Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

The following post has been submitted by Josh G

With all confusion and back-and-forth over the Rossi-Industrial Heat imbroglio, it’s hard to cut through the thick layer of fog. I’m going to try to do it by zeroing in on some key questions regarding IH’s behavior:

A poster on Mats Lewan’s An Impossible Invention site known as nckhawk (though to be a Tom Darden business associate and IH investor named Dewey Weaver) has stated that when IH says they have “worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success,” it means they have never, not even once, been able to get the E-Cat to produce excess heat.

Here is an excerpt from a nckhawk post on Mats Lewans’ blog: “It was only after replications attempts failed to produce ANY results that the doubts began to creep in. IH didn’t want a 1MW reactor but Rossi insisted. IH offered substantial sums of money for Rossi to produce 10 watts and/or 100 watts of excess power from a single characterized and verified reactor as an alternative to the insanity of the 1MW test.”


In another comment on the same thread, Jed Rothwell writes: “The word “substantiate” is a little unclear, but they told me it means the thing did not work. There was no significant excess heat.” But since they were talking about 3 years of efforts, this implies that they were never able to observe significant excess heat from any version of the e-cat, not just the 1MW plant.

In that case, the following questions demand an answer:

1. They spent a good deal of manpower and money on R&D to develop and produce a new iteration of the e-cat, which they sent to Lugano for testing. If they had never gotten Rossi’s older version of e-cat to work, why invest a dime in R&D and manufacturing a new version?

2. If they never got an e-cat to work, why on Earth would they agree to give Rossi the go-ahead on the 1MW test? Apparently he insisted, so maybe they couldn’t stop him. But why would they willingly spend a dime of their own money to pay for (at least) 2 technicians, as well as 1/2 the costs of the ERV plus who knows what other expenses? If Darden thought the e-cat didn’t work, his willingness to go along with the test AND fork over money for it shows very poor business acumen and a shocking carelessness with his investors’ money.

3. If they caught Penon and Rossi early on trying to engage in fraud by switching flowmeters (as Weaver has alleged in the same thread on Mats’ blog), then why on Earth would IH continue a test (which they were paying for half of + personnel + who knows what else) when they had just caught Rossi and Penon red-handed trying to commit fraud?!? That doesn’t sound like due diligence to me! It makes Darden look like an easy mark. As George Bush the Younger once said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice … you can’t get fooled again!”

4. If they never got the e-cat to work, then they also had no reason to believe the 1MW plant worked or that the test would be successful. But according to Rossi (and apparently he can document this for the court), IH had Woodford and the Chinese and who knows who else visit the 1MW plant as part of their effort to raise investment capital. We don’t know at this point if the reason they invested in IH is because of the e-cat (though Woodford capital says they spent 2 1/2 years on due diligence, so we assume that was the primary reason they were investing, since that was IH’s first investment). If true, this means that although Darden had no reason to think the e-cat worked, he went about raising money for it anyway on the pretense that it did work. That sounds borderline fraudulent to me.

5. If they have no reason to think the e-cat works, then why file a patent on the e-cat claiming to get a COP of 11? Did they just make that number up? Pull it out of a hat? Lawyers are expensive and filing patents costs a lot of money. Why would they pay all that money to file several patents if the technology is bunk?

I just don’t see any logical explanation for any of IH’s actions, other than that they do think the technology works. They might not be able to get it to work as well as they want it to, or as well as Rossi can, and so they may have withheld the final payment until Rossi gives away all his secrets. (Hermano Tobia has some interesting things to say in this regard in that same thread on Mats’ blog). But for IH to say it never worked is simply illogical and absurd, unless we are to believe that they are incompetent businessmen who have tried to defraud their investors and flush their money down the drain. I simply don’t see how they can have it both ways.

Josh G

  • Zephir

    cheatedinvestor May 5, 2016 at 9:44 PM

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:

    Tom Darden together with Cherokee Investments Partners have filed for 2
    bankrupcies in February 2016. Their investors lost 23 million dollars.
    Obviously all money of the investors: the money just disappeared.

