RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

Sounds like someone wanting to be given riches for doing an imaginary 
half-assed job. Sure they ‘can have’ the money they just need to reach into the 
same imaginary pocket they pulled the device out of and pull out the money! 
More on this can be found at Fisher Center for Alzheimer's Research ... 
https://www.alzinfo.org/articles/senile-dementia/  - Impaired judgment; 
Sometimes childish behavior.  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
I posses a device that has an effective COP of infinity.
Can I have a million dollars to bring Candle Power to the world?

Only if it produces a million times more energy per gram of fuel than any 
chemical reaction, with no chemical changes and no dangerous radiation. Just 
having a self sustaining reaction such a fire is no great advantage.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

An insight from an insider

Robert E. Godes 

It is important to read between the lines. I suspect one of the most
important statements is "any claims made about technologies in our
portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and
backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated
experiments." IE people should learn to ignore statements put out directly
by Rossi.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> I posses a device that has an effective COP of infinity.
>> Can I have a million dollars to bring Candle Power to the world?
>>
>
> Only if it produces a million times more energy per gram of fuel than any
> chemical reaction, with no chemical changes and no dangerous radiation.
> Just having a self sustaining reaction such a fire is no great advantage.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> I posses a device that has an effective COP of infinity.
> Can I have a million dollars to bring Candle Power to the world?
>

Only if it produces a million times more energy per gram of fuel than any
chemical reaction, with no chemical changes and no dangerous radiation.
Just having a self sustaining reaction such a fire is no great advantage.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[H LV]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
> Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
> landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
> Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
> the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP we
> want.
>

I posses a device that has an effective COP of infinity.
Can I have a million dollars to bring Candle Power to the world?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jack Cole]

One of the most interesting things to me about IH is that they don't seem
to have exclusivity with Rossi.  They are free to license technologies from
other companies, and are thus free to be objective in the evaluation and
presentation of these technologies.  Their ship does not sink if Rossi's
does.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:51 PM Frank Acland  wrote:

> It seems so;  Rossi said this today on the JONP:
>
> Andrea Rossi
> March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM
>
> Sebastian:
> Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
> manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
> > IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
> > that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
> > to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
> >
> > Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and
> Leonardo?
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
> >> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
> >> Hi,
> >> [snip]
> >>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
> >>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
> >>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
> >>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
> >>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
> >>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
> >>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
> >>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
> >>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
> >>
> >> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW
> plant,
> >> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or
> not.
> >>
> >> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better
> technology as it
> >> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Robin van Spaandonk
> >>
> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Acland
> Publisher, E-Cat World
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Frank Acland]

It seems so;  Rossi said this today on the JONP:

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM

Sebastian:
Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
> IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
> that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
> to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>
> Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>>
>> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW 
>> plant,
>> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.
>>
>> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as 
>> it
>> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>



-- 
Frank Acland
Publisher, E-Cat World

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Response to Jed.
If the COP is less than one, I guess it will be VERY difficult to get
funding for future development.
Us with the limited imagination can hardly come to a decision to invest in
new technology that hold no promises.
Unfortunately, the type of education / experience people have is not a good
base for to judge the level of creativity and risk willingness they have.
The problem is that the willingness to take calculated risk is suppressed
by the fact that decisions about investment in new technology often is
determined by a 'committee'.
That is the basic reason that LENR development is spearheaded by one
entrepreneurial guy. Without his vision - believe - etc. I think we would
have to wait another 25 years for LENR investment.
Universities and the big community of scientist, which are employed there
are ill equipped to take risks. I can elaborate about that but I think we
already been there.  .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
>>
> I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too]
>> attractive.
>>
>
> I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in
> 1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor.
>
> (André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one
> year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of
> early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are
> today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)
>
>
> Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity
> in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not
> such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The
> World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as
> miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather
> than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy
> release and destructive power.)
>
>
>
>> It's better be over 1.
>>
>
> Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history
> of technology.
>
> Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them
> are in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is
> well taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science &
> technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Sebastian
March 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM
Dear Andrea,

You said that Leonardo Corp will not be the only one manufacturing E-Cats.

Does that mean that one of your licensees will be manufacturing them?

Regards

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM
Sebastian:
Yes, obviously, as everybody knows, Industrial Heat has the license to
manufacture the E-Cats in its Territory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.




Why is Rossi building a QuarkX plant that will produce so many wafers
that reverse engineering is useless?

Can IH build QuarkX wafers also?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:59 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:51:52 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
>>IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
>>that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
>>to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>>
>>Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?
>
> I thought I recalled a statement from Rossi that the technology had been sold 
> to
> IH?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:51:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
>IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
>that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
>to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?
>
>Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?

