The price rise is purely artifactual and, IMO, entirely contrived.
What is your humble opinion based on? Do you have inside information? Can you point to any specifics other than Rossi? For example, looking at the groups supported by IH at ICCF21, do you have some reason to think their claims are invalid or exaggerated? I suppose the Rossi fiasco has been discounted by now.
I think this chart illustrate his real problem which began in mid 2017.
Woodford Equity in red, FTSE in blue..
https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fun…ncome-accumulation/charts
Edit: Sorry looks like you will have to add the FTSE 100 index yourself or another index if you prefer.
The price rise is purely artifactual and, IMO, entirely contrived. Anyway, I didn't say it was a failure. I said I suspect they are extremely gullible, as evidenced by the Rossi episode, and they probably got bamboozled in other adventures as well.
SOT - as you know I am a skeptic and enough so that I'm not flavour of the month here.
What you say about IH (a stance that makes them predisposed to see merit in long-odds LENR) is no doubt true. That is their mission. How you interpret that (probably bamboozled in other advanetures) is unfair. In fact since Rossi I'd say IH are much less likely to be bamboozled than about anybody. They have been burnt, and learnt the hard way.
From my POV IH are exactly what LENR ought to have if their view of the world is correct. Real money invested with a belief that LENR exists, a clear aim of achieving useful results, and a very long-term stance towards how to do that.
They get a lot of stick from people that is I think unfair. The "IH are bad business people out to pump and dump" idea has never had any evidence behind it - and lots of evidence to the contrary.
THH
All the arguments about IH strike me as very peculiar. If one limits oneself strictly to verifiable facts as opposed to all sorts of assumptions,guesses and flights of imagination , what exactly is Industrial Heat? Anybody want to answer? Verifiable facts only...
Anybody want to answer? Verifiable facts only...
Unless you have inside information, you have no verifiable facts. So you should stop speculating and stop making assertions about them. You should say "I don't know" and leave at that.
I do not understand why people feel a need to discuss things they know nothing about.
Unless you have inside information, you have no verifiable facts. So you should stop speculating and stop making assertions about them. You should say "I don't know" and leave at that.
I do not understand why people feel a need to discuss things they know nothing about.
My post did not make a single assertion about IH nor did it speculate about them. What in the world are you talking about?
I brought up something I know nothing about strictly for the purpose of trying to learn something about it.
And so I asked for information based only on verifiable facts without speculation or assertions. Since IH is a major topic of discussion here, I am curious to know something about them stripped of all the speculative and unverified assertions that run rampant here.
So, what is your problem with that?
My post did not make a single assertion about IH nor did it speculate about them. What in the world are you talking about?
I meant "you" in the general sense of "a person." Many people here has speculated about IH, and made assertions that I suppose would only be supported if they had inside information. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Perhaps the news reports reveal more than I realize. I do not understand the business jargon in them, so I have not paid much attention.
Here is an example of groundless speculation: some people have said they are engaged in a "pump and dump" operation. Based on what I know, I agree with THH that they are not.
If you quote me and respond with “you should stop speculating..” I naturally assume that you are referring to me. Like I said, I am not even a member of the class of people you say you are discussing.
If you quote me and respond with “you should stop speculating..” I naturally assume that you are referring to me.
I was. You said you want "Verifiable facts only..." I am saying there are no such verifiable facts. Except to people with inside knowledge.
It is reasonable that you ask for verifiable facts. I agree with you that is what we should ask for. (I "liked" your message.) However, there are no such facts, so we are left with nothing to discuss. We end up with guesses and empty speculation. What's the point of that?
Actually, Jed, I think we mostly look at this the same way. The only factual information I have seen about IH is that they are incorporated, have officers who are also principals in Cherokee Investments, raised a bunch of capital much of which they handed over to Rossi, and the only address associated with them is the offices of the investment fund. As far as I am aware, everything else claimed about them is unsubstantiated hearsay. I commented because people here hold all sorts of beliefs about IH with regard to their activities and capabilities and I was wondering if any of them had any basis in fact.
The only factual information I have seen about IH is that they are incorporated, have officers who are also principals in Cherokee Investments, raised a bunch of capital much of which they handed over to Rossi, and the only address associated with them is the offices of the investment fund. As far as I am aware, everything else claimed about them is unsubstantiated hearsay.
I do not know anything about their business dealings. I never ask about things like that. However, I know a lot about their technical claims, and these are not unsubstantiated hearsay. They are not secret. I visited IH, and I have spoken at length with the people they are supporting, who are listed in the ICCF21 abstracts. You can learn all about what those people are up to. See:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ICCFabstracts.pdf
When I said there are no verifiable facts, I meant facts about their business dealings, how much they have invested in which experiment, and the other financial info. I guess some of this might be revealed in the online business magazine articles, but I have not read them carefully. I don't understand them. There are verifiable facts about the experiments. I guess you can make a rough estimate of what those experiments cost. You could ask Cravens and the others, or ask IH. They might tell you. I haven't asked. It is none of my business. I do know that experiments are never cheap. For a realistic estimate of the cost of scientific research, take the best estimate you can find and multiply by two, then multiply again again by 6.32. Then tear up the estimate and toss it in the trash because no one has the slightest idea what it will cost, how long it will take, or whether it will work. If we knew that, it wouldn't be research. It would be "development" (the D in R&D). That should not take more than 4 times as much as estimated. As Edison told his Wall Street investors, "send more money."
