Bingo. You admit that it is Darden that is listed as owner and not the company Cherokee?????
I would not doubt that Darden is the owner of Cherokee but that is not the same as Cherokee owning
IH.
That would be like saying because Bill Gates owns company X that Microsoft owns company X.
Rend-
I don't think I understand what you mean by "owned by Cherokee" , They may have an investment
in IH but the major investor seems to be Woodford.
IH only received something like 12M on the initial US SEC filing so even if that was all from Cherokee (very doubtful)
It is not as large as the holding by Woodford. That is estimated at 50M.
It is a publicly traded company in the UK -Woodford Patient Capital Trust (UK Stock symbol WPTC)
Even you could invest in it.
Rends-big assumption.
If Rossi's patent failed to work in the hands of someone skilled in the art then the patent would not be granted.
If Barker made an improvement (allowed by the agreement) that would make some excess heat - even
if not at the commercial level- then the patent application was required by agreement to include Rossi.
It just take one claim to require the addition of a co-inventor.
You cannot rule out that Rossi's system did not work as described in his original filing but with some modification does
give some minor heat.
If Rossi's original patent fully disclosed the "best embodiment known by the inventor" then we would be see corporations
making systems. There are plenty of no signatory countries where you can file separately and do not honor US patents.
In all likelihood, Rossi's patent disclosure failed to meet the legal requirements to allow others skilled in the art to see large COP's as
he claimed. Again he was required by patent laws to full disclose his best embodiment.
Rends,
I think you will find that they did the NL move due to a major investor and then move to the UK at some major expense
due to Woodford's request since they are UK based.
I think it is an error to assume that IH only had the US as its only targeted area. Limiting to the US would
only need to be required if you make the incorrect assumption that Rossi's technology was the only thing
they were/are looking at. We know that they have other researchers elsewhere.
It seems clear that Rossi has used such methods- multiple layers of companies, merging, dissolving, ......
and has tried to avoid paying taxes. Notice that IH realize that he often had tax problems
and wrote a clause in the agreement just so they would not be responsible for Rossi's failure to file taxes on
their payments.
There are lots of reasons (especially with the current US administration) to incorporate outside of the US.
For example, Woodford is a UK entity.
There are Tax benefits.
Some of your primary investors may be from the Netherlands, which may well be the case.
Many rich people diversify both in industry and currencies. They also set up trust funds for their children
outside their primary residencies in case of wars.
The EU patent system is different.
and so on.
You talk like someone who has zero to little large business experience and do not understand the
common words used within that sector.
yes, it does seem like Rossi is greedy and wants money no matter how much it costs the field
You assert that IH "have certainly not stolen Rossi technology".
That leads to a paradox .
I will simply ask? If they have stolen useful technology- WHERE IS IT?
Why would a company formed to develop LENR just sit on technology when they could make
vast profits by developing it and commercialize it.
The World energy sector investment totals $68 trillion are estimated for 2015 to 2040.
Even a 10% market penetration would be on the order of almost 7 trillion.
That is nothing compared to just paying off Rossi.
The obvious answer seems to be that we do not see IH engineering and manufacturing the technology
because they do not have anything currently that is suitable and that Rossi's technology was either
not transferred or was not up to the task.
IH is working with different researchers and have done so since before signing on Rossi.
In all likelihood they have some active LENR tech that is not Rossi's and thus you would expect
them to use "weasel words" when discussing LENR.
Who knows what they may have? Perhaps the older Thermocore or CETI nickel systems.
The point is the presence of "weasel words" is not an indication of deceit. Instead, it may be just plain truthfulness.
Also realize that Rossi sold IH the rights for improvements on his invention. It is sad that he apparently did not transfer
workable IP to them. It was his task to both produce a device in a timely manor and to instruct IH so they could
commercialize. He spent time with them in NC and if they were not doing thing correctly, it was for him to transfer the IP
so that they could make it work with his help there.
If they had workable tech at that time, they would most likely be starting certification and manufacturing.
But, alas, that is not the case.
As I "read the tea leaves" it seems that IH may have some technology other than Rossi's or improvement on Rossi's that
is giving small to modest heat but not enough or reliable enough to commercialize so they will cannot say LENR doesn't work, only
that the Technology that Rossi showed and ran for them in NC did not work as he claimed.
Abd- "The sale of the system did not specifically include the fuel. However, the License transfer included full disclosure of IP, with the fuel formula being, supposedly, disclosed."
I am still trying to 'wrap may head" around that.
