Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I myself have no idea what brought I.H. into the field. I do not know what triggered their interest, or the sequence of events. I suspect you don't know these things either. If you do know, tell us where you read this history. Please refrain from making assertions without providing evidence.

    Again let me ask: Do you have founding documents from them? Where are you getting your information?


    OK, no problem, I never refrained from providing evidences. It's all on the web. In this specific case you can look at the Rossi vs. Darden docket.

    From the Rossi complaint, dated May 4, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…6/11/0001.0_Complaint.pdf


    […]

    42. Unbeknownst to ROSSI and LEONARDO, on October 24,2012, DARDEN and VAUGHN had formed INDUSTRIAL HEAT,LLC as a Delaware limited liability company.

    […]

    44. In justifiable reliance upon the aforementioned representations and assurances of DARDEN, VAUGHN, CHEROKEE and IH, on October 26, 2012, ROSSI and LEONARDO entered into a License Agreement with IH and the then licensee Ampenergo, Inc. for the E-Cat IP ("License Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."

    […]



    From the IH answer, dated August 6, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…2016/11/0029.0_Answer.pdf


    […]

    42. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations as to Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the timing of the formation of Industrial Heat. Defendants admit that Industrial Heat was formed on or about October 24, 2012. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42.

    […]

    44. Defendants admit that an incomplete copy of the License Agreement is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint. Defendants also admit that Plaintiffs entered into the License Agreement with Industrial Heat and AmpEnergo, Inc. (“AEG”) on October 26, 2012.

    Defendants state the License Agreement speaks for itself, and therefore deny any allegations in Paragraph 44 inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph

    […]



    So, as you can see, IH was formed on (or about) October 24, 2012, and the License Agreement between IH and Leonardo Corp was signed on October 26, 2012.


    Moreover, as showed by the links in my previous answer (Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion ), all the money initially collected by IH since then were used to acquire the Ecat's IP.


    Quote

    Why wouldn't they read about these other researchers, and take them seriously? Why would they focus exclusively on Rossi?

    Probably because they chose to call their company "Industrial Heat". Do you know any other LENR initiative that was claiming to be ready to market LENR reactors for generating heat on an industrial scale?


    Quote

    Can you point us to these announcements and declarations that say they were founded to acquire and manage the Ecat, …

    I already pointed you (see Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion ) the IH declarations where they announced to have acquired the Ecat's IP.


    Quote

    … and they had no interest in other cold fusion results, and no plans to invest in them?

    I didn't say that. I'm not aware of their intimate intentions at that time. But, as already pointed out, they spent all the money collected in 2012 (11.6 M$) to acquire the Ecat's IP (10.5 M$ to Rossi, plus expenses). There was nothing left to be invested in other cold fusion initiatives. Well, at least until they got the Woodford money and abandoned their initial Ecat deal.


    Quote

    I have not seen any founding documents. It seems you have seen such documents. You sure talk like you have. So tell us what you know.

    I already did. Please, see above.

    Date of foundation of IH: October 24, 2012

    Date of its agreement with Leonardo Corp: October 26, 2012.

    You don't need any other document.

  • About France.

    Some have suspected the problem was military risk (fear of weaponization)... I don't swallow it but who knows.

    What seems clear is that LENR was career destructor, because of US bad press. Same as for the Indians, who stopped despite success because it was destroying their international credibility.


    Today. Vivons heureux, vivons cachés.


    All my thanks to the Japanese teams, the replications across many universities. It did the job.

    Thanks Jed for your reporting and translation of Japanese work. Maybe it was critical.


    Now question is not whether LENR is real, reproducible, but to investigate, understand then control LENR, despite bad press.

    Today it is time to cooperate... I wish the best to all, as a consumer, I'll win.

  • So, as you can see, IH was formed on (or about) October 24, 2012, and the License Agreement between IH and Leonardo Corp was signed on October 26, 2012.

    That indicates they investigated Rossi before forming the company, and he was one of their target investments. It does not mean Rossi was the only target, or that they did not investigate others. I do not recall when I first heard from them but it was clear they knew a lot about other researchers.


    Probably because they chose to call their company "Industrial Heat". Do you know any other LENR initiative that was claiming to be ready to market LENR reactors for generating heat on an industrial scale?

