Are IH and Cherokee on the verge of Bankruptcy?

Walker - thanks for confirming yet again that you're nothing but a fodder generating complete waste of time.

Quote from Walker

On the matter of Dewey Weaver being unable to provide any proof of what he claims.

Rossi has provided no proof of what he claims. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that what he claims cannot be true. He has previously lied about many things such as having customers or mass production. His most recent statement about blocking the pretend customer site from the I.H. expert is highly suspicious, to say the least.

Why do people here demand proof from I.H. while they take every statement by Rossi at face value, with no proof at all?

New story from the Triangle Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…o-italian-scientists.html

In 2012, Darden and his cohorts made a big gamble to prove them wrong,

founding Industrial Heat and later participating in its 2013, $11.6 million funder– a mixture of equity and debt. They relocated the startup to an incubator-like facility in Cary and stealthily continued their research.

The team kept relatively quiet about the work actually happening in that laboratory until April. That’s when, following the suit, Vaughn released a statement claiming that Industrial Heat had been unable to substantiate Rossi’s claims about the E-Cat,

despite more than three years of research.

** Like buying Oceanfront property for one million that's worth 10 million, then telling the owner he has swampland **

Rothwell wrote:

Quote

Rossi has provided no proof of what he claims. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that what he claims cannot be true.

In 2011, you wrote:

"Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher."

So, do you therefore concede that no previous cold fusion researcher has provided proof of cold fusion?

LC - there is plenty to learn from on both sides of the Rossi / IH saga. I love how you guys keep putting in leading statements and questions in a not so subtle attempt to gradually shape the narrative. Based on all the intentional negligence and deception that has been assembled since Rossi filed his lawsuit, I'm 95% convinced that Rossi assembled this escape plan early on. He never even tried to meet the Validation and GPT parameters because he ignored what was in the requirements at the earliest stage of the 1MW test. Once IH realized what he was doing and that the "IP" wasn't working in the test labs then it became a matter of figuring out what he was up to and, if it was no good, making sure that we had enough information to fix things should problems or hostilities erupt. That's enough fo now.

Quote from joshua cude

In 2011, you wrote:

"Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher."

If I said that, I was wrong. Probably deceived. I now agree that the information he gave out earlier was invalid. Whether it was a mistake or a lie I cannot judge.

See? Unlike you, I admit my mistakes.

Rothwell wrote:

Quote

See? Unlike you, I admit my mistakes.

That's not unlike me. I also admit my mistakes, when I make them. But I'm pretty careful about expressing absolute certainty.

Admitting you're wrong when you are wrong is admirable, but *being wrong*, especially when you are so adamant about it, insisting that Rossi had provided first principles proof better than any in the field still damages your credibility.

And after that, your certainty about cold fusion doesn't say nearly as much for the field.

Edited to replace "you're" with "your".

Quote from Dewey Weaver

that the "IP" wasn't working in the test labs

Can you help us understand what you mean by this? Some have speculated that IH hasn't substantiated Rossi's claims and devices, but that IH have improved upon those devices, and now have something that works. Is that what you are getting at when you quote "IP" as if just Rossi's stuff is inoperable, but IH has developed a different/improved device that has been substantiated with LENR+ characteristics? If this is the case, why is IH dancing around this without just outright coming out with it? I'm speculating of course, but could it be that you want to keep the pro-LENR / anti-LENR+ folks on your side for the time being?

@'joshua'

A good principle is to never be certain that's true but It's fine to play a role where you express certainty if it is balanced
with people counter with critical arguments. Things can be quite dynamic if you play this game and life and discussions becomes
quite fun. The trick is to admit when one is wrong and be honest and professional and always play the game with facts as far as possible. People
that are certain are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. So would I trust Jed when he claim Rossi has nothing. The facts he propose
are strong and his certainty makes it quite fun to follow the discussions although I personally would be much more careful out of my experience
with all logical bugs I've been fighting with. But then again I'm a very boring person. P.S. don't say that it is bloody obvious that the ECAT does not
work, you are right about that, e.g. there is no proof and the claim is fantastic, but the point is that one have to be careful with the arguments one
is using against it. If you are careless you would use the wrong argument and your opponent get's a chance to point finger at you even if you are right.
I really don't like these finger pointing games that you just used, that really put's you in the corner that Abd put you in. Don't do it, try stick to discussions
in stead - that's much more fun.

