Rossi: Litigation to Last ‘at Least One Year’

  • 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.


    It's true philanthropic money, not bound to personal profit, as recently somebody else distorted...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.


    It does look like it. Not many people sign their names with a Roman numeral 3. I wish he would make this public. As I said, it would be great PR for the field.


    Fun fact (supposedly): at Harvard, Gates was known as "Trey" which is cardshark lingo for "three" (ace, deuce, trey) because he mostly played poker.

  • 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.

  • So what is your "truth" about your assumed timeline?
    Why do you accuse me that I "contradict the timing" and what support do you offer for this alleged contradiction?


    You can now see the timing of Woodford's visit in this recently revealed legal filing:
    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk


    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.


    http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/…-energy-nuclear-reaction/


    Woodford also stated that they performed 2.5 years of due-diligence.

  • exactly, they visited Rossi early but did not invest to much later after they had visited many other groups.
    Evidently the work by Rossi was not good enough in Feb and the few months later to warrant their investment
    until they check other's works.


    You cannot conclude that Woodford invested because of Rossi and not because of others.


    We know that IH had invested in other before they invested in Rossi.

  • 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.

  • I have already given you my "documentation" from Macy's Inf. Energy interview with Darden. IH had invested in others before Rossi and continued to do so and still does. You can also see from Darden's ICCF talk that he supports Dennis Letts and Peter Hagelstein. There are others that I cannot comment on. ( you can believe that or not but it is in the article if you believe Darden and Macy's write-up)


    Again you timing does not prove what it seems you are wanting to believe. There are other interpretations. A good scientist should be willing to account for alternative explanations.

  • @oldguy


    Nobody, and I mean nobody :!: , is going to invest a cool $50 mill on traditional non-commercially viable LENR. So if you are suggesting that Darden has other commercially viable LENR (i.e., LENR+) technologies in his portfolio (apart from Brillouin which we already know about), then let's hear about 'em.

  • Fanboy, this obviously leads you to a paradox. Woodford did invest after visiting (actually the business types, Paul and Henry, and not Woodford himself) several labs and as you say there is no commercially viable LENR system publically known. Notice this includes the failed Rossi efforts. (notice Rossi could not demonstrate, teach and run a system in NC so that others could commercialize it even after he claimed that he heated a factory in Italy for a year and had many buyers outside the US)


    Perhaps it means that your assumption is incorrect (perhaps Woodford would invest in research level efforts) or that there is somewhere systems that may be nearing commercially viable levels or both. Some investment groups do put a small portion of their money in very highly speculative investments since there is some times "risk avoidance" and they need to have a diversification into high risk reward regions. (it a game theory thing)


    If someone does have a promising research approach, I think it would be closely guarded and not be made public.
    One preferred approach would be to replicate it internally and have it replicated independently and verified independently
    in the light of day by several professionals with impeccable credentials before there would be any announcement. None of this flim flam =I wave my magic wand and put in secret stuff only I know,
    run it in ways only I know while I sleep with the hidden parts, and I pick a friend who will test it and you cannot look "behind the curtain" (wall).


    We are not there yet but perhaps someday.

  • @oldguy


    While I appreciate your points (and am not too far from you on this), bear in mind that to bring LENR+ to market is going to require an openness that some investors/companies may not traditionally be comfortable with. Focardi pressed Rossi to do his first public demo. Rossi didn't want to: he thought it was premature. But Focardi was in the twilight of his life, and wanted an assurance that his life work (or at least related life work) would see the light of day. That triggered a series of events that landed us where we are at now.


    If you happen to be an insider (and I'm warming up to that idea the more I converse with you), then I would respectfully suggest to you this: LENR+ is bigger than any one person, any one company, any one nation, or even any one planet. It cannot be kept under wraps for long. DIYers are hot on the trail.


    LENR+ will not be controlled, no matter how much Darden might feel he has the tiger by the tail. I would encourage Darden, IH, and all its subsidiaries to stop trying to be so incognito with everything. Open up. Be open in your responses in the lawsuit. The world is in dire need of this.