And yet your tone is that of a rabid lapdog pit bull.
... finally You see, that Your comments are infantile. Good way to work on Your weaknesses starts with their acceptance first.
Let's please keep the tone here polite.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
The conflation of Rossi with LENR as a whole is undoubtedly the most damaging thing about his activities. Of course, a good chunk of the so-called LENR community got involved with the topic because of Rossi and this is most unfortunate. Personally, I am quite skeptical that LENR is a valid phenomenon, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Rossi. If Rossi is ultimately universally branded as a fraud (I can't say proven to be a fraud because I am not sure what could constitute proof), it will have no effect on my opinion of LENR. I have considered Rossi to be a con-man since 2011 when I first started following the story. It seemed obvious at the time and has only become more self-evident over the years. As for the field in general, I am certainly open to being convinced by better evidence that includes unambiguous and open replications of results. The notion that skepticism about LENR is equivalent to being "against" it is utterly absurd. In the meantime, the circus surrounding Rossi can only harm the reputation of the field outside of the small fringe group that avidly follows it. The few remaining Rossi believers here think that their misplaced loyalty is somehow a way of supporting LENR. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-
I have frequently been challenged to substantiate my claim that Darden et al. basically defrauded investors
So why don't you attempt to substantiate? All you have done is to claim without any evidence that investors were not informed. If investors were defrauded, why are they not suing Darden et al.?
-
The shouting does not help assess these things.
@THH: There you are right: But it helps to keep the Forum clean of "mud" - a Murry word...
I'm waiting for the funny moment, when Anesser, in front of the jury asks Darden: "Mr. Darden what was the COP you personally measured on the IH produced tiger modules?" Will he then continue to reproduce the mantra, which has been agreed on, in a white glove peoples session? Or will he say just as Murray said: "I dont know anymore? I'm guessing..."
To make one prediction: The costs for producing shale oil has halved and is now below 25$/barrel. This party will no longer (strictly) oppose LENR. The military will also give up the opposition, as soon as the Russians/Chinese present their reactor. The only ones that remain opposed to LENR are the renewables investors - sad for Darden ...
But they all make wrong assumptions: As we know, any E-cat has to pass nuclear certification regulations, what may last years. The second step of NiLiH LENR may produce muons, if they use the wrong fuel. This again will need fuel certification. Thus there is absolutely no reason for any foul play.
-
(Yeah, they only wanted to receive payment from Woodford.)
I disagree with those who find fault with IH because they raised (and attempted to raise) funds from investors speculating on LENR. (I do find fault with IH's gullibility and lack of technically competent due diligence with respect to Rossi).
Here's why:
1) Portfolio: IH had been clear that they have a 'portfolio' of potential LENR technologies, not just Rossi. Because they paid for ALL of Rossi's IP with the $10 Million, of course they would want to show potential investors this portion of their 'portfolio'. It would be stupid (and unethical if you think about it) for them to NOT inform potential investors about Rossi's stuff. We know from written communications that Darden specifically stated caveats warning that Rossi's 'technology' might not work. We know they have several other technologies they have beneficial rights to, not just Rossi.
2) Equity: IH had already paid for a license to Rossi's IP, so additional funding by potential investors is less risky. If Woodford puts in $50 Million, they then own shares of IH (or IPH). That $50M does not just 'disappear'. Of course there were/are 'maintenance' costs (like paying Fabiani, Penon, etc.). But each 'share' also includes ownership in IH's IP (which they have licensed from Rossi). It appears that that IP is not worth as much as they hoped (I would say it's utterly worthless), but it is a fact that right now, (assuming they still own shares in IH/IPH) Woodford OWNS (in part) a license to Rossi's IP (and of course there's this whole legal mess putting a cloud over everything). If Rossi is shown to be a complete and utter con with ZERO value, IH/IPH's shares do not go to zero - at most they would likely go to something closer to 70 or 80 percent of their initial value (because most of the equity is still there). Of course the lawsuit changes the risk substantially, but we are talking about their conversations with potential investors prior to the lawsuit (which we can assume they did not expect).