    It appears that Mr Darden customary collects investments in companies
    that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that
    the business is not gone well. With you they just found the wrong man:
    against any expectation, the E-Cat works and you really want to make an
    industry to produce it: you have broken their rules.

    We will sustain you to the end.

    Never give up.


    Rossi declined to comment.. I guess he is more busy with fire than fog

  • Steve c

    sorry if this has come up before but it was news to me and I have been following for a while. check this out Steve c

  • psi2u2

    They make sense to me.

  • Nigel Appleton

    A couple of comments/queries

    Official or self-appointed “point man”?

    With whom has Rossi coordinated his PR efforts.?

  • Josh G

    But you apparently do but are not telling us. How convenient. In the meantime the only logical conclusion is that IH/Cherokee/Darden are suckers and cheats. And that’s where things stand until we get more information. Your drip, drip strategy is not working in your favor…

  • Eyedoc

    Hey Hawk, do you agree with Alf that ” IH has obtained the signatures of three Nobelists and almost one hundred reputed physicists on their document., including some LENR experts and a psychologist.”

    • Obvious

      Hmmm. There are flocks of birds, gaggles of geese, herds of cows, etc., so this is…. a concurrence of physicists?

  • Zack Iszard

    Not all readers of this board follow Rossi like a lost dog. Our anticipation for the release of the report was also anticipation of a concurrent positive announcement from IH, not the devolution of the IH/Leonardo relationship to a legal squabble.

    It does appear quite powerfully that Rossi is the divisive one in these recent litigious issues. For reasonable, cautious-yet-hopeful skeptics like myself, accepting Rossi’s narrative gets harder every day. When his narrative was corroborated by IH’s involvement, his words were much more plausible and credible.

    The number of Rossi followers who switch attention to the “next thing in the pipeline” just a real-world example of cognitive dissonance.

    One way to resolve that dissonance is denial, which involves deliberate ignorance of uncomfortable information. The other way is to embrace that uncomfortable information and re-evaluate, and consider one’s past self a fool. Which is much more difficult?

    Having said all of this, which may be deleted as unsavory by the moderator, I must admit that the truth is often more complex and subtle than any narrative, especially when your “fact table” is sorely lacking. We look forward to any good news from IH regarding other LENR technologies, as I’m sure that many who frequent this board would be happy internet fanboys/girls of truly verified technology!

  • Stephen

    Thanks for your reply NChawk, I understand and respect that you cannot go into details about your experience or some of those points I raised.

    With regard the case I also feel that it is the legal process is the right one to iron out the and clarify differences there.

    I don’t want to be controversial but wasn’t the statement from IH (that was rightly or wrongly on my side attributed to APCO?) about only trusting information release from them released before the ERV report and subsequent law suit? I can appreciate that since then events may have got ahead of themselves and the original statement.

    It is interesting to see your broader view on IH and other LENR work and also to see and understand a bit about your background. I do think we are fortunate to have your insight.

    I don’t like to form a negative opinion based on hearsay. So while waiting for the case to resolve I still hope for a good resolution based on clarity. I think in that regard we can agree I guess even if in my case I still hold hope for good results and that ECAT can be a good beacon for LENR.

    Since it is apparent you have an inside role with IH, I hope when things have resolved a bit later and you are able and they are willing, that you can share some details about those other projects. I’m also curious about how they are doing and I do think in the long term there is scope for very broad spectrum of technologies with LENR where different approaches will be optimum.

    • NCkhawk

      Thank you Stephen – we’ll see what develops that can be eventually shared. The IH approach is speed to ubiquity once we find something that verifies and becomes a candidate for engineering / applied R&D.

  • Frank Acland

    NCkhawk — thank you for explaining that you don’t speak for Industrial Heat, and that you have been giving your interpretation of events.

