Rossi: Litigation to Last ‘at Least One Year’

That's hilarious you say people genuinely concerned with the Rossi affair in that's another case of tech suppression, are paid by Rossi to spread FUD, when you yourself have been a FUD machine producing endless bingos of "gadget doesn't work" and others "1mw heat would cook people"
Now, nobody understands why you, who are a LENR archivist, would play the role of a bouncer and viciously, endlessly attack LENR ventures that are not to your liking. Or, much rather, to people having power over you (why? how? that's your own karma) ?

But at least, you're a real person, unlike Turing test-able sophisticated bots using photographs and civil names to pass off as real people. However I hope you get software to make the bulk of your posts, they're so repetitive it can't be good for you should they be produced manually.

Fact: you've been repeating ad nauseam the same catchphrases for months

Fact: they're not backed by anything since neither ERV nor complete schematics of the installation (and how/where the heat went) are available

Fact: you are stubbornly pushing forward fact-deprived statements and that makes you a FUD machine. Paid or not? who cares, the toxicity of your daily interactions in what should be LENR-friendly communities is blatant. But you're not the only one in this, as LENR is a very touchy subject for a number of lobbies who'd rather see it never evolve beyond Internet squabbles.

Fact: it's really sad and disturbing to see an archivist of all things LENR commit so violently to being an obstacle in the road of human progress, but maybe you've been a partial and agenda-driven bouncer all along, who knows?

OK You made your point. Beyond here lies troll-territory. Alan.

Quote from JedRothwell

Alan Smith wrote:

Hey, I get to agree with Alan's comment! Should I check my medication? (No, his comment is just ordinary and reasonable conveyance of reasonably reliable information.) If he can think of five, great! I have no reason to doubt that he is reporting what he thinks, and as to Gates and Page, yes, I will confirm it personally, on information and belief.

The situation has shifted since the time when Jed formed his opinions. I recommend he get out more often, and realize that what Beaudette wrote about fifteen years ago was true, it merely had not yet become particularly visible.

Cold fusion prevailed.

Page is, if I'm correct, supporting Brillouin. I have no opinion on whether that is a good move or not, but Brillouin is a live player in the field, and suffering from the same difficulties as other groups working on proprietary technology. Truly independent confirmation is difficult to impossible. There is an intermediate condition, which may have been satisfied. It's marginal, iffy, from a conservative point of view, and we need that point of view!

Gates, on the other hand, gave money to Texas Tech, this is obvious from a thread here, his signature was blocked out by an incomplete blanking, leaving enough visible to make a confirmation with high probability. It was Gates, the evidence is strong enough to simply assert it. $6 million in late 2014. Matched by $6 million in Texas State research funding. For what? For this project: http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf

I cannot think of a more deserving research project, and I've been explaining why for years. Heat/helium addresses fundamental research issues and cuts through all the debate about circumstantial evidence. That work is not speculative, it is designed to confirm what is already known (and some in the field opposed this on that very basis: we already know, why waste money on this?)

That is, the work is highly likely to produce useful results, and the use, here, is demonstrating the nuclear nature of the FP Heat Effect beyond reasonable doubt. That, then, pulls the pin on the rejection grenade. When this work is done and published, the balance will rapidly flip and funding for cold fusion research will rapidly expand, and the entire physics establishment will begin to become involved in the search for explanations.

The work should have been done years ago, it's overdue by over a decade. It really should have been done in the early nineties. What the Hell Happened?

It's a fascinating story, I have begun to tell some of it, and some don't like hearing it. We can't blame the skeptics!

A house? That's peanuts, though it is possible that such a sum in the right place could make a difference. Jed, at this point, I would focus on what you are good at: organizing and making documents available. Translations to and from Japanese. I recommend learning to smile more. When you speak, have fun! You've been battling trolls for years. I urge you to realize that you won. Cold fusion is real.

[quote]I think only I.H. may have enough money to be effective. Of course, you can waste any amount of money, as shown by the Star Wars missile defense program and plasma fusion research.

Display More

You are thinking small. IH, to my knowledge and expectation, is working with others toward common goals. I am not sensing hostility and "competitiveness" as dominating their behavior. Gates made a donation that is pocket change for him. I'm confident that if more money is needed, and if that donation has shown results, more will be available. IH raised $50 million from Woodford. I'm sure there is more, much more, available if needed.

If Rossi had come through with the technology, IH would have raised the $89 million payment -- and the larger sum needed for commercial development -- without breaking a sweat. This is what these people are expert at!

No, at this point the question is precisely what research should be supported. I have no opinion that all of IH's choices are the best, but I've heard of nothing that was not at least reasonable. They are learning, like everyone else.