3) Risk: Investing ALWAYS involves risk of some sort. Potential investors obviously know that they are risking their money going into any venture. IH/IPH's legal responsibility is to inform potential investors of the risk. We know that Darden and Vaughn were careful to NOT claim that Rossi's technology worked. There was (and is) also the possibility of reward from several different possible technologies that IH invested in (not just Rossi's). Rossi alleges, and many here seem to agree, that IH is at fault in having 'tours' at Doral and this shows that IH/IPH did not sufficiently disclose the potential risks with Rossi's 'technology'. But that is in my mind a weak assumption. Is there any evidence on the docket that supports that assumption? And, IF IH/IPH did not adequately inform Woodford or other potential investors, there are laws against that, and there is nothing stopping those investors/potential investors from suing IH/IPH in that case. Also, if that were to happen, IH/IPH would take a significant credibility hit among the investment community. Who knows, maybe they already have. If so, perhaps they deserve it. If not, perhaps they deserve it. In any case, technologies advance far more rapidly in economies with a Risk/Reward culture (such as capitalism) and far more slowly when there is little or no Risk/Reward culture. (See for example, Soviet Union). [There are potential negatives with Risk/Reward cultures and I do not wish to debate, for example Capitalism vs. Socialism, Communism, etc.]
Rossi's main complaint other than not being paid the $89Mil is that IH/IPH was trying to raise money from potential investors. I don't see that as a reasonable complaint. I would find it strange if IH/IPH did NOT try to raise money from potential investors, even with significant doubts about Rossi's technology.
-
Display More
I have frequently been challenged to substantiate my claim that Darden et al. basically defrauded investors by using the 1MW test to raise $50 million from Woodford (plus some kind of joint research endeavor with the Chinese plus who knows what else). I was always too lazy to go back through and try to make my case again. But here is one of the key passages. It's from 241-01 Exhibit A, Darden's Deposition Excerpts. We see clearly that IH knew from the beginning that the test was jeopardized, and yet we also know that they still brought investors to tour the plant:
"·1 After the plant got installed in Florida and we saw
·2 that Rossi had removed all of the instrumentation and
·3 the monitoring access that we had, and as we realized
·4 that he was restricting access to it so it was not
·5 going to be a fully transparent bona fide test, at that
·6 point we became very suspicious.
·7· · · · · · ·We realized that it was -- something bad
·8 was going on down there.· And we don't want to get
·9 thrown in jail for participating in some kind of fraud
10 so we said we don't want to receive payment from them."
(Yeah, they only wanted to receive payment from Woodford.)
So two key questions:
1) Did IH inform Woodford, the Chinese and other potential investors that Rossi had removed the instrumentation and monitoring access, that he was restricting access to it, and that they felt it was not a bona fide test?
2) Did IH inform its investors that they were so suspicious of the test being fraudulent that they declined to collect payment for the power they were generating?
I think the smart money is on "no."
Josh - for most of us it is not surprising that IH had suspicions about Rossi, were VERY suspicious of test. They'd have to be stupid not to be so. If you read all the letters now public it is pretty clear:
(1) They reckoned Rossi was totally untrustworthy, any test he did was likely bad
(2) The independent tests (Lugano, Ferara) had credibility because of the academics. Loopholes in Ferrara were mostly closed in Lugano. They had questions over the complex calorimetry but no in house expertise to contradict Levi et al. Rossi being dishonest does not prevent him from having something real inherited from Focardi.
(3) They would be really stupid not to give Woodford their evaluation (honest) and the state of the external validations. Come on - why should the smart money say they are idiots.
