News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

  • As you say there were problems when IH tested TM's reactor - so they may be waiting for further replication of the R20 results before committing themselves. Or maybe they are just being more careful after Rossi took them to the cleaners - damaging consequences of perpetrating fraud being a reticence to fund any promising research when it does present itself.


  • JB - is that attempted veiled libel - or do you think it is fair comment to say that the directors of a company claiming to do research that will enable commercial cold fusion are in fact deceiving their shareholders? The fact that IH would appear to be relatively difficult to sell (though I suppose we cannot be sure) would seem to bear that out, given that most opinion in the LENR field thinks that commercial LENR is likely still a long way away.

  • JB - is that attempted veiled libel - or do you think it is fair comment to say that the directors of a company claiming to do research that will enable commercial cold fusion are in fact deceiving their shareholders? The fact that IH would appear to be relatively difficult to sell (though I suppose we cannot be sure) would seem to bear that out, given that most opinion in the LENR field thinks that commercial LENR is likely still a long way away.


    Hi THHuxleynew ,


    Your post is too intelligent for me. I do not understand what you are trying to say / ask me. However, i have a feeling it somehow defends Industrial Heat?


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Hi THHuxleynew ,


    “Libelous porkies”?


    “Spijkers op laag water zoeken”. That is what you are doing.


    I have the the utmost respect for Thomas Darden, the noble investor, and his henchmen. However, more often than not their operating style is entertaining to say the least. Almost clownesque.


    Are they present on iccf?


    Cheers,


    JB

  • I have the the utmost respect for Thomas Darden, the noble investor, and his henchmen.


    I too respect those who have henchmen, of course.


    “Libelous porkies”?


    noun
    plural noun: henchmen

    1. DEROGATORY a faithful follower or political supporter, especially one prepared to engage in crime or violence by way of service. "the dictator's henchman"


    :)


    THH

  • Hi THHuxleynew ,


    I wouldn’t dare to be derogatory. The Dottore himself sued IH and affiliates. But parties settled and therefore it would not be correct to label Industrial Heat as dishonest based on their interaction with Rossi.


    Others, however might have a different opinion based on this or other instances. I haven’t done my homework properly, but there seems to be information worthwhile for some to publish;


    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…d-the-tax-payer-investor/


    Furthermore, it is not nice of you to leave out other, more plausible explanations of the word henchmen. From Wikipedia;


    “The term henchman is often used derisively (even comically) to refer to an individual of low status who lacks any moral compass of their own.

    The term henchman originally referred to one who attended a horse for his employer, that is, a horse groom. Hence, like constable and marshal, also originally stable staff, henchman became the title of a subordinate official in a royal court or noble household”.


    “Comically” is a word that fits better with the words “entertaining” and “clownesque” i used earlier.


    I am sure Thomas Darden is a business man with the noblest intentions and, mind you, he has a terrific track record. And good on him, he engages in his endeavours in a funny and entertaining way. Why would anyone speak bad about him?


    Cheers,


    JB

  • I am sure Thomas Darden is a business man with the noblest intentions and, mind you, he has a terrific track record. And good on him, he engages in his endeavours in a funny and entertaining way. Why would anyone speak bad about him?


    Beats me JB - but then I don't understand many of your posts.

  • THHuxleynew


    I bet you understand this:


    However you slice it, the dealings between Mr. Darden (and thereby Woodford) and Rossi reflected a great deal of negligence and/or incompetence in vetting. How hard would it have been to insist on a truly independent test of the original ecat (simple to test) by one or more renown scientists or test labs outside the "usual suspects" of the LENR community? It would have been a lot cheaper than the money Darden wantonly wasted-- 11.5M plus probably another $5M in legal costs.


    Of course, Rossi would have declined proper testing and that would have been that. As I said before, another billionaire contacted several skeptics including me about a one million US dollar proposed investment in Rossi and/or Defkalion around 2011 or 2012. He was simply told how to do a test and given some choices of who should do it. When told about this, those requesting the money said no, using old hackneyed excuses. The money wasn't spent and this person saved a million dollars which otherwise would have been surely lost. Would it really have been too much trouble for Darden to make similar inquiries and act on them? Does it make sense to invest in someone who won't allow the correct test methods - not to mention Rossi's now well known record of lies and crimes? Well, that's what Darden did.


  • Yes, well, once bitten twice shy.


    Admittedly $10M is a big mistake, but you know how it is, Nigerian scammers etc will reel you in bit by bit. It is human nature that having made an initial (say $1M) investment you don't like to cut loose.


    I'm not excusing it: they were naive and believed the wrong scientists, without finding a skeptical counterbalance. But these things do happen quite regularly.

  • Saved a billionaire a million.

    Maybe that Million would have kept Defkalion going

    and they would have been succeeded with there technlogy.

  • Yes, well, once bitten twice shy.


    Admittedly $10M is a big mistake, but you know how it is, Nigerian scammers etc will reel you in bit by bit. It is human nature that having made an initial (say $1M) investment you don't like to cut loose.


    I'm not excusing it: they were naive and believed the wrong scientists, without finding a skeptical counterbalance. But these things do happen quite regularly

    Tom Darden rolled the dice.

    Good for him.