    To avoid confusion, I am asking that you don’t post about facts connected with the court case here on E-Cat World, unless it is authorized and identified publicly as coming officially from Industrial Heat (something IH themselves warned us about in their recent press statement).

    • Frank Acland

      Also, let’s avoid the confrontational back-and-forth on this topic. Please take that elsewhere.

    • LuFong


      Are you going to apply the same to Rossi and what he says? You’ll have to take down half your site then….

      I know this is your blog and it has some basic premises about the E-Cat but NCkhawk seems to have some level of direct knowledge of the principals and what happened in this matter and for the most part (not entirely) he has been quite restrained. His bias is understandable. To muzzle him on this site I believe is going a bit too far.

      • Frank Acland

        Rossi speaks for himself, and has made some public statements; Industrial Heat has made a statement. NCkhawk says he is not speaking for IH, but giving his interpretation. If IH wants to comment on the court case on this site, they can do so officially. I’d rather not have the site used as an alternative courtroom.

  • Pweet

    Focardi was the foundation stone.
    He already believed a working technology could come from LENR and he had contact with other eminent people regarding this. We know that for a fact. I believe as he was towards the end of his life he was waiting very hopeful of this. When Rossi came along with his supposed results he was so pleased that I believe he didn’t do the critical investigation into the test procedures being used by Mr Rossi because Rossi had already gained his confidence that he knew what he was doing.
    It worked.
    I believe Levi was probably also strongly influenced by the endorsement of Focardi.
    Then the acceptance and endorsement by both Foacrdi and Levi promted Essen and Kullander to be far less critical than they would have been had it been just Rossi by himself.

    Once Rossi had the endorsement of Focardi, Levi, Essen and Kullander, he was pretty much on the home straight. It was time to bring in the journalists and a few other artillery pieces.
    With the background of acceptance by all these other luminaries, all these would have taken what they were seeing as being in accordance with what they were being told they were seeing, a magical new technology able to turn nickel into copper, with the release of huge amounts of energy.
    I can recount all this because it pretty much describes why I so readily accepted what my education (and most of my associates) told me was impossible. And I wasn’t even there!
    But I could look up the qualifications and experience of those who had endorsed all this and I was impressed. Very impressed!
    How could they all be wrong? Well, in the same way that ten million mormons can be wrong of course. And some of them are highly intelligent educated. Not all, or even most, but some.

    Thus, when it is still asked;-
    “While: Petterson, Kullander, Stremmenos, Levi, Foschi, Lewan etc … etc … they are all of incompetents?”
    The simple answer is, yes they were.
    Not entirely their fault though, because they were dealing with someone who was extremely good at what he does.

    Keep in mind that many who initially supported Mr Rossi to the extent that they actually bought into it have now abandoned there stance and speak against him. Perhaps more weight should be given to their opinions rather than those who cling to a hope.

    • Wow! That is an impressive house of cards you are building to keep your illusions alive. Better hold your breath, otherwise it’ll fall apart. 🙂

  • sam

    Did I.H. ask A.R to have another
    EVR report done by a US expert.

  • Rene

    Flipped the troll bit on you. Let us depart disagreeing.

  • Alex Fenrick

    I will reiterate one more time that I did provide an example. If you are going to reject my example with a baseless argument then this will become circular.

    • Frank Acland

      Please, let’s not go round and round too much.

      • Grégory Makles

        You can’t avoid going round and round with someone who doesn’t want to admit she or he made unsubstantiated claims because that’s their only alternative. To me those are the real plague of any debate. That’s why I think it’s essential to force questions to be handled and if one party simply can’t, then that party it’s exposed for what it really is.

        We need people who debate in a constructive way like with scientific publication. Affirmations shall be challenged and in reply, consolidated, improved or refuted, all of this in a way that fuel the debate with new facts rather than stall it. We deal with advance topics and smoke screen are everywhere for people who want to use them. Either we don’t let them or we give up the very idea of constructive discussion.