    I do not think that has any significance.


    In any case, they told me they would invest in others and that was their plan. Subsequently they did invest in others. So, I will take what they actually said and did as evidence of their intention, rather than what you speculate based on the name of the company. I think what people actually did is better proof than what an anonymous person on the internet claims they intended to do.

  • That indicates they investigated Rossi before forming the company, and he was one of their target investments. It does not mean Rossi was the only target, or that they did not investigate others. I do not recall when I first heard from them but it was clear they knew a lot about other researchers.


    It's obvious that before forming a specific company to acquire a very expensive IP, they spent time and efforts to investigate the whole LENR field. But, thereafter, they decided to found a company called "Industrial Heat", raise 11,555,050 $ by a SEC filing (1), and give all this sum to Rossi to acquire his Ecat's IP.


    This public behavior can be interpreted in one and only one way from the exterior. However …


    Quote

    In any case, they told me they would invest in others and that was their plan. Subsequently they did invest in others. So, I will take what they actually said and did as evidence of their intention, rather than what you speculate based on the name of the company. I think what people actually did is better proof than what an anonymous person on the internet claims they intended to do.


    … you are for sure much more informed than me. Therefore, if you say that since the beginning their real intention was to invest in others than Rossi, I have no problem in believing you on this point. After all, this is exactly what you have anticipated in April 2011 (2), and this hypothesis fits very well with the rest of the story.


    But, please, let me speculate that a company called "Industrial Heat" should have had the purpose to market a device able to provide heat to the industry, or at least the purpose to let people and investors believe that that was its real aim. Otherwise, if the real scope was just to keep financing the usual researches on LENR, the company should have been more properly called "Impossible Heat" or "Inconclusive Heat" or something similar.


    (1) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e…lFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

    (2) http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…@eskimo.com/msg45581.html

  • There's a nice transcript of Tom Darden's speech at the opening of ICCF-19 linked here. It might possibly help to read it.


    https://e-catworld.com/2015/04…speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/


    Thanks Alan. That should lay the matter to rest:


    "One day I received a random call about cold fusion. I didn’t give it much credence because I remembered in detail the disclosure about Fleischmann and Pons years before, and I believed the subject was dead. Then thirty days later I received another unrelated inquiry from a different group, so we began to do some research, and then thirty days later, I received a call from another group. We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR: three within 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology. Since then we’ve made grants to university groups exploring research in this space, and we continue to fund additional teams. We envision an ecosystem of collaboration with great scientists who work together to develop the many systems and technologies society will need to shift away from polluting fossil fuels."

  • Therefore, if you say that since the beginning their real intention was to invest in others than Rossi, I have no problem in believing you on this point.

    What I say is not the issue here. It is what the people at I.H. said. I am not who you should believe, and my credibility will not be hurt if it turns out you are correct.


    There's a nice transcript of Tom Darden's speech at the opening of ICCF-19 linked here. It might possibly help to read it.

    Hey! No fair. Don't look at original sources or read what the people at I.H. themselves say. Speculate, speculate, speculate instead. That's how the game is played.

  • My understanding (or misunderstanding) from the ICCF discussions in the hallways was that IH had to cut back on some funding due to the Rossi legal expenses for a while but have now started more funding since then. It also seems that Letts and possibly Hagelstein were funded during that period but that is just conjecture by some of the ICCF attendees. I wonder if they could be the two groups funded prior to the later payments to Rossi.

  • What I say is not the issue here.


    Exactly. More precisely, we are discussing whether the money coming from IH and used for funding some LENR initiatives presented at ICCF21 have been collected thanks to Rossi, as I said at the beginning of our exchange of views (1). You later replied (2) that in "other speeches and announcements, [IH] said they were supporting a broad range of initiatives other than Rossi."


    I have no objection to this interpretation of the facts, which was also confirmed at the opening speech of ICCF19 in Padua: "I’m the founder of Cherokee, and I’ve been asked to tell you we are the body that created Industrial Heat as a funding source for LENR inventors."


    So, even if Rossi was the only inventor to be mentioned in that speech, it is evident that the true purpose of IH was to became the main source of funding for LENR inventors. That makes sense, because keeping the LENR field alive in the next few years is the only goal that can realistically be achieved.