I thought I recalled a statement from Rossi that the technology had been sold to
IH?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Does IH have manufacturing rights to the E-cat? What technology does
IH have the rights to? Where does IH get the fuel for the reactors
that they build. Can IH produce the fuel? Does Leonardo supply wafers
to IH? Is Leonardo the only company that can manufacture the E Cat?

Does anybody know the manufacturing deal that exists between IH and Leonardo?

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>
> I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW plant,
> it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.
>
> In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as 
> it
> becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
>
I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too] attractive.
>

I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in
1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor.

(André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one
year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of
early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are
today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)


Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity
in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not
such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The
World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as
miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather
than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy
release and destructive power.)



> It's better be over 1.
>

Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history
of technology.

Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them are
in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is well
taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science &
technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:11:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
>IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
>the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
>to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
>must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
>Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
>says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
>with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
>too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

I don't see any problem here. IH already has the technology for the 1MW plant,
it's up to them whether they decide to sell devices based upon it or not.

In short they could sell 1 MW plants now, and switch to better technology as it
becomes available. This is what all technology based companies do.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Jed,
I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not to attractive.
It's better be over 1.
I think well above so the inconsistencies which will be determined by
'scientists' with a better measuring technology can be of no significance.
The result will be deemed over COP =1 irregardless.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
>> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
>> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
>> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there
>> will be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a
>> new energy source.
>>
>
> If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is
> 2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP
> happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with
> no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we
> learn to control the effect, it can happen every time.
>
> The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
> Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
> landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
> Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
> the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP
> we want.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Robert Dorr]

I think they are just doing a cover your ass statement to their 
investors, knowing that Rossi is about to release his results and 
they want to make sure that their investors know that the information 
is not coming from official IH sources just in case there is a 
problem a bit further down the road with the interpretation of the 
Rossi results. Simple fiduciary resposibility.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR

At 09:11 AM 3/11/2016, you wrote:

One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano 
report, I do not

> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are 
promising, but

> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will
> be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new
> energy source.
>

If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is
2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP
happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with
no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we
learn to control the effect, it can happen every time.

The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP
we want.

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will
be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new
energy source.
I am rather confident that will happen.
As a comparison I will suggest that some of you as old as I am should look
upon how the transistor (semiconductor industry) evolved.
I went to engineering school in early 60-is. A very wide spread skepticism
just began to give away in favor for the transistor versus the vacuum tube.
Many still believed that vacuum tubes would prevail in certain areas. Yes,
evene large corporations misjudged the situation and therefore do not exist
today or at least are much less important.
So ten years after the invention most of the engineering was still in the
future. Actually the engineering phase is still ongoing. That is 65 years
after Shockley.
I guess there will be development in LENR the same way.
I understand that after 37 years of promises there is not a lot of
patience. The important thing just now is that there is enough  progress to
keep engineering keep on the progress.
Let me say that if Peter Gluck's information is correct, then we will have
an enormous pressure on all players in this field to quickly bring LENR to
the market. The IH statement would then serve to slow down the demands, as
they need to establish the resources before they can provide the desired /
demanded market introduction.

The late news that China invested 121 million dollar make me believe that
IH are making sure they can provide what the market wants. The Chinese did
not invest without having something positive to pin it on.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do
> not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising,
> but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical
> or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

Hydrofusion wrote:


New Investments
Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial Heat, signed a cooperation agreement
with a newly created strategic financial center in Beijing. The
“Technology Ministry of Science and Innovation Park” will participate
in technology transfer with 20 companies from the U.S. This sparked
fear that the E-Cat technology recently patented in the U.S. would
somehow become the sole property of the Chinese government. However,
these ideas were assuaged, and China invested the equivalent of $121
million USD in LENR technology.

There could be a huge pressure behind the release of the E Cat
technology that Rossi is now bucking. Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial
Heat now must also hold off the Chinese for another year. Tom Darden
might be saying to Rossi, "If we can not get your technology, there
are other LENR developers that can need our needs. Rossi tells Darden,
I know you have your problems, deal with them and leave me alone.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
> IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
> the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
> to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
> must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
> Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
> says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
> with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
> too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do not
>> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
>> about it.
>>
>> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
>> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
>> hard to judge.
>>
>> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising, but
>> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
>> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>>
>> - Jed
>>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

One possibility is that Rossi is doing something that rankles IH, and
IH does not like it one bit. It goes like this: IH was all set to sell
the 1 MW plant, but Rossi discovered a better LENR tech. Rossi decides
to go with the new tech that requires more time to perfect. IH now
must keep their investors happy with the delay of a year or more.
Rossi says that he is in charge and this Quark is the way to go. IH
says, we what to sell now, delay is causing us a boatload of trouble
with customers, investors, defense, and the government, Rossi says,
too bad, deal with it, I got to do what I got to do.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do not
> think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising, but
> none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical or
> viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>

I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do
not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
about it.