    • Grégory Makles

      Only if you don’t answer the objection. But you can.
      I asked for tech that could be verified before funding, then wasn’t but was still funded.

      You provided an example. I looked at if and tried to see if we knew if it wasn’t checked. This could only happen through one of two scenario:

      Possibility A: it wasn’t because it couldn’t as years later it doesn’t work. Invalidated because the last update from this very site is that it might actually work (double checked the thread from Franck)

      Possibility B: they just didn’t. But I found a source, which I provided, indicating that there was actually an expertise running on at the time of funding.

      In the current state of information, I haven’t found any information confirming your example is relevant to answer the question. More importantly, you didn’t.

      An argument isn’t baseless because you say so. You have to demonstrate it, just like I demonstrated that in the current state of sources shown in this debate, you didn’t answer the question.

      • Alex Fenrick

        “I asked for tech that could be verified before funding, then wasn’t but was still funded.” Orbo is a perfect example as it not only fits your requirement but it is in the same relative field. There were numerous attempts at verifying the Orbo effect (as well as the other Steorn devices), but all failed to offer proof of claim…this is well documented. Steorn took in $21million+ in funding and is yet to still be able to show proof of claim. The two devices that Frank has DO NOT operate as intended and do not show proof of claim. If you follow the progress of the Orbo testing you would see this….I have been following very closely and interacting in the conversation. I am not sure how I can put this any more plainly to you. We are going in circles now…

        • Grégory Makles

          “There were numerous attempts at verifying the Orbo effect”

          You’re mixing up two things.

          One is to knwo whether Orbo is proven false. The latest test from Franck here tends to actually invalidate that claim. So one can not claim that Orbo effect is proven wrong

          One is to know if investor weren’t doing anything to check Orbo’s tech. Either they did not and you’re right, either they did – which is backed up by the source I presented and you seem to agree. In which case either the 3rd party, private evaluation conducted is known to have validated/invalidated the claim in the eye of the investor, either we don’t know. Please note that failing at public demonstration has basically very little to do with 3rd party, behind the scene evaluation. One can easily fail at one and succeed at the later. So while I know of the, as you correctly put, well documented public failure of Orbo, I consider I know nothing of what happened behind the scene. AFAICT, you don’t know more than me but assume what you don’t know. Unless you can prove by *a link* (rather than “it’s written somewhere”) I conclude from my very real research effort so far (I did some, you didn’t, as it seems) that your affirmation is groundless. You don’t know any more than any one here who funded Orbo, what evaluation they did at the time, what were the result and if Orbo had or not something at the time. If you do know more, it’s not enough to claim it: you have to prove it. You just know that they fail at public demonstration, that they claimed to have expert checking their tech, that they received some money, that they actually didn’t disappear but launched a product on the market, that this one after disappointing issues leave the door open, after many test, to maybe being indeed what it’s supposed to be. Am I correct on this or is there more than you not only think you know, but can consolidate with a link ?

  • Obvious

    “The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step.”
    A.R., JoNP, July 8, 2013

    • Curbina

      I remember that post clearly. But as we have never got any answer from Vaughn or Darden, it was always dismissed as just another “Rossi Says”. I am really waiting to see IHs response. So far they have, through NCkhawk, attempted to imply that they could never get any Excess heat in spite of what Rossi says, but, as their actions hint exactly the opposite, the explanation is that they hoped to find a solution at some point. I’m not buying that, Rossi says have been much more consistent with his actions than IH says (through NCkhawk and other posters that claimed insider knowledge by part of IH).

      • Obvious

        So is J.T. Vaughn the CEO of IH?
        Who did made the charge for the reactor?

