News about Woodford and Industrial Heat

  • Quote

    however remedial reading courses may benefit SOT.

    You and others might try reading why it is that IH's value appears to have increased. It is entirely meaningless and artifactual. It is very likely to come back to bite investors. Personally, I think IH's real value is close to zero. IH has nothing whatever which is even close to making money, probably ever. IH is getting closer and closer to a replay of Rossi-2011.

  • You and others might try reading why it is that IH's value appears to have increased. It is entirely meaningless and artifactual. It is very likely to come back to bite investors. Personally, I think IH's real value is close to zero. IH has nothing whatever which is even close to making money, probably ever. IH is getting closer and closer to a replay of Rossi-2011.


    SOT - while that may well be true - the whole point of early-stage VCs is that the value represents whether another investor has been persuaded to buy in at a higher rate. That represents at very least a good story - though sometimes nothing else.


    All that is needed for a good investment is a good story that continues through a new round in which you can exit.

  • Trouble is IH's value could be trashed overnight if another company in another country suddenly starts pumping out mass produced LENR reactors - like Yoshino's Clean Planet deal in Japan which appears to be on the brink of doing this with its new boiler-maker backers. Risky business, and their investors know it. Could go either way, but like Brillouin Energy maybe they will always be 'on the brink' of making some real headway.

  • You and others might try reading why it is that IH's value appears to have increased.


    Because they sold some further shares at a higher value those previously. Pretty simples, huh?


    It is entirely meaningless and artifactual.


    No it isn’t - anyone who cashed in their stake in Woodfords funds recently has received direct monetary benefit based on the increase in value of those IH shares.


    Personally, I think IH's real value is close to zero.


    So what? You have demonstrated you can’t understand a very simple email, never mind high technology or corporate finance: Your ‘thoughts’ are those of an idiot.

  • Ragheb mentions Woodford in his recent LENr update.

    https://mragheb.com/Possibilit…0Matter,%20A%20Review.pdf

    He may heard his stuff on the academic grapevine.


    Nice find RB, and a great updated (May 2019) LENR roundup by Prof. Ragheb, of the LENR friendly University of Illinois. I was worried about him after Fred/MY formally complained to the university a few years back. Looks like he not only survived the attack on his integrity, but never backed down, and may have actually doubled down. LENR is filled with these kind of survivors. That is one of the reasons I like it so.


    This one goes to the library. Good read.

  • Looks like he not only survived the attack on his integrity, but never backed down

    OT but

    He doesn't seem like one to back down

    Ragheb quoted

    "Consensus is not unanimity"

    "Academic politics is particularly vicious because the stakes are so low"

    He did mention LENR in a public forum..with many fission fans present

    . briefly in 2018 timemark 20.oo

  • robert bryant


    Ragheb is totally noncredible. He'll believe essentially anything. In the very paragraph you cite is included Leonardo which is Rossi. The paper includes many diagrams and claims from Rossi except they don't mention Rossi's name, probably because he has been dunned in his own department for including Rossi. And since when does Industrial Heat generate anything, much less "electricity?" Johnson Matthey has nothing whatever to do with LENR except that they were clumsily impersonated by Rossi during the time he was busily scamming IH. Of course, Ragheb doesn't mention any of that.


    Ragheb is an embarrassment to the UIUC. How quickly we forget. It seems a bad memory is a necessity for believing claims for LENR.

    I am very much for academic freedom and I could not care less what Ragheb publishes. But if the above cited drivel is included in classes, especially undergraduate classes, I think the guy should be precluded from further indoctrinating students. Inasmuch as he is tenured, that will be difficult but I hope more pressure is brought on him to at least include the opposing views in their full strength. UIUC should also encourage skeptical lecturers on the same subject.


    Quote

    ETA:

    He did mention LENR in a public forum..with many fission fans present

    briefly in 2018 timemark 20.oo

    Whoopee! He said the acronym and that was about all. It couldn't be much briefer if he tried!

  • Just to be clear: I am not advocating firing Ragheb and I am not suggesting he should not teach. I am proposing that he be encouraged to tell the truth about LENR research instead of his fanciful, inaccurate and outdated interpretation. For example. Rossi proved nothing and IH does not generate or sell electrical power and far as I know never has. And Johnson-Matthey makes platinum products and other metals and does not work on LENR. And they were clumsily impersonated by Rossi. Lying to and misleading undergraduate students under protection of tenure is cowardly and unacceptable.


    While I could not teach his classes, I'd be happy to debate him about the "work" done by Rossi, Levi, Lewan and the "Swedish scientists." And BTW, I am pretty sure Fred Zoepfl would be qualified to teach many of Ragheb's classes and would do an even better job than me of debating him about Rossi et.al. but Ragheb would never speak on the same stage with Zoepfl IMO.

  • Yes, he has a few things wrong. And even though Rossi is not named, he should include his reprehensible behavior at Doral, slight of hand at Stockholm, and show the SK puppet video so his students can make an informed decision. Other than that, he provides a good summary of LENR.

  • They did it to themselves. How hard would it have been to get valid opinions about Rossi and IH's venture with him? Other wealthy investors and companies knew all about Rossi starting in 2011 and avoided investing with him. Woodford got suckered. And it's just an opinion but I doubt that Brillouin, also an IH investment, will be any better. And how many other speculative and likely fruitless extreme propositions did they accept without proper vetting? Rossi and IH can't be the only ones.

  • They did it to themselves. How hard would it have been to get valid opinions about Rossi and IH's venture with him? Other wealthy investors and companies knew all about Rossi starting in 2011 and avoided investing with him. Woodford got suckered. And it's just an opinion but I doubt that Brillouin, also an IH investment, will be any better. And how many other speculative and likely fruitless extreme propositions did they accept without proper vetting? Rossi and IH can't be the only ones.


    Isn't it a bit premature to say Woodford's investment in IH is a failure? Just last year IH's valuation increased by 357%, which was a major boost to Woodford. Here is a quote:


    "Woodford Patient Capital Trust PLC (LON:WPCT) has received a major boost from the performance of Industrial Heat, one of its unlisted investments."


    Granted, they have not sold any shares yet, so the success, or not, of their initial IH investment has yet to be determined.