The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
hard to judge.

"Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising,
but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical
or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Harry

If there is no "excess heat" but still something useful like the conversion of 
heat into electricity or light,  Industrial Heat will have to undergo a name 
change... 

Maybe Industrial Light and Magic?   ;-)


LOL ... maybe it's all been a carefully planned part of next sequel - the 
backstory of Luke Skywalker's light sabre ? 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Peter Gluck]

Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?

We will see itoday if IH will reject Krivit's idea that they are divorcing
from Rossi
Rossi has rejected it clearly.

Peter

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
>> story- IH- Rossi divorce.
>>
>
> I agree the statement as a whole is somewhat unclear, but this part is
> easy to understand. It says that if Rossi publishes a report independent of
> Industrial Heat, not "endorsed" by them, that report should not be "relied
> upon." It will be unreliable, meaning you should not believe it.
>
> I do not know if I would call that a divorce, but it would be a major
> falling out. A separation, if you will, one step before a divorce.
>
> But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us see whether Rossi publishes
> a report. If he does, let us see whether Industrial Heat endorses the
> report.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[H LV]

If there is no "excess heat" but still something useful like the
conversion of heat into electricity or light,  Industrial Heat will
have to undergo a name change.
Maybe Industrial Light and Magic? ;-)

Harry

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
> Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the story-
> IH- Rossi divorce.
>
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>>
>>> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
>>> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>>
>>
>> It does sound that way.
>>
>> The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
>> and dial back people's expectations.
>>
>> I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something
>> from us, don't believe it." It says that here:
>>
>> "That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should
>> only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."
>>
>>
>> In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
>> affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
>> issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
>> they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.
>>
>> The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
> story- IH- Rossi divorce.
>

I agree the statement as a whole is somewhat unclear, but this part is easy
to understand. It says that if Rossi publishes a report independent of
Industrial Heat, not "endorsed" by them, that report should not be "relied
upon." It will be unreliable, meaning you should not believe it.

I do not know if I would call that a divorce, but it would be a major
falling out. A separation, if you will, one step before a divorce.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us see whether Rossi publishes a
report. If he does, let us see whether Industrial Heat endorses the report.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Peter Gluck]

Too unclear and this has allowed Krivit to publish his variant of the
story- IH- Rossi divorce.

Peter

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
>> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>>
>
> It does sound that way.
>
> The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
> and dial back people's expectations.
>
> I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something
> from us, don't believe it." It says that here:
>
> "That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should
> only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."
>
>
> In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
> affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
> issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
> they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.
>
> The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
> a negative report on Rossi's one year test?
>

It does sound that way.

The statement is oblique, but clearly it is intended to reduce excitement
and dial back people's expectations.

I think the statement also clearly says: "if you do not hear something from
us, don't believe it." It says that here:

"That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only
be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat . . ."


In other words, Rossi does not speak for Industrial Heat. I.H. does not
affirm Rossi's statements on his blog. It probably also means that if Rossi
issues a report which has not been cleared by I.H. and published by them,
they do not affirm it. Meaning endorse it.

The statement is unclear but I think that part is clear.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[a.ashfield]

I read it rather like Axil.  That is to say no matter that the regular 
E-Cat 1 MW plant performed successfully the E-Cat X is the future and 
the statement was to prepare us for further delays. Industrial Heat have 
been keen on a long term demo before going to market and this probably 
means a test for the E-Cat X.

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Axil Axil]

On Christmas last and just after, Rossi was very free with info on the
Xcat. Lately, he is tight lipped again about it. IMHO, Rossi was free
with technical info because of his excitement of discovery. But now
that the XCat will replace the low temperature wafers in the 1
Megawatt plant, he is back in secret mode. He has decided that the
quark is the only reactor module he will use in his family of products
and the only module that he will manufacture.