      • NCkhawk

        Curbina – Frank has had a habit of deleting my post lately so I’m not sure that you’ll see this.
        IH wanted to test the referenced 1MW unit in Raleigh before shipping it to Miami but Rossi insisted that was a waste of time. he did the same thing for the Lugano reactors. The “ERV” report / data, which will be soon released, will give you the answers you need to make a final decision. The reactors that IH did build and test in their lab, per Rossi’s instructions, sadly never produced even a watt of excess heat.

        • Curbina

          Then I wonder if IH ever told a lie to Rossi about being able to replicate, otherwise I could only understand the Rossi comment as coming from a delusional person. This is the kind of stuff that is so puzzling about all this.

        • Interesting stuff.

          Since IH at this point deliberately had delayed the test by failing to find a suitable place during a whole year in Raleigh this comment is a new contradictory statement by the spinning Weaver … Why delay, and why trying to negotiate Rossi out of the test? And why being optimistic all the way until November 2015? It only gets worse …

          Maybe Frank deleting your posts is actually good for you Dewey!

          I’ve made an update to my post:

          • Josh G

            Also notice that in addition to twisting himself into more contradictions, he hasn’t been able to answer any of my questions.

            I mentioned something on your blog, and I’ll say it again here: I found it more than a little bit creepy that Weaver not once, but twice, confidently predicted on Mats’ blog that Rossi would “play the health card” at some point during the trial. Why would he be so sure of that? I don’t think it’s something that would have occurred to any of us, and AFAIK Rossi has never done anything like that, even when he was on trial in Italy.

            The certainty with which he said it almost made it sound like a veiled threat. It’s as if he’s already out ahead spinning it, putting out the narrative that when Rossi ‘suddenly’ starts to have serious health problems, it will just be part of the con, not something nefarious.

            I’m posting this observation here mainly so that if Rossi’s health takes a nosedive during the trial, we’ll have a more public record of it and know where to start looking for answers.

            • Agree. The best interpretation is that Weaver knows Rossi have/had some health problems and is now, as the creepy guy he is, trying to spin that into his advantage. Then, as you say, there are worse interpretations as well.

        • Josh G

          Except he’s not referencing a 1 MW unit. He’s talking about an e-cat module.

          I’ll also take this opportunity to note that, as I predicted, you didn’t answer any of the questions I posed, either here or on Mats’ blog. You may have thought that ‘Guest’ answered them in the thread on Mats’ blog, but he didn’t respond to all of them and the responses he gave only raised more questions. We’re still waiting…but nobody is holding their breath.

          My favorite part of this entire saga so far is how you outed yourself on Mats’ blog by referring to yourself in the first person when you got upset by Torkels’ post linking you to the hacking attack on his site. That’s rich in irony for someone who keeps insulting everyone else’s IQ.

        • Stephen

          Hello NCkHawk, I’m not really into the mud slinging which ever way it goes, and I guess you are also a bit tired of it now too.

          I admit on my side given I’m more a supporter of AR but I like to look deeper and try to understand what underlies both sides opinions. And readily admit I do not have the contacts or direct knowledge you have.

          We are quite lucky if you can express IH view point.

          I am quite interested in your insights about IH if you are able to share them. Can I ask you some questions? If you can’t answer them that’s also ok.

          1. Are the points you made regarding the 1MW ecat representative of IH point of view? (I’m confused about that because of the APCO statement warning us not to trust statements not endorsed directly by IH)

          1a. Are your statements officially from IH?

          1b. can you say if Darden or Vaughn both share those view points?

          1c. Can you say if other groups or projects in IH share those view points?

          2. Are the external investments in IH made by outside VC towards specific projects or more generally?

          2a are some of those specially e-cat or specifically other projects?

          3. Was you own investment also in E-cat. And if so does this also inform your opinion?

          4. Regarding the devices and charges made by IH.

          4a. We’re these factory tested at IH manufacturer?

          4b. Were they tested for Positive COP?

          4c. Given the fuel was apparently prepared by IH, what was the process to verify and accept there correct preparation and functioning by IH and Leonardo on site after delivery at the plant.

