rossi proven his tech. Plus, IH had 2 big (unnamed) companies ready to roll. It is ridiculous to argue that IH went into the partnership with the sinister intent to steal the (working) IP, all because they did not have the financial backing to purchase it outright.


    Eric, is there some way we can hook up some electrodes to Ele and SSC's keyboard, so we can zap them if they keep on about this money thing? :)

  • Right. And could that possibly be because, as is obvious from Rossi's e-mail asking for it, it is not the GPT? Darden was perhaps alert to the possibility that Rossi might try to twist things?

    No, it is not in this way. The mail was sent by a member of the APCO to Rossi in order to ask him not to reveal to anyone the place where the test would take place, nor the start date. McLaughlin also suggests Rossi to call the "long term test and continued R & D" test. Re-read the document.

  • No, this is your speculation, and your opinion. Not a fact. Whether something is unwise or not is a matter of opinion.


    Perhaps the people who gave them the $50 million were unwise. I do not know the details of the agreement. If it were me giving them the money, it would be contingent on the test working, and if the test failed, they would have to give it back. I have no idea whether such conditions are attached.

    It is not a matter of opinion. When a person has the task of collecting money for a project, the minimum he can do to behave correctly is to make sure that that project works, and he must do it before collecting the money. If he collects money anyway, it means that he is incautious, or he is certain that the project works (and for sure he must have tested it successfully). These are obvious concepts, not points of view. And you too realize it, otherwise you would not suppose that the money delivery could be contingent on the test work.

  • Also, there are definite hints of the classic criminal's "logic" in SSC and ele's repeated opinions/insinuations of other's motives: that being "...I wouldn't have robbed that bank, if they hadn't LET me rob it...". Or: "....if anyone is "unwise" (or risk-taking, uninformed, etc) enough to give Rossi money, they deserve to have it stolen....".

    Criminal's logic? Are you drunk? I never said that IH deserves to be cheated. I believe that they have not been, but I also believe that they did not do their job in the right way. Do not misinterpret my words on purpose.

  • The arguments from you and SSC here are particularly bankrupt, and notably they contradict each other. SSC and Ele seem to think IH was at fault for having too much money. You claim they are at fault for having too little.

    IH can be as rich as they want, I do not care. But when you use the money of others you have to be aware. And I think they were aware......I think they had positive results but they negated them after Rossi's complaint.

  • SSC

    I am sure that IH ensured neither Woodford nor any Chinese investors that the e-cat performs as claimed by Rossi and Penon ("COP" of 80) - which would made this technology worth billions of $.


    Woodford would have been incredible stupid if they would have assumed that IH sells them a major share of a goldmine for just a couple of ten million dollars.


    When you only have to pay a couple of millions for a investment which might become worth billions (or trillions), then you must certainly be aware that this investment is a high risky deal, and not a safe bet. - Same as when you buy a lottery ticket.

  • If he collects money anyway, it means that he is incautious, or he is certain that the project works (and for sure he must have tested it successfully). These are obvious concepts, not points of view.


    A startup team will make a pitch to venture capitalists that they have a lot of hope that what they're doing will work, but they're not certain it will. And the VCs will provide money realizing that the investment is a risky one. Similarly it is easy to imagine that Darden hedged his pitch to Woodford with all kinds of cautions that the whole thing with Rossi was very risky and might not pan out. This discussion feels a little futile to me.

  • The main question remains, had IH the full sum of money in order to meet the obligations of the license agreement at any time available?. The answer is no!

    Speculation as to how they could have raised money is superfluous, because they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test - because they did not have that $89 million at no time!

    Rends


    I really cannot accept this. You go from:

    "IH did not have the money" TRUE

    to

    "IH knew they could not possibly raise the money" FALSE.


    As I stated above, and is pretty obvious:

    If the ecats work and are replicable (IP transfer) IH had lined up large amts of money to be available

    If the ecats don't work (no IP transfer or no IP to transfer) IH would ask for no money, and get none, beyond the Woodford initial tranche.

  • It is about spamming, please take it in consideration:

    Reading here is suffering an enormous amont of noise which makes it different to find the signal. One of the reasons is Jed Rothwell's permanent verbose posting and behavior. He has an opinion about everything, no matter of knowledge. I do know that many people here give him likes what makes my request something provocative, but:


    I think it might be helpful to automaticly move Jed's post to a special "mostly rants" thread where they can only be voted back to the discussion if there is any constructive content.


    What do the mods think about?


    Moved from the me356 thread. Eric

  • It is about spamming, please take it in consideration:


    I think it might be helpful to automaticly move Jed's post to a special "mostly rants" thread where they can only be voted back to the discuss:?:ion if there is any constructive content. What do the mods think about?

    I'm not a mod, but how about automatically moving jimimo's inane, vacuous, contentless, non-contributory comments to the playground?


    Oh wait...


    Moved from the me356 thread. Eric


  • This is your problem, you are not reading properly, because I do not draw any conclusions at all (other than you).

    I simply point out, with the assistance of the court documents, that at the time of the signing of the license agreement and also later in the for the trail relevant period, IH did not have the necessary financial resources to comply with that treaty. 'Whether' and how they, 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'might have', 'under certain circumstances', etc. could have come to money is completely irrelevant. At that time, they did not have the financial resources at any time.

  • Rends . It is bad form, even in Rossi-land, to contradict yourself immediately.


    From Post #2521 (which I quoted above)

    they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test


    From Rends Post #2524

    This is your problem, you are not reading properly, because I do not draw any conclusions at all (other than you).

    I simply point out, with the assistance of the court documents, that at the time of the signing of the license agreement and also later in the for the trail relevant period, IH did not have the necessary financial resources to comply with that treaty. 'Whether' and how they, 'possibly', 'perhaps', 'might have', 'under certain circumstances', etc. could have come to money is completely irrelevant. At that time, they did not have the financial resources at any time.


    I was reading perfectly well, it seems you do not read your own posts?


    #2524 is true but expected and not interesting, #2521 is false and draws false conclusions about IH motives.

  • they have signed a contract with the knowledge that they can possibly not raise the sum and so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test


    "That they can possibly not raise the sum" True or False? ... it is obvious, read the papers, there is no hint that there is any guaranteed contract, commitment what s ever for this sum.

    "so they could not be interested seeing Rossi successfully running a long term test" True or False? ... the court papers say, that IH, Darden et.al do not accept this long term test for to meet the requirements of the license agreement and claim overhead that the test was not successful and denounce it as fraud.

  • It is clear or should be clear now that this entire test was a fraud, so what is the problem then with IH denouncing it as fraud?

    AFAIK none of the "publicly" available documents of this soap opera Rossi vs. Darden state clearly, if there were or were not financial resources on IH's side. It is not obvious, but simply speculation or personal opinion only. There might be a good chance that IH may have had different goals and played "their game" from the beginning in this contract in order to get access to Rossis E-cat technology (in case it potentially worked this would have been a gold mine), but had to realize later on, that they were caught by Rossis "magnificence" and put over the barrel with his fake 1-year-1MW-heat-sell to his secret customer manufacturing plant.