There are obvious research avenues deserving pursuit. At this point, I assign priority to nailing down what we already know (i.e., what seems to have been confirmed). This is relatively inexpensive, compared to open-ended projects. There are projects to "explore the parameter space," it has been called. SRI did some of this in the early 1990s, but much more is now known. This is patient, plodding work, most of it quite boring. Experiments must be done over and over, with single variables. All results are valuable, not just the "exciting" ones.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Gates, on the other hand, gave money to Texas Tech, this is obvious from a thread here . . .

It does not seem so obvious to me. Whoever it is, I am grateful. Money is money so in that sense it does not matter who gave it. On the other hand, if it becomes generally known that the money comes from Gates, that would have great PR value for the field.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3749-Robert-V-Duncan-at-TTU-5Mn-for-hydride-research-in-Seashore-research-LLC/?postID=36360&highlight=Bill%2BGates#post36360

It's obvious, Jed. When I first looked at that signature, I saw a resemblance to another well-known signature (two loops in the right place!). But when I recognized the line at the top of the III, I completely dropped that. There are multiple points of resemblance, the possibility of misidentification here is low, and the harm of it also small. Basically, someone at Texas Tech screwed up on anonymizing the signature. It was not caught, apparently, and Bill Gates did not object, or it would have been fixed. Once the cat is out of the bag like this, it cannot be stuffed back in, so I choose to use the fact in a way that causes no harm. Bill Gates is not going to suffer loss of reputation or any other harm from this. He is funding basic research, the kind that was recommended by both U.S. DoE reviews, this is fully defensible, not that I expect anyone to attempt to insult him over it.

Bill Gates has supported LENR with a major donation in what we might all agree is a great place, likely to produce results that just might clear the rejection logjam. The multiplier effect could be enormous. Be Happy!!!

There are skeptics who agree that this work is valuable. After all, if cold fusion is pathological science, increasing precision will cause the effect to disappear, right?

If some mistake has been made about the signature, nobody will die. Just for a little, at least, let yourself be happy that the world is changing, and that, in fact, cold fusion prevailed. For over twenty effing years, you have pushed and hoped for this, and it's happening! For the first time, it has become reasonable, with specific reasons, to think this will succeed. I'm looking forward to seeing you in North Carolina in 2018, if not before. Hey, in 2017, if Rossi v. Darden goes to trial, and if I can get the funding, I might go.

Quote from Eric Walker

THHuxley wrote:

I definitely hope that IH does not settle with Rossi on this.

I have made two general statements about this. One is that settlement is possible, though I don't know on what terms. Settlement is more possible, in my opinion, with the 3rd party defendants, but it's a complex issue. This should not be taken as an advocacy of settlement, but, in general, taking a lawsuit to trial can be very expensive and I don't want to see the parties waste their resources uselessly. In the end, it is entirely up to them. Nobody can force anyone to settle. Mediation is ordered, but that is a confidential process and cannot create any coercion to settle. The mediator is not going to tell the judge that one party or the other is intransigent or anything that might prejudice their freedom to choose.

The other is that it is quite possible that Rossi v. Darden, the primary lawsuit, will never go to trial, that it will be dismissed prior to trial due to some obvious defects. This is a relatively simple judgment based on what appears at this time as the preponderance of the evidence. This could shift if Rossi provides certain evidence or at least alleges it. The possibility of Summary Judgment still exists if discovery does not back up the claims that might keep the lawsuit alive. While many may be disappointed to see this dismissed (on both "sides"!) the courts do not exist to please the crowds, but to enforce contracts and equity, and I do find it offensive if we expect others to spend large sums for legal fees so that we can get our spectacle. If we want to know if the Rossi Effect is real, perhaps we should get together and buy a license ourselves. Personally, at this point, given the evidence, I'm satisfied that the probability of this being a sound investment is low, but for very good reasons, we are free to make our own choices where we put our assets.

Fun fact: I saw Gates and Buffett together some years ago. In Palm Springs, at a bridge tournament. I don't play bridge, I was there with a friend who does and she was very excited about them participating. Apparently, they are good players. Must've been security a plenty around but they were not obvious.

Quote from IH Fanboy

So we know that Woodford visited the plant as early as Feb. 9, 2015, near the beginning of the one-year 1MW test. The investment by Woodford in IH came considerably later, Sept. 2015.

fortune.com/2015/09/27/ceo-che…-energy-nuclear-reaction/

I suggest that IHFB review that Fortune article and see how he jumped to a conclusion. "Recently" is vague.

This document covers the issuance of $50 million in Series A shares in IH Holdings International, Ltd. The URL is enormous, so go to https://beta.companieshouse.go…y/09553031/filing-history

and look at "Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 13 May 2015." That would be the date of the investment. The document filed May 24, 2016 shows a full list of shareholders and you can see who owns the Series A shares. It's not explicit, the owners are two accounts at a "custodian company." But this is an exact amount, in total, within pennies of $50 million US.