Question on E-cat/IH 10Mn$ escrow and validation

Quote from "AlainCo"

I imagine that it is not that simple... It is said that IH tried to oppose the long term test as it could not "substantiate" the IP working.

It probably is that simple.

And I don't recall the GPT being delayed because of any "substantiate" issue. Only statements about the reason of delay are those in the Rossi complaint (no suitable place to do it... not even any need for a customer) ie. delay induced by IH because there was no upside in doing it when they had the IP. They already got what they wanted at that time; the IP and Rossi in a NDA leash. It seems though that IH had problems raising any substantial amounts of money until the test was on, so they were certainly happy to use it when pocketing the $50M Woodford cash... Which is a bit of a problem for IH now ...

Quote from "hermes"

If IH had raised $50M then why didn't they declare it?

If I remember correct it was done thru a brittish entity. There were filings that showd the numbers, and Woodford show the IH asset on the webpage. This might be a link that hints the $1bn valuations

https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…i/?postID=14639#post14639
But there are probably other ones. I believe Woodford is the best showing percentages of the fund holdings

Quote from AlainCo

That is a question for people who either have insider data, or know well contract language.

There is in the license agreement
an escrow protocol about the 10Mn$, 3.2b
animpossibleinvention.files.wo…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

It is said that escrow agent shall pay after validation is achieved (as Section 4 says), and E-cat IP has been validated and is available for immediate delivery (as said in 3.2b ? recursive?)

the validation in sections 4 is simply described as 1 day of COP>6 at T>100°C steam.

I don't see how the IP is validated ? It seems to be a bit surface check, as IP validation is said to be stransfered afterward to IH.
what is validating the IP ? just reading the papers and checking it looks good ? making test ? or seeing a demo by Rossi ?

On point of attack (estoppel?) is if IH validated the content of the IP as working, while it later claims it was not working. I imagine that it is not that simple... It is said that IH tried to oppose the long term test as it could not "substantiate" the IP working.

Display More

Reading and understanding the Agreement requires setting aside ordinary meanings of words, and noticing how they are used there. "Validation" takes on a special meaning. In what is being asked about, it means that a named expert certifies that the reactor did what is described, in a specified test. Yes, the description would not "validate" in the ordinary meaning of words. There is then another use of "Validation" in described in Schedule 3.2(b) (page 24 of the pdf). That meaning has nothing to do with ordinary validation at all. It is about the technology transfer process.

Yes, the requirement is for 100 C or greater. No pressure specification. (But the water pump is "4 bar," where the boiling point of water is 143 C. By this time, everyone knew that steam quality was an issue. I'm quite sure that Industrial Heat knew that.)

So at this point, the tests were dog and pony shows using Rossi techniques, they were far, far from independent validations. They allowed a shallow appearance of neutrality, if one did not look too close at the fine print, and if one knows nothing about steam calorimetry.

It appears that IH made the decision, in 2012, to agree to almost anything Rossi set as a requirement, to obtain the technology, to find out and distinguish between "Rossi eccentric inventor" and "Rossi fraud." If Rossi had actually succeeded in teaching them how to create reactors that worked reliably, even if the GPT had failed, even if it was faked, they'd have paid him the $89 million, gladly, that's my developed understanding.

People attempt to understand Rossi using models of ordinary human behavior. Rossi is not ordinary.