    But this admission does not deny the fact that the money that "Industrial Heat" is using for this scope were essentially "Ecat money", that is, money collected in the presumption that the company were in possession of the Ecat's IP, i.e. of a LENR technology already capable to provide clean, cheap, safe, and nearly inexhaustible nuclear heat on an industrial scale, and nearly ready for the market.


    In fact, for what I saw on the web, the only money raised by the company have been:


    (a) 11.55 M$ collected from 14 private investors in 2012-13, and spent entirely to acquire the IP and License of the Ecat, and


    (b) 50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License.


    Are you, or someone else here on L-F, aware of any other fund raised by IH?


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • But this admission does not deny the fact that the money that "Industrial Heat" is using for this scope were essentially "Ecat money", that is, money collected in the presumption that the company were in possession of the Ecat's IP, i.e. of a LENR technology already capable to provide clean, cheap, safe, and nearly inexhaustible nuclear heat on an industrial scale, and nearly ready for the market.

    How do you know this? Did you attend meetings when the money was collected? Have you read the contracts or e-mail? I have not, and I do not know what the basis of the investments were. All I know is what I.H. has said publicly, and what they have actually done. What they have said and done conflicts with your version of the story, so I suppose you are wrong.



    (b) 50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License.

    How do you know this? Did they discuss their portfolio with you? Was that in a lawsuit document?


    This is a rather silly discussion. You keep making assertions without evidence. Or you cite the name of the company, or some fact that has no bearing on the situation. If you have information, show it.

  • Woodford was quite reluctant to discuss their investment in IH. Yet several people commenting on an annual report warned them and especially about Rossi.


    Quote

    I share John’s scepticism and am appalled to learn that ventures such as this have found their way into the fund. More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…post_10010_b_8052326.html

    Further digging reveals that the scientist mentioned in the article is a convicted fraudster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

    While this does not appear to be directly connected to the LENR research, and quite apart from the previously stated doubts about the viability of this “technology”, it does not bode well for the character of the individuals to which our funds are being entrusted in this case.


    This is not an investment, it is a gamble pure and simple – if I wanted that I’d go to Ladbrokes, not a reputable investment manager. It’s not hard to see why such technological quackery might attract such individuals but as an investor I wouldn’t lend this guy a fiver, nor any company that would be associated with him.

    https://woodfordfunds.com/words/blog/focus-on-long-term/

  • So, even if Rossi was the only inventor to be mentioned in that speech,

    not exactly so, he said: "One day I received a random call about cold fusion. I didn’t give it much credence because I remembered in detail the disclosure about Fleischmann and Pons years before, and I believed the subject was dead. Then thirty days later I received another related inquiry from a different group, so we began to do some research, and then thirty days later, I received a call from another group. We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR: three in 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.….We started Industrial Heat because we thought that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong,....We’re collaborating with and investing alongside fellow researchers and developers...."


    He may not have mentioned their names but he did acknowledge them. If you were at the meeting you would have noticed him spending time with D. Letts as well. And even going on tourism trips with him along with Dewey.


    and you said "50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License."


    How do you know that? Paul and Henry visited several of IH's investment sites during that visits. IH was the last one on their "tour". You seem to think that the initial offering and the investment of Woodford into IH Holdings International. You seem to be confusing IH with IHHI and ignoring all the other investors and the possibility of IH investing in others by debt instruments. It seems that they just might have financed some of the others via debt instruments while the Woodford deals were being struck.

  • What they have said and done conflicts with your version of the story, so I suppose you are wrong.


    Maybe, I am wrong, why not. But I did ask you, or anyone else here, if you are aware of any fund raised by IH other than (a) and (b) above. Evidently your implicit answer is no, and since you said you were in touch with them, this is probably the right answer. In such a case, the money used by IH to fund the LENR initiatives presented at ICCF21 can be considered as "Ecat money".


    Quote

    How do you know this? Did they discuss their portfolio with you? Was that in a lawsuit document?


    It was also in the lawsuit document:

    From the Rossi complaint, dated May 4, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…6/11/0001.0_Complaint.pdf


    70. Upon information and belief, IH, DARDEN and VAUGHN were able to raise substantial sums of money from numerous investors including, but not limited to, approximately Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) from the Woodford Funds (including Woodford Patienr Capital Trust, PLC and CF Woodford Equity Income Fund), predicated upon their claims that IH andlor IPH had "acquired Rossi's intellectual property."