          5. More generally can you say anything about other LENR projects in IH?

          5a. are you involved in any of them?
          5b. are any of them showing very good results?
          5c. Are any of them also near industrialization?

          if you can answer thanks, I also understand if you cannot. I don’t want to pin you down in the saga but am interested in your insights into IH if you are able to share them.

        • sam

          Are you saying the Pennon
          EVR report will be released
          before the trial.

          • NCkhawk


        • LuFong

          At the time there was questions about whether the Lugano reactor had been “primed” by running it prior to Lugano. Looks like not.

          Do you know why it was Rossi that was there at Lugano to handle the reactor? Surely IH must have realized the implications of this.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Did they also test other LENR technology, e.g. Brillouin’s?

      • bachcole

        I don’t care who confirms what Rossi says, as long as they have no self-interest. It could be Mats Lewan or Frank Acland or even Barry Obama for all I care.

        I just saw an episode of Sopranos, and this complete fool “invested” $50,000 into this company via the backdoor with no confirmation whatsoever that the product was worth a damn, no paperwork, no second independent opinion, nothing. Only the word of the seller that the product was the next big thing. OMG people can be so stupid.

        I am not stupid. If the credulity bar is too high, then we learn nothing new and our pace is very slow. Or, as in the case of skeptopaths, their progress is at a dead stop. If the credulity bar is too low, then we are like the fool in my paragraph above and we are suckers for con artists or demented psychotics like the Heaven’s Gate whack-pair.

    • Pweet

      Quote from Obvious post above;-
      “and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us” referring to reactor built by IH.
      I can well believe that Mr. Rossi is almost certainly telling the truth here, but it means something a lot different to what Mr Rossi intended to imply.
      I believe that the devices in all cases would show a COP of 1, no matter who builds the reactors. However, with the measuring techniques Mr Rossi uses he can plump that up to an appearance of three or six, or apparently now, even up to 50.
      You see, that has always been the case, going right back to the April 2014 demos, and then after that to the Lugano test. A different device, yes, but the same critical mismanagement of the test procedure.
      The problems now with IH would stem from the fact that IH, in there own tests, are taking a more critical approach to how these things are measured and are using measuring techniques as determined by people not associated with Mr Rossi or influenced by his demands. They would probably incorporate the alterations to the test procedures that have been asked for numerous times by numerous well educated people regarding earlier tests, but never previously done.
      And why not, if you were being asked to cough up another 89 million dollars?

      This is why it has always been so essential that Mr. Rossi be present at all tests of his device and why he apparently flatly refused an independent test done by Ed Storms some years ago, as recently reported here and in other places.
      That was an extraordinary denial.
      A positive test result by Ed Storms would have had such a positive influence on the early acceptance of the ecat and since Storms is a well known advocate of LENR, it could hardly be suspected by Rossi that he would give it an unfairly negative appraisal. In fact if there was a bias it could be assumed to be towards the positive.
      And yet Mr Rossi feigned indignance and huffed off, according to the report.
      I can well believe that because it is completely consistent with all other denials to let anyone near a reactor unsupervised by Mr. Rossi. In the same way, Uppsala University were not given the access they were promised to test the ecat in the early days, or any other person or organisation for that matter.
      I believe that has always been essential for the ongoing survival of Mr Rossi’s device. I also believe it will continue.
      In fact I think we can take it that the very day a device is handed over to a completely associated third party for testing will be the day we can believe he might actually have something which works.
      If we pay more attention to what has NOT happened rather than what has happened I think the perspective on this recent episode with IH will become more realistic.
      In this regard, I’m pretty sure the test Mr. Rossi announced for June this year will be along the same lines as all his previous tests, and that is, the test will be set up and performed by Mr. Rossi and no deviations from the procedure he sets up will be tolerated. If any deviation is insisted on, the test will be terminated.
      Depending on who the people are, that could make it very interesting.

