The triangle Journal : Dispute between inventor and Raleigh investor over nuclear reaction device ends

    • Official Post

    Sadly the text is behind a paywall...

    After more than a year of back-and-forth filings, the court battle between a Raleigh investor group and the Italian inventor of a controversial nuclear reaction device appears to be over.



    More revealing is the tweet of the journalist

  • Quote

    Updated the wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Lawsuit with a bland statement of fact. I'm wondering if somebody will delete THAT!!!!

    It's fine as far as it goes but you failed to mention the countersuit in which IH sued to get back all the money they had already paid Rossi. Perhaps you could make that correction.

  • It's fine as far as it goes but you failed to mention the countersuit in which IH sued to get back all the money they had already paid Rossi. Perhaps you could make that correction.

    No "reliable source" reported on the progress of the trial, so it can't go into wiki. (Some wikipolice regard Triangle Business Journal as only marginally reliable).

    • Official Post

    Abd made a post quith some quote

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/peep/


    one explain the walk away idea

    Quote


    “They dropped everything – very interesting,” Cherokee Investment Partners CEO Tom Darden says of the plaintiffs Tuesday. “Right as the case was beginning, they said they’d walk away; we said fine.”



    and what is the most interesting for us


    Quote

    But Darden and team plan to continue exploring LENR development. Darden says Rossi’s device was just “one of a dozen that we were funding” in the cold fusion space.

  • Wiki : edit war over whether I can say "the parties settled, and the case was dismissed with prejudice" or only "the parties settled". Also, readers aren't even allowed to know the docket number of the order!

    Maybe I WILL go back to TBJ and ask permission to include Darden's "walk away" quote.

  • Alan - I predict that we're going to end up with a 70% to 90% cull. Anything above a 10% connect rate beats the standard but that is not what we're about.

    You have to factor in the extreme edge that we are exploring - 10% would be the investment of the century if we can get into engineering.

    If not, we have moved R&D forward and perhaps the next gen impact explorer / funders can take it from there.

    The next 18 months may not be boring.

  • If there were a dozen good cold fusion prospects, we would know. 3 or 4 I would agree. BTW, the annual report of the Woodford WPCT is out today. Not a word about IH, good or bad, as if it never happened.


    There have been reliable rumours here about IH funding prospects (forgive me for not getting the links) with the key take-home that initially large numbers of prospects initially considered have been winnowed down into a smaller number. For example, Brillouin was initially on the list, but has dropped off.


    That is exactly what you'd expect as IH "crush the tests" on data that initially looks interesting but turns out to have some mundane anomaly.


    IH here are doing a remarkably useful job of taking potential LENR anomalies and (with the aid of proper skeptical checking and money) testing them to see what they are. You might think one indirect merit of the Rossi affair is to make IH much more rigorous now in how they assess claims and therefore more likely to narrow down focus for funding at an earlier stage.

  • If there were a dozen good cold fusion prospects, we would know. 3 or 4 I would agree. BTW, the annual report of the Woodford WPCT is out today. Not a word about IH, good or bad, as if it never happened.


    IH was a small, long-term, high-risk bet.


    Not likely to be mentioned ever unless it pans out. And nothing unusual about that. Though the Rossi circus makes non-mentioning particularly certain.

  • “There are a couple of them that we’re pretty definitive about not pursuing anymore and that was one of them,” Darden adds. “But we still have at least half a dozen we’re still pretty seriously interested in.” Tom Darden.


    Candidates reduced by 50% already.

    It might likely be down to 0 with IH out of business in the not to distant future, I predict. It's possible they did not do proper due diligence before throwing money into this. Given the rate at which they have abandoned so many of the initial projects after their experts tested them, including Ecat, you have to ask what the initial criteria was for selecting one anyway.

  • Quote

    You might think one indirect merit of the Rossi affair is to make IH much more rigorous now in how they assess claims and therefore more likely to narrow down focus for funding at an earlier stage.


    How about more likely to demand testing by people who actually know how to test a purported source of energy? Maybe that's too much to hope for. I am with Alan on this. 10% connect rate, whatever that means, is optimistic. I am betting on a zero rate. Anyone want to try to actually structure a bet and a way to bet? They are testing a DOZEN sources? Is that more lies or what bottom of which barrel have they have been scrapping? In six years of watching, I don't know if I could make a list numbering a dozen claims. Not for useful power levels for sure. Are they including weird stuff like Swartz and Dennis's balls (LOL)? The whackjobs at Nanospire?

  • Here is an article NOT behind a paywall. Don't now if that helps with the Wikipedia disputes. I looked at the talk page and for once, I agree that some people there are being extremely picky about trivial details about the settlement and the wording.


    https://www.law360.com/article…w-over-nuclear-technology


    If someone already linked this article, sorry. I don't have time to follow every thread here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.