(4) Their mistake was to play along with Rossi. They reckoned unless they gave him what he asked for, kept their private reservations private, were as polite and deferential as possible, he would walk away branding them snakes. They wanted to see what he had - the possibility it might be real was too tempting. Surely you can understand that? The evidence shows how the interaction between them and Rossi went, and that is similar to Rossi with other people where he walks away from any sort of challenge to his views.
You are thinking why would Woodford be so stupid? Well, they had Lugano which was apparently good and successful and independent and validated results from Ferrara also sort of independent. They did not have technical advice pointing out clearly the calorimetry error. With hindsight everything looks simpler. Remember when you have some academics saying it is good, and some saying - well - I'm not sure - it could be better - if you know about LENR you just think that is what always happens and ignore the skeptics.
You are thinking they should have trusted their in-house testing earlier? Yes, but the tests Rossi got them to do would all work. They did not have the expertise to work out what was wrong with them quickly, and would think if their own tests then did not work maybe they were doing something stupid. They would reckon the Profs who had positive results were better than them. Read the transcripts. So - accuse IH of having not enough technical expertise. They have learnt that lesson now.
IH would think (and argue) look we cannot trust Rossi an inch but it seems from these independent tests that he has something real. If there even a 10% chance of this - it is worth a lot more than $500M. And we are positioning ourselves where we can take something not quite working and with help from other LENR people etc get it to work.
Whether this is a plausible story (for Woodford) depends on what you think about LENR - and most VCs have not got a clue. Then, what they think will depend on which academics they ask for advice.
I don't know that IH were honest with investors. But there is just no evidence they were dishonest, and I can see no motivation for them to be dishonest. They would have destroyed their reputations (maybe not sued, but no-one would trust them) if they were not straight with their investors. It is their business after all, and they have a successful track record.
In this situation I think it is just very, very unfair and improper to go accusing people, who may be naive but are doing something rather noble with a long shot bet, of criminal dishonesty.
-
In any case, your [Jed's] bluster is moot, since the magistrate rejected IH's spoliation motion--unless the judge overrules him. It will be interesting to read the court transcript of that hearing to learn why the magistrate denied their claim.So yet again something that you have claimed is obvious and unquestionable, even to the point of contemptuously dismissing someone who actually agrees with you, turns out to have been far more nuanced and less clear-cut than you believe. Your claim has fallen. How many times do you think that can happen before your reputation falls with it?
Anyone who questions IH, IH's experts, or IH's supporters here on this forum, and hold out the possibility that Rossi has something of value--are frequently dismissed as "wishful thinkers" by Jed and others.
But boy did we have some wishful thinking lenr-forum mind share on the supposed spoliation issue! I think there were enough wishes for spoliation here to keep the Genie in the Lamp busy for the next 365 days (with a 15 day genie downtime allotment). Of course, we only have the magistrate's ruling at this point, and situations can change.
-
Anyone who questions IH, IH's experts, or IH's supporters here on this forum, and hold out the possibility that Rossi has something of value--are frequently dismissed as "wishful thinkers" by Jed and others.
I like your comment, and agree that:
1) my bias had/has me hoping for spoliation sanctions, and
2) I think that those who hold out the possibility that Rossi has something of value are 'wishful thinkers'.
So you nailed it on both accounts. (Full disclosure/confession)
-
@sig,
The label of wishful thinker doesn't really bug me too much. I'd rather be that than someone who is always in the doldrums of despair.
-
I'd rather be that than someone who is always in the doldrums of despair.
I know you weren't stating that I'm 'always in the doldrums of dispair', but just to be clear, I'm a chronic optimist.
I'm optimistic that Rossi will not succeed in conning people in the future.
I'm optimistic that the science will eventually be advanced.
I'm optimistic about the future of energy resources for the foreseeable future.
I'm optimistic that justice will eventually win out in this case.
I'm even optimistic that you, IHFB, will finally come to realize that Rossi is a compleat [intentionally spelled] fraud!
-
-
@sig,
The label of wishful thinker doesn't really bug me too much. I'd rather be that than someone who is always in the doldrums of despair.
