As Jed Rothwell, said, IH could not afford to risk some $300 million on the probability that an entirely lay jury would believe corporate types and academics over a con man and a bunch of accomplished liars. Not a risk worth taking. Why would they? They did not admit wrong doing and they did not pay Rossi anything. That's a win for them and a clear loss for Rossi.
Alan purports to have invited me to attend (were you planning to fit me in your suitcase?) but in reality, Rossi already had his chance with me back in 2011. Then, I was in email communications with Jed Rothwell. I have described this before but, briefly, the idea was for Jed to put together a team to fly to Italy and test the steam ecat exactly as it was. I was prepared to meet them in Italy.
The plan was simply to collect all the steam and condense it ("sparge" it) into an insulated and instrumented water tank to measure its energy content. Voila, problem solved. Needless to say, the test would have been done without the need for Rossi to reveal any trade secret or to allow any measurement which might expose intellectual property.
Of course, Rossi never agreed to that simple and direct plan for the experiment. He also did not offer to do such a test himself or to have it done by others. That was when I became absolutely certain he was a fraud. No legitimate inventor would refuse a definitive test of their invention when it was offered without cost by a trustworthy group of experts or for that matter, by himself or anyone.
In the last 5+ years, Rossi has never allowed a single proper and independent test of his ecat. There never was a need for a hot cat. There is no need for a QuarkX. The original steam ecat which puportedly made 10kW+ from a tennis ball sized reactor sitting on a desktop in a stable and consistent manner purportedly for six months on a tiny amount of cheap fuel-- that alone was worth billions or trillions and probably a Nobel Prize. If the thing had been real, Rossi could have written his own ticket. Running a silly kludge of 50 pieces of junk in a shipping container? Absurd from the start. Why IH ever agreed to that will always be a mystery to me.
I dusted off my handy-dandy notch filter nanoapp that lets one see the truth in context with autotranslate of R code - what was actually said follows:
"The 1MW is a malfeasance".
Dewey you are coming (ICCF-21) next year right? I need to check here. I am glad to see you still have blood in the game. I was concerned that it was just about business. And the requirement to minimize losses. Not about proving LENR beyond a shadow of a doubt. If someone took me for that kinda cash they bitter better be the IRS.
I quite honestly hate travelling, I know we joke here, but if I can, I want to do it. I hope Jed and many others come. I am not sure why we are still talking about the "magnificence" after all this. But I do not mess with people that think differently than I do. We now think similar so I can mess with you.
I notice (catching up) that Mary had a quite poignant response a few pages ago about why IH cut losses. Also I hope you are still working with IH and LENR regardless.
I certainly did not want this result to happen and wanted it to come to an end.