    IH confirmed the Woodford substantial investment, but denied part of the other allegations:

    From the IH answer, dated August 6, 2015

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…2016/11/0029.0_Answer.pdf


    70. In light of the Court’s dismissal of Count VIII of the Complaint (see [D.E. 24]), no response from Defendants is required to Paragraph 70. To the extent that any response is required, Defendants admit that Industrial Heat raised substantial sums of money from numerous investors, including entities affiliated with the Woodford Funds. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 70.


    However, on the IH side, it is more significant the interview published by Fortune in September 2015:

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

    […]

    Q: So you’re optimistic?


    A: Yes, In fact, Rossi was awarded an important U.S. patent recently, which is part of what we licensed, covering the use of nickel, platinum or palladium powders, as well as other components, in his heat-producing device. This is one of very few LENR-related patents to date.


    But let me make one thing very clear. We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible. We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology and we’ll spend substantially more than that before we know for certain because we want to crush all the tests. (Recently, we have been joined by Woodford Investment Management in the U.K., which has made a much larger investment into our international LENR activities—so we are well funded.)

    […]


    It's clear that the interview is centered on Rossi. Although "other LENR technology" are briefly mentioned, these are not specifically named. Considering also the Rossi's patent cited in the first paragraph, I think that every reader of the magazine will associate Woodford's involvement with Rossi and "his heat-producing device".


    Anyway, you are more informed than me. So, please, can you tell us which other valuable asset was in the IH portfolio at that time?

  • Anyway, you are more informed than me. So, please, can you tell us which other valuable asset was in the IH portfolio at that time?

    I have no idea. I am not informed at all. I have not discussed business with I.H., and I did not read the business-related documents in the lawsuit docket. All I know is what they said in public statements, such as the one quoted above.


    You are the one claiming to be a fly on the wall who saw these arrangements go down. So far you have not pointed to any evidence for this, other than statements from the lawsuit saying Rossi was an important part of the I.H. portfolio. Yes, we know that. However, they said that from the start they invested in others. So, either you are wrong when you say it was only an investment in Rossi, or they are lying.


    That's all there is to it. There is nothing more to be said, and I will say no more.

  • It seems to me that the documents show that IH raised capital, but I don't see that, as you claim, that money was due solely on the grounds of Rossi's work. I do see where Rossi claims such things but not where IH says it is so.


    In fact the link you gave to IH's answer agrees they raised the money


    but denies the rest of paragraph 70 from Rossi's attack that Rossi's claim of " predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had "predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had acquired Rossi's intellectual property."


    So as I read it, yes they raised funds from Woodford, but they did not do so predicated on the acquiring of Rossi's IP. They denied that part of paragraph 70 "Defendants deny the remaining

    allegations in Paragraph 70. "


    You seem to be falling in the "Rossi says" pitfall, confusing what Rossi says and ignoring what IH denies in their court filings.


    Try re-reading IH's answers about paragraph 70.

  • We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology

    "other LENAR technology"


    and from the same article:

    "Rossi’s was one of the first investments we made"


    and from the previously mentioned ICCF 19 talk:

    We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.


    I do not know why you ignore the other investments and research support and the fact that Rossi was not the first item (at least 2 others) and try to push Rossi only investments and that they must have initially invested in LENR before Rossi or raising the rest of the money..

    I have greater trust in what IH says and is documented that what you claim.




  • I have no idea. I am not informed at all. I have not discussed business with I.H., and I did not read the business-related documents in the lawsuit docket. All I know is what they said in public statements, such as the one quoted above.


    So, after several years from the first press release in January 2014 in which IH announced of having acquired the Ecat's IP, you are not able to mention any other valuable asset in the IH portfolio!


    Quote

    That's all there is to it. There is nothing more to be said, and I will say no more.


    I agree. There is nothing more to be said.