IHFB - Rossi's NIH based IP didn't work at all and, as a result, there is nothing to improve upon. To address your next question - no we haven't seen anybody's NiH reactor work in a verified environment. We don't care about sides and / or LENR+. We have seen very interesting periods of potential excess heat but nothing has satisfied our hard science folks at high enough confidence levels yet. There is nothing working along the lines of Rossi's approach and we have shelved that research. We have teams working on basic reactions / reactors that are fully characterized and will be able to verify at high confidence levels with any sustainable reaction / reactions that show themselves.

Dewey, I could get banned here for saying this (ok, hopefully not) but if you want to fund LENR or similar research look at what Mills and Brilliant Light Power are doing. They have another demonstration day coming up June 28th. I am not saying that Mills has the breakthrough in his hands. He may be on the right path, or perhaps not. But if I had to bet $10k on who is on the right track, I would bet it on Mills, (of course, all of this is so speculative that my first choice would be to not bet anything at this point). I think Mills was in the abyss for years, but about 2 or 3 years ago things started coming together for him. His latest iterations are making some bit of sense. Of course it would be nice to simply see a SunCell that shows over-unity. We will see what the next demonstration shows in a couple of weeks. I am sure his existing investors are very anxious to see some real progress.

If Mills and the SunCell are not appealing, this article on the development of an artificial leaf at Harvard is interesting. Perhaps they would like to incorporate a startup based on their research.
https://www.technologyreview.c…p-for-an-artificial-leaf/

I would really like to see LENR work as much as anyone, but more than that I would just like to see a breakthrough of some kind. It may not come from LENR.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

IHFB - Rossi's NIH based IP didn't work at all and, as a result, there is nothing to improve upon. To address your next question - no we haven't seen anybody's NiH reactor work in a verified environment. We don't care about sides and / or LENR+. We have seen very interesting periods of potential excess heat but nothing has satisfied our hard science folks at high enough confidence levels yet. There is nothing working along the lines of Rossi's approach and we have shelved that research. We have teams working on basic reactions / reactors that are fully characterized and will be able to verify at high confidence levels with any sustainable reaction / reactions that show themselves.

Thanks for your answers. When you say that you haven't seen anybody's NiH reactor work in a verified environment, are you including Brillouin? Haven't they had their reactor verified by SRI? When you say that you have shelved Rossi's approach, do you mean that you have shelved the NiH powder-fuel + Li based reactor research altogether?

Deleo - Thank you for the note. Mills has been thru $120M+ on his way to something. We're watching him and know investors in his deal - he has some steadfast believers in his approach. We hope that he gets to a reaction that he can maintain soon - someone in the small hydrogen crowd needs to prove something that concept works.

IHFB - I think that a Brillouin demo has been run in the past for an IH exec. Where did you get that SRI verified their reactor? If you're refering to McKubre's letter then that is a supportive document but is not a a verified reactor sign off. As I've previously stated, Robert Godes is a hard working and smart engineer. He has something interesting going and maybe he'll have a present for us all someday in the near future.

Dewey Weaver

It might be possible to use Rossi's "too cheap to compete against" reactor manufacturing strategy to undercut Rossi. If Rossi sells reactor product at a rock bottom price with a small markup, by adding great value to the proprietary final LENR product, IH will receive most of the profit margin from a LENR product.

The Quark reactor will become a commodity much like a PC processor chip and its standardized interfaces will make it applicable in many value added applications.

For example, if a turbofan jet engine that uses Rossi's product is sold, the majority of the profit would go to the engine manufacturer and not to the manufacture of the heat generation reactor chip. Likewise, if a automobile engine uses Rossi's Quark reactor at very high efficiency, then most of the selling price for that engine would go to the engine manufacture and not to buy Quark reactors, that is, not the subcomponent OEMs: Rossi. The real money will be made not in the IP for LENR reactor IP, but to the block buster value added IP applications that uses the LENR reactor.

The majority of the profit produced in the manufacture of a car does not go to the manufacturer of its pistons, but to the final assemblers of the car especially if the car contains highly innovative and sought after proprietary innovations,

Quote from axil

For example, if a turbofan jet engine that uses Rossi's product is sold ...

What comes next? Fantasies about using Rossi's products for time travel and laser swords?

An over complicated espresso machine might be more realistic.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

What comes next? Fantasies about using Rossi's products for time travel and laser swords?

An over complicated espresso machine might be more realistic.

Those innovators that can use Rossi's product to great effect in the marketplace will reap great profits and monopolize highly profitable emerging markets.

If Dewey Weaver has inside info relating to the capabilities of Rossi's products, he can go positive and start to plan for proprietary blockbuster applications. That is where the profits lie. The future will belong to those who prepare for it.