Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from quizzical: “Perhaps you have put a significant amount of money into Rossi's research? Is this why you are making these comments?”
Full disclosure: I have no financial connection to any of the parties involved in this dispute. Do you?

Eric: No. I do not either. Well, I guess we've settled that.

P.S. As I'm sure you know, I was just responding to your rhetorical question with a question of my own. In any case, apparently we disagree on the long-term impact of Rossi's research on LENR funding. As I've stated, I think that even if he turns out to be a fraud, while there may be some short-term blow-back, he will have had a long-term beneficial impact, for all of the reasons I've stated above.

I doubt Darden & Co would even have become aware of LENR and entered the game with IH in the first place had it not been for Rossi with his visibility and prospect of a nearly market-ready kW scale technology promising huge returns. Hence it is a naive miscalculation to lament that the 11.5 M$ could have enabled "real" LENR research. It is far more likely that they would instead have been invested in, say, a new smartphone app. Assuming Mr. Weaver tells the truth about Rossi and IH's other commitments (which I doubt), LENR research has greatly benefited from Rossi even if he is a fraud.

Timar - You guys can keep trying to discredit me all you'd like. The continuous Team Rossi snippets are disgraceful but that is how ya'll roll. Rossi has had a truth problem for decades and that doesn't look to be ending anytime in the near future. It's been truth and consequences game for over a year now and that news still has not dawned on Planet Rossi.

Now to make some progress, Rossi was one of three CF research projects presented to Darden over a short period of time and yes, all three of those got his attention. Following his instincts, he decided bet on two of them. Darden shared his plan, advising that his risky bet on Rossi would be high profile and would signal to the field that willing funding was becoming available. That plan worked so yes, some benefit has come from placing the bet on Rossi. Is that where you'd like to hang your hat?

Quote from Eric Walker

To add to this point, that's 11.5 million dollars that did not go to hardworking researchers in a field that for years has been starved of funding. To put things in perspective, the National Cold Fusion Institute in Utah was funded with 4.5 million dollars (in 1991 terms). There have been cold fusion researchers who have been discouraged in their own efforts when they heard stories of kilowatt reactors. There will have been real damage to LENR research if it turned out that Rossi was not being honest with IH. Anyone who cares about LENR research should not be cavalier about the Leonardo vs. IH lawsuit.

Therefore we should hope that the trial takes a quick end.

The technical issues which all of us interests can anyway not be resolved by judicial process.

If the Motion To Dismiss will be rejected, it will be a question whether Rossi can win through his drafting of the contract, inadequate measurement methods and his magical calculations, but nothing of that would testify the real efficiency of the E-Cat.

Quote from quizzical

Consider Piantelli's NICHenergy which is privately funded. And in this case they apparently gave 6 times more than that elsewhere.

Can you please give me a source for your statement about the connection between IH and Piantelli/NichEnergy?

Rends - do you agree with Rossi's press release position that IH no longer has it's E-Cat license with Leonardo Corporation?

Rends - you've demonstrated your understanding of many things with your response.

I have no further questions your honor.

Quote from Timar

Hence it is a naive miscalculation to lament that the 11.5 M$ could have enabled "real" LENR research. It is far more likely that they would instead have been invested in, say, a new smartphone app. Assuming Mr. Weaver tells the truth about Rossi and IH's other commitments (which I doubt), LENR research has greatly benefited from Rossi even if he is a fraud.

It is true that Rossi's demonstrations have brought a lot of attention to LENR. This cannot be doubted. I'm open to the possibility that even if Rossi has zilch, he might still have benefited LENR research indirectly by bringing this attention. It's possible that the net balance, even after subtracting the fact that all of LENR researchers are and will be tarred with the same brush, will be positive.

I think you are using the term "naive miscalculation" wrong. Perhaps you mean "naive assessment" or "naive analysis." A miscalculation is the kind of thing that Rossi did in hiring an inexperienced lawyer to pursue his lawsuit, which, with IH's wise selection of Jones Day, will gradually become apparent to anyone on either side of the Rossi question who cares how this case goes. In English, the word "miscalculation" refers to an error in judgment. You can ignore with prejudice any analysis of legal questions on this forum that is not grounded in a first-hand understanding of US law, for US law is its own self-contained thing. I think you are probably not naive. Perhaps you are suggesting above that that 11.5 million could not have enabled real research for the other people IH is helping out right now. For example, perhaps you are saying that IH would have given that money to the developers of a smartphone app, instead of, say, Dennis Lets, Peter Hagelstein, Brillouin, or another party who has been looking at LENR for a while that thinks they might have something promising. What you are not suggesting, surely, is that 11.5 million is peanuts for these folks. You are also not suggesting that LENR researchers have not been repeatedly saying that they need funding to move forward, and that they have been starved of funding, and that they have had a hard time obtaining it. I'm confident you wouldn't suggest that, because you are not naive and you gather information before coming to judgment, and when you will have done that, you will have found out that this is what they've been saying for some time.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from quizzical: “Consider Piantelli's NICHenergy which is privately funded. And in this case they apparently gave 6 times more than that elsewhere.”

Can you please give me a source for your statement about the connection between IH and …

I wasn't trying to start a rumor. Apparently, my statement was misinterpreted. Piantelli's NICHenergy is an example of LENR research - and perhaps the most advanced along with Rossi(?) and Mizuno - which has been funded using significant additional private funds which were NOT contributed by IH. My other statement was simply that based on IH's account they have given 6 times more money to other researchers than they have given to Rossi.

I might add that I have the distinct impression that Mizuno's recent apparently quite successful research has been strongly influenced by Rossi's use of microscopic Ni particles which he revealed around 2011/2012 I believe, as has the research of a number of other LENR researchers.

@quizzical

Thanks for the clarification.

The usage of Ni nanopowder is the only thing that has been really invented by Rossi (if it was not the idea of Focardi et.al.).

I do not want to devalue this, but don't think that this describes an inventive step that wouldn't have been sometime made without Rossi's participation.

I've got the impression, that many of his supporters have a false impression as to the importance of Rossi for LENR, because they think he has been the discoverer / inventor of the NiH effect.

Buying me all the time I need....

Walker - Do you have an opinion about how the big companies you mention will view the possible fact that they might be dealing with a litigious little company that took $10M for a paid-up license, didn't take the time or care to deliver then sued their customer?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Walker - Do you have an opinion about how the big companies you mention will view the possible fact that they might be dealing with a litigious little company that took $10M for a paid-up license, didn't take the time or care to deliver then sued their customer?

Why, if they ARE involved, they'll do their due diligence, weigh one thing against another, and decide what level of risk they are willing to take, and write their proposals with appropriate safeguards.

Just like any investor should.

Quote from Walker

Along with ABB there is talk of Siemens and GE once more entering the fray as manufactures of E-Cat technology both of whom are in a race to open new CHP energy generation manufacturing capacity.

Walker, do you have a source for this?

Nigel - are you implying that Walker's companies are potential ECat investors?