      • “If we pay more attention to what has NOT happened rather than what has happened”

        Interesting way of thinking about it … Exactly how many things is that to take into considerations? Hmm. Only imagination sets the limit I would say …

      • Josh G

        More spin, diversion and FUD, yet no answers to my questions. You think IH forked over $11.5 million then just sat on their hands for 3 years without insisting on rigorous, critical test procedures? You don’t Woodford insisted on that before coughing up $50 million? Give me a break…

      • timycelyn

        A superficial and truly bizarre form of ‘reasoning’ that I’m afraid would lose out in an accuracy competition with throwing darts blindfolded at a board with various possible answers on it…

    • LuFong

      Which always made me wonder why it was Rossi who was there to install, startup, shutdown, and deconstruct the Lugano reactor. IH built that reactor and composed the fuel. It goes completely against the grain of the “independent” Lugano test to have Rossi present and handling the reactor. An IH person should have done this. Even this would have raised some eyebrows but certainly not to the extent with Rossi.

      Given that the technology had been transferred was it the case that Rossi didn’t trust IH or the professors doing the test? Did he just want a trip to Lugano? Rossi’s being there (along with Levi) completely discredited the independent nature of the test.

  • psi2u2

    True, Krivit’s qualifications, by any objective standard, are pretty small compared to those of the other named parties who did vouch for the e-cat. His journalistic standards also seem weak compared to someone like Mats Lewan.

    On the other hand, I have to agree with Pweet that it is possible the big names were fooled. I don’t feel I have enough information yet to know the answer and that is why I will refrain for the time being from assuming too much or being easily swayed by either side.

  • SG

    Filing a patent application with the United States Patent Office on a technology that you have not substantiated and believe does not work, is not with meeting the duty of candor requisite when dealing with this government agency. It is beyond shady.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Right, but the suggestion being floated here is that early on, IH believed what they had was real. And they believed the early tests and thus had substantiated the cat. So at that point in time it would be “normal” behavior to invest in patents and the technology. Seems like a perfectly natural response to
      finding such an amazing technology as LENR.

      I mean when bre-x started out, and good gold mine core results were published, then everyone include the Indonesia government attempted to “muscle” their way into one of the largest gold deposits. Of course it was only later on that people found out the mining core samples had been “salted” with gold, and the gold mine actually did not have any gold!. So was the Indonesia government in on the scam because they wanted some control of this huge gold mine? (no). Was the Indonesia guilty of not checking the core samples? (no but hind sight is 50/50 as they say).

      The simple matter is that stock moved from the Alberta exchange to Toronto and NY exchanges. And eventually reached a value of 6 billion (yes, you read that correct 6 billion – and yet no gold existed). So actions based on belief of the gold core samples, or early tests certainly makes IH’s actions seem perfectly reasonable.

      And at the start of any relationship, trust levels are at least neutral – it seems only later on did issues of trust occur.

      I mean, for IH to doubt results now does NOT help their case one bit (in fact it exposes them as you point out – so why bother to doubt test results now? I can’t see ANY up-side for IH to doubt the results).

      So actions of IH later on are quite consistent with a company that has doubts about the ecat, but their early actions shows confidence in the ecat.
      And the middle is where things get messy – do you say anything as doubts rise, but investment money is still pouring in?

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • SG

        Enjoyed the bre-x story… had not heard that one. But, if IH no longer believe that the inventions disclosed in their patent applications work, then they should file a request to intentionally abandon the applications, and not waste the time of the patent examiners who would otherwise eventually examine the applications. Do you think they will do this?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          They might, but now that the issue is in court, then perhaps they have to wait. And as others stated, it might not be an issue does the ecat work – but how well it performs.

          We may well see additional information over time that would explain IH’s actions, but IH clearly would not have entered into agreements if they did not believe in the ecat early on. Their actions do seem “relative” consistent with high belief, and then a decline.

          This video on Bre-x is tells the story – quite interesting:

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • SG

            Enjoyed watching the Bre-X clip. Reminds me of the American Greed programming. No doubt, the world is full of scoundrels.