So if I was to make a "classic" F and P electrochemical cell and sell it to someone, show them how it works in a facility paid by them, I could then later just remove the palladium and walk away from it and wave goodbye??????????
It just doesn't seem right.
If the system did not include all working parts need for testing then what was sold? It seems like the assumption would be the entire system that was to be tested would included. Of course if it was just a sale of power and not a testing of a full system to be tested, then it might be a different story. But then Rossi would have to admit that it was not a test of the system he sold.
Abd- "The sale of the system did not specifically include the fuel. However, the License transfer included full disclosure of IP, with the fuel formula being, supposedly, disclosed."
Without the fuel it would not be a functional device even if what Rossi claims is true. If he did not sell IH a functional system with the fuel then what was sold? What was to be tested? It seems like someone selling a car but then removing the engine when it is parked in your drive saying that that wasn't really included.
I sure would be interested to know if IH or Rossi paid for the nickel, lithium and hydrogen.
I guess I just don't understand the law.
Fanboy,You have a habit of attributing things to people that they have not said.
I have said nothing about ash. I have given no guess at Rossi's motive of removing the fuel and altering the system when he left.
Who said that IH "built in special protections "? Can you give a non-Rossi reference?
If Rossi "refueled" as he claims, then evidently there were no protections in place or he would not be able to do so.
It often sounds like you are making up things or attributing to IH what Rossi said without any proof or reference.
I agree with you for once. Yes Rossi wants to keep it vague and secret and that is why he removed (refueled) the system before he left. He does not seem to want the truth to come out soon.
Do you think it was legal for Rossi to remove part of the system (i.e. "fuel). It seems destruction of evidence and also just plan criminal theft. The "fuel" was an integral part of the system. To steal that seems a criminal offense to me. Did he sell the entire system to IH or was the fuel excluded somewhere in the agreement. I sure don't see any hint of such an exclusion.
just a guess but I would think 1) still waiting for the suit to work its way through the courts, and 2) they don't believe it ever worked so why try? and 3) the system is not suitable for testing - totally bad design for getting info.
I wonder if they own the fuel as well. I hope the Rossi was not foolish enough to steal some of the system. That would could be a really big law suit.
yes IH should have ownership of the system
see term sheet
15. IH will continue to own the 1 MW Plant and JMC will not have any right to buy or retain
the plant. Upon expiration of the rental period, or earlier termination if there is a
default under the rental agreement provided for above, IH may pick up the 1 MW Plant
and/or exercise any other· rights under this Term Sheet or available by taw.
I scanned and do not find the word "test" in it.
it is very interesting that it states: "1. Industrial Heat, LLC, directly or through its affiliates, owns a 1 MW E-Cat steam plant"
{the "1 MW Plant") built by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013."
notice the plant was the 2013 plant.
and
"13. IH will be allowed to visit the 1 MW Plant at any time, with customers or with IH
personnel."
and
15. IH wifl continue to own the 1 MW Plant and JMC will not have any right to buy or retain
the plant. Upon expiration of the rental period, or earlier termination if there is a default under the rental agreement provided for above, !H may pick up the 1 MW Plant
and/or exercise any other· rights under this Term Sheet or available by taw.
and that JMC was to turn over records:
19. JMC wi!i keep records of the operation of the lmVV Plant as reasonably requested by
Leonardo or !Hand wii! provide copies of such records to Leonardo and IH upon request.
Fanboy: I know Jed.... at a distance from his work, lenr-canr-org, meetings, papers.
I know certainly that he has no master but himself.
He is very independent, hard headed, takes no lip from anyone, he seeks to get and post
information, and often annoying (aren't we all)
I seriously doubt anyone could pay him to say things just for pay.
I have seen him go from tentative acceptance to total disbelief in Rossi's work.
I often do not agree with him or his style but I do respect his views.
But everyone has a bias.
In your case, I only see potshots and no useful or constructive information given.
Again I wait for your alleged timing of events that would contradict my timing. If you are truly after the truth then perhaps we can work out a correct timeline that fits all the facts.
So what is your "truth" about your assumed timeline?
Why do you accuse me that I "contradict the timing" and what support do you offer for this alleged contradiction?
I am restricted on what I can say here, and yes I post anonymously to avoid complications if I stray from the straight path. I do not expect people to just take what I say as truth anymore than they should anyone else here. However, notice I gave documented support of my statements.
Everyone should question and verify on their own.
Mostly I just request for clarifications.
I await patiently for Penon's certification and declaration of the ERV report with protocols and the documentation of GPT acceptance.
This thread is about taking 1 year, but I think it will be over by the first of 2017 as the lack of data and documentation takes its toll.