Well, you seem to know quite a bit. You visited IH. So they have a physical location. So are they an actual operating company or just an investment source? This is what has remained murky to date. Or perhaps, like pretty much everything in the whole Rossi saga, it must remain a dark secret.
So are they an actual operating company or just an investment source?
I am not sure what the difference would be. Anyway, as described in the lawsuit documents, they were doing research but it was terminated by the Rossi fiasco. Read Murray's testimony. He and others were laid off. That was a terrible loss to the field. He is a very skillful person, as you see in his testimony.
Or perhaps, like pretty much everything in the whole Rossi saga, it must remain a dark secret.
It is not secret. Much of it was revealed in the lawsuit docket. I think more was revealed than IH wanted to reveal, but anyway, the truth is out there. Honestly, I don't know how much was revealed, because I did not read the legal stuff. I don't understand legal jargon. I can't remember which is the plaintiff or the respondent, or the party of the second part, blah, blah, your honor may it please the court. I only read the documents about experiments. I read Murray. Abd read the whole thing and summarized it.
IO,
I am curious to know more about IH (the organization) also. I have asked Dewey about that, but he ignored me. What we do know already though, is comforting. Basically an investment group led by Darden, with Dewey playing the intermediary with some of the old guard under their umbrella; i.e. Hagelstein, Claytor, Miley, Cravens, Letts are a few.
As Jed mentioned; they have presented at almost all LENR events. Probably not with their best stuff, but to this layman it all looks good. Their valuation increased 357% last year, but I do not know if that was a result of some major LENR breakthrough on their part, or just a new investor willing to pay more? As Ahlfors has shown; they have a very impressive group of savvy investors (the latest being Steve Jobs widow), and hopefully they got involved based on the former (breakthrough). Dewey sure was in a good mood before he disappeared, if that means anything.
Not sure how the compensation, and expenses among the team are handled. One time buy out/salaried? In the court documents the compensation varied greatly from person to person. Whatever the arrangement, they appear to be loyal...so if they are happy, I am happy.
The court records showed IH had a lab near the RDU (Raleigh-Durham) airport during the Rossi years. I believe that was shut down. No need for one I guess, when your team already has their own, and been at it for decades.
Just a bit worrying that with all that combined expertise with so many years experience - and still nothing?
Combined expertise? Look at that kindergarten.
Most "experts and researchers" are keeping their secrets and some even spread wrong information to mislead competition.
One time buy out/salaried? In the court documents the compensation varied greatly from person to person.
They were only 'proposed' figures, some not actually paid, others may vary 'up as well as down'.
All the arguments about IH strike me as very peculiar. If one limits oneself strictly to verifiable facts as opposed to all sorts of assumptions,guesses and flights of imagination , what exactly is Industrial Heat? Anybody want to answer? Verifiable facts only...
It is a VC company investing in LENR research and IP with the long-term aim of achieving (and having some IP interest in) commercial LENR. This aim is largely charitable, from the view that alternate power generation methods are badly needed to maintain a high energy civilisation whilst preventing global warming, and that LENR, if it fulfils its promise, fits this bill as nothing else.
Personally I'd go with perovskite solar coatings on everything for this purpose - but it is not quite as generally applicable. Pervasive ultra-cheap 20% efficient solar coatings give us enough static power overall, but require batteries or something else for base load and do not solve mobile power requirements.
Again, personally, I'd say
heat pumps
good cheap roof or window mounted solar PV
next gen batteries
Will deal with all energy requirements for houses
solar + wind farms will deal with grid power. Smart usage and control of distributed batteries (including EVs) will deal with grid base load issues.
For energy-intensive industry v cheap electricity from solar farms in the desert, combined with superconducting HVDC transmission, should do the trick.
That is all using current working (though not fully commercialised) technology. Sure, there are challenges setting up mega-scale superconducting grid distribution.
We have future space-based solar power looking almost possible:
Most "experts and researchers" are keeping their secrets and some even spread wrong information to mislead competition.
Other than Rossi, who is spreading wrong information? Please give us the names of three people you think are doing this. I don't know know of any.
There may be a lot of mistaken information, but that is not deliberate.
Just a bit worrying that with all that combined expertise with so many years experience - and still nothing?
If you knew how difficult it is, you would be amazed at how much progress has been made.
That is what I often say about cold fusion, and also about things like artificial intelligence applied to machine translation, or voice input. People often point to the limitations and problems with Google translate. I did a lot of linguistics and translating in the 1970s, and I read about machine translation as it was back then. It seemed like an impossible task. Little progress was made until Google amassed a tremendous amount of translated texts from the U.N., patents, and elsewhere. By the standards of 1975 this is an unthinkable amount of text. Then Google and others improved neural networks, adding multiple layers to them -- something we should have thought to do in 1975. This led to present state of the art in machine translation. From my perspective, it is tremendous. People who compare it to a human's ability to translate find it lacking. Of course they are right; in many ways it is nowhere near as good as a human, because computers have no model of reality or sense of meaning. This is a "glass half-full versus half-empty" difference. See:
https://www.theatlantic.com/te…-google-translate/551570/
In the future, computers might be given a model of reality. That will improve machine translation.