            As for IH, the fact that a lawsuit was filed does not change their duty of candor before the USPTO in any way. They have stated in no uncertain terms that they could not substantiate the claims of Mr. Rossi–all attempts without success. For this reason, they should immediately inform the USPTO of this and file requests to intentionally abandon their patent applications.

            • Albert D. Kallal

              Well the term substantiate does not mean that the ecat don’t work. They are doubting claims – we don’t know which claims

              Abandon their patent applications

              Too soon – IH may still well be open to “substantiating” the ecat. They also invested in Brillion – they have some VERY nice tests from SRI which I consider first rate and certainly independent. So IH actions in regards to the USPTO are not 100% tied to Rossi – they have alternate technologies.

              I mean how can IH make a patent on Rossi’s patent? In fact it could NOT be the case. In other words IH’s patent MUST BE AND HAS TO be different and NOT based on Rossi. So how does saying the ecat don’t work change their own patents that can’t be based on the ecat anyway?

              In other words IH’s is not challenging Rossi’s patent, and saying Rossi’s stuff don’t work could NEVER change their own patent which can’t be based on Rossi’s work anyway!

              More so, we not seen a statement from IH that confirms they can’t make their ecats work – but only they cannot substantive claims made by Rossi. The statement “nothing works” is not really direct or confirmed – but is via a second party. We simply don’t know the context and “restrictions” on what they mean here. In other words, IH might have their own working reactors, but are saying the ones from Rossi don’t work!

              And as noted, EVEN IF THEY KNOW the ecat don’t work, this does not invalid their USPTO applications. And maybe they built their own working reactors – just not ones from Rossi. And more so IH’s investments in Brillion do cover that LENR devices work and have been verified.

              In fact the above MAY VERY WELL explain the whole situation here. IH may have obtained the know how to build LENR devices, they just don’t want to admit that this IP comes from Rossi and thus they don’t want (have to) pay the 90 million.

              In fact the MORE I think about this, the MORE the above makes sense! I think I have a “winner” here!

              No question IH is in a bit of a pickle, since if they say nothing works, then yes they may well have revoke their patent applications.

              However, they not saying nothing works, they saying the ecat don’t work. And if they can prove that, they now can build LENR devices and NOT have to pay 90 million because they don’t need nor want Rossi anymore!

              By golly – this makes PERFECT sense now!

              Yes, IH simply does not want to pay the 90 million. All they have to do is claim that the ecat don’t work – but this has little to do with the fact that IH now knows how to build their own working devices. And this would ALSO explain why IH took out a patent – they simply trying to wiggle out of the deal with Rossi, and:

              –> IH has their own patents
              –> IH can build their own devices (based on their own patent)
              –> IH by saying the ecat don’t work saves them 90 million

              Gotta love logic!

              The above makes a heck of a lot of sense, now that I think about this.

              In fact, the above has JUST become my public position on this matter.

              Albert D. Kallal
              Edmonton, Alberta Canada

              • SG

                Albert, I love some good speculation especially when rooted in logic, and I don’t want to take that away from you. Your guesses are as good as mine.

                But, just wanted to point out that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about the patent system in the United States and some of your premises are flawed. I was going to respond point by point, but in the end, it isn’t really going to alter the outcome, so I’ll just leave it at that.

        • Brent Buckner

          Do we know that IH made anything beyond provisional patent applications? Google tells me that provisional patent applications do not involve patent examiners, and are usually abandoned by allowing their one year clock to run out.

          • SG

            Yes, the filed non-provisional and international (PCT) applications.

  • Alex Fenrick

    Gregory…you should step over to the Orbo thread and educate yourself on the current situation…as well as the history of Steorn. I never claimed global knowledge of anything…presented a perspective and backed it up with a legitimate as well relative example. Point still stands firmly. You do not like my example…that I cannot help.