I too am optimistic, especially over the Rossi/IH matter.
- I think IH will win their legal case and go on with their mission funding LENR, with rigorous science
- I think Rossi will be exposed clearly for whom he is and continue running with a fringe band of followers but with no effect on LENR.
-
Rigorous science coming from IH, who said "we have significant excess heat" until the trial appeared, then pretended they had not done rigorous testing, and who fed JedRothwell plain greasy FUD?
If lying and character assassination were harnessable sources of energy, some posters on this here forum could light whole cities
-
I too am optimistic, especially over the Rossi/IH matter.
- I think that IH will likely win their legal case (on the JMP ruse alone), but that it won't significantly hinder the advancement of LENR+
- I think IH will be exposed for who they are and continue their pivot towards non-commercially-viable LENR configurations, thereby ending their disruptive and ineffectual presence in the LENR+ space
- I think that Rossi will move forward with the Quark X despite the outcome of the case
- I think that Brillouin will continue with their commercially viable NiH configuration, and push into the marketplace with their new-found funding
- I think the BLP will continue with their commercially viable AgH configuration, and push into the marketplace with their massive funding
- I think that me356 will open up his apparatus for testing by the MFMP, and that further details will be opened up for community replications
- I think that Parkhomov will continue his research and replications of Rossi's technology with the assistance of Russian institutions
- I think that the Chinese will continue their research and replications of Rossi's technology with the assistance of Chinese institutions
-
Apologies if everyone already knows this.
You suggest that Woodford had a tour of Doral that was the basis of his investment but Woodford was already involved with the "Invesco test" in September 2013 as he was then head of investment at Invesco Perpetual.
He then left Invesco Perpetual and set up his own funds so that he could have more freedom.
Woodford say they did 2.5 years due diligence before investing.
So I think Woodford was aware and interested in LENR as a high risk/high reward investment back in 2013.
-
I too am optimistic, especially over the Rossi/IH matter.
Well, it's always nice to converse amongst optimists.
I mean that, and sincerely appreciate that quality in you, IHFB.
(Even if I might think, as I mentioned previously, that you sometimes are a knucklehead
.) -
Rigorous science coming from IH, who said "we have significant excess heat" until the trial appeared, then pretended they had not done rigorous testing, and who fed JedRothwell plain greasy FUD?
If lying and character assassination were harnessable sources of energy, some posters on this here forum could light whole cities
Are you sure that the "significant excess heat" was with Rossi's device or could it have been some of their other supported researcher.? Can you give a reference that would be interesting?
-
You suggest that Woodford had a tour of Doral that was the basis of his investment but Woodford was already involved with the "Invesco test" in September 2013 as he was then head of investment at Invesco Perpetual.
I actually have not looked in detail at the evidence for this, but to be clear, I actually assumed Woodford invested in IH prior to any Doral tour. And it seems that your information supports that - thanks for posting those details, as I was not aware of them.
My comments where I stated reasons why I disagree with those who think it was inappropriate for IH/Darden to show potential investors Doral despite his deep reservations about Rossi, were related to other potential investors like the Chinese and others who we know 'toured' Doral (in addition to the involvement of Woodford). Rossi (and some supporters) complain that this is disingenuous behavior on IH's part, but I disagree for the reasons I explained in 'portfolio, equity and risk'.
-
Display More
Apologies if everyone already knows this.
You suggest that Woodford had a tour of Doral that was the basis of his investment but Woodford was already involved with the "Invesco test" in September 2013 as he was then head of investment at Invesco Perpetual.
He then left Invesco Perpetual and set up his own funds so that he could have more freedom.
Woodford say they did 2.5 years due diligence before investing.
So I think Woodford was aware and interested in LENR as a high risk/high reward investment back in 2013.
Paul and Henry (from Woodford) were touring several of IH's supported researchers. By what reason would you think that they could refuse a visit to Rossi while they were here in the states?