  • I do not know why you ignore the other investments and research support and the fact that Rossi was not the first item


    Let me once again use the words that Shane D. used in 2016:

    From a Shane D. comment, https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…i/?postID=24042#post24042 :

    "Your part about Woodford is interesting, because based on Deweysays (just picking on you Dewey J) it does not sound like the rest of IH's portfolio would justify $50 million investment. That seems to indicate their main purpose for investing in IH, was because of Rossi. And we know they jumped on board this past summer...well into the GPT."


    I already left him the burden of explaining their meaning to you (1).

    I really hope he will intervene and be more effective than me.


    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • I don't interpret the language to reach the same conclusion that you did. But then I have only drafted a few prospectuses, offering circulars, etc. (well over a hundred). I doubt that a judge would interpret it the way you did if push ever came to shove in a shareholders' class action suit.


    For anyone that is interested, below is a link to a Form D filed by IH with the SEC on 8-23-2013 and relating to their offering of $20,000,000 in exempt securities, of which approximately $11,555,050 had already been sold. I look forward to someone claiming that this exempt filing is clear evidence of fraud by IH. (sarcasm in case not clear).


    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e…lFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

  • Would someone please explain to me, in simple language, why Rossi's repeated claims of Sigma 5 or 5 Sigma should be considered meaningful by anyone. And just a brief followup on my prior post, if Rossi is banging the drum to investors about his Sigma 5 and, as I suspect that claim is meaningless, that could be considered a material misrepresentation made in the course of attempting to sell a security. I would truly love to get a copy of Rossi's offering documents and see who his legal counsel is. If anyone has a copy of the offering materials, I would greatly appreciate a copy. My email is howardappel[email protected] and my PO Box is 1100 Broadway, Suite 5752, Redwood City, CA 94063 (I believe Alan Smith may have already verified my identity).


    Thanks in advance.

  • Moar, moar:


    Further to my post about securities issues, I noticed that Rossi said, on June 8, that clients would be guaranteed a "substantial profit." I really hope that he has good securities counsel.


    Andrea Rossi


    June 8, 2018 at 7:38 AM

    Robert Curto:

    Thank you for your suggestions.

    Our offers to the Clients will guarantee a substantial profit to them. The price will depend on the specific situations.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • a65

    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Because you or Shane do not know what the other research is, does not mean it does not exist.

    You are only speculating that the other research is not worth much.

    I believe the $50M was held by IHHI not IH and money was transferred later to cover legal costs as needed. That is one reason Rossi's suit was doomed to fail, IH did not have the money, only receiving some as needed, and positioned to even declare bankruptcy if needed.


    I would think the situation is the reverse as you have painted it. Woodford did not invest the larger dollar (pound) amounts until after they had visited all of the researchers IH was supporting at the time and not prior to that just based on Rossi's claims of 1MW. Also they realized it may take years to be ready for commercialization and thus put it in the holding company and not IH itself and now waits for the farther development of that research before turning it over. That is "keeping their powder dry" for those development by the other groups IH has and is funding.


  • Firstly, complaints are allegations, they are not evidence, so citing a complaint as evidence of something doesn't prove squat.


    Secondly, whomever were the driving people back in 2012 may have been considering many investment (IDK and I doubt you do either) and, on the advise of counsel, realized that it was appropriate to create a single-purpose entity to handle all of their investments in LENR. I am NOT claiming that is the case, I don't know. But it is just as plausible an explanation as yours.


  • Ascoli,


    The facts show that Rossi was not IH's first LENR investment, and Woodford told Darden in an email that the *main*, not only, reason for their investing was Rossi.

  • I doubt that a judge would interpret it the way you did if push ever came to shove in a shareholders' class action suit.


    Why do you say this to me? This is out of my interest.


    Quote

    I don't interpret the language to reach the same conclusion that you did.


    Which conclusion? Could you be more specific?


    Firstly, complaints are allegations, they are not evidence, so citing a complaint as evidence of something doesn't prove squat.


    I know. This is why I also quoted the corresponding answer from IH.


    Quote

    Secondly, whomever were the driving people back in 2012 may have been considering many investment (IDK and I doubt you do either) and, on the advise of counsel, realized that it was appropriate to create a single-purpose entity to handle all of their investments in LENR. I am NOT claiming that is the case, I don't know. But it is just as plausible an explanation as yours.


    Again, which specific explanation of mine do you refer to?