He is pressing to get the Quark technology ready for the 1 megawatt
reactor application. Any info that we get about the big industrial
reactor using non-quark wafers will be obsolete. That info will only
serve to assure investors that progress is being made. The discovery
of the quark will delay LENR commercialization by more than a year or
possibly much longer.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sure Rossi and IH have good ‘curmudgeon’ filters as this field is rift
> with such pests. They have been remarkably and admirably open to date and I
> see no reason for them to change that behavior. As they get closer to
> ‘success’ more caution not less is warranted. Of course caution is the bane
> of the world of social media where beneath every ‘sata bridge’ lie legions
> of trolls ready to reach out to pounce or rather slime.
>
> I think Rossi et al have plenty of cash at hand. Rossi is very adept of
> working in a very economical manner. It would seem that sufficient Italian
> bread crumbs that might lead those ‘skilled in the art’ to replicate have
> been and continue to be dropped by Rossi. One problem is that the bread
> crumbs are mostly gobbled up and regurgitated by quacks who are not ‘skilled
> in the art’ and angry about that fact.
>
>
>
> From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:32 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans' or
> negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I read
> the statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive
> climate for the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can
> hardly continue to send money into a total failure. They would have
> abandoned the test long time ago if it did not show indications of a
> possible good outcome.
>
>
>
> Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise
> that capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and
> distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up
> until they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they
> want to delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)
>
>
>
> I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would
> they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to
> communicate with the investors than by making general statements. Negative
> results would have been shared with major investors long time ago.
>
>
>
> I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a
> report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know
> the source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)
>
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
>
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others)
> speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat
> extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever
> tech they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social
> media caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans
> and groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not
> showing legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and
> stock-holders. In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with
> regard to breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors
> regardless of whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.
> Neither Rossi nor Darden are that naïve. Meow!
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

I am sure Rossi and IH have good ‘curmudgeon’ filters as this field is rift 
with such pests. They have been remarkably and admirably open to date and I see 
no reason for them to change that behavior. As they get closer to ‘success’ 
more caution not less is warranted. Of course caution is the bane of the world 
of social media where beneath every ‘sata bridge’ lie legions of trolls ready 
to reach out to pounce or rather slime.

I think Rossi et al have plenty of cash at hand. Rossi is very adept of working 
in a very economical manner. It would seem that sufficient Italian bread crumbs 
that might lead those ‘skilled in the art’ to replicate have been and continue 
to be dropped by Rossi. One problem is that the bread crumbs are mostly gobbled 
up and regurgitated by quacks who are not ‘skilled in the art’ and angry about 
that fact.

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans' or 
negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I read the 
statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive climate for 
the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can hardly continue to 
send money into a total failure. They would have abandoned the test long time 
ago if it did not show indications of a possible good outcome.

 

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise that 
capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and 
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up until 
they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they want to 
delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)   

 

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would 
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to communicate 
with the investors than by making general statements. Negative results would 
have been shared with major investors long time ago.

 

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a 
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know the 
source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)  




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> 
] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
ex

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans'
or negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I
read the statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive
climate for the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can
hardly continue to send money into a total failure. They would have
abandoned the test long time ago if it did not show indications of a
possible good outcome.

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise
that capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up
until they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they
want to delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to
communicate with the investors than by making general statements. Negative
results would have been shared with major investors long time ago.

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know
the source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others)
> speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat
> extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever
> tech they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social
> media caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans
> and groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not
> showing legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and
> stock-holders. In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with
> regard to breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors
> regardless of whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.
> Neither Rossi nor Darden are that naïve. Meow!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>
>
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
>
>
>
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
>
>
>
> March 10, 2016
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
> available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that
> demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we
> believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation
> and development.
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
> pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
> scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
> team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
> portfolio.
>
>
>
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in
> the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound
> experiments which we design, control and monitor.
>
>
>
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
> both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature
> proclamations in the LENR sector.
>
>
>
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society
> suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are
> stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are
> promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
> measurement.
>
>
>
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
> made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
> affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
> verified our results in repeated experiments.
>
>
>
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about
> the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet
> a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met
> with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie 

> Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for a 
> negative report on Rossi's one year test?

Yes

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
experiments which we design, control and monitor. 

 

Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. 
Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature 
proclamations in the LENR sector. 

 

Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society 
suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are stifled; 
likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are promoted and claims 
are made without rigorous verification and precise measurement.

 

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims made 
about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by 
Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our 
results in repeated experiments.

 

Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about the 
potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet a great 
deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met with viable, 
clean, safe and affordable solutions.

 

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Craig Haynie]

Reading between the lines... Does it sound like they're preparing us for
a negative report on Rossi's one year test?

Craig

On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 11:32 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
> 
> 
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
> 
> 
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
> 
> 
> March 10, 2016
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable
> energy available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a
> company that demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of
> Industrial Heat and we believe multiple technologies in this sector
> warrant further investigation and development.
> 
> 
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We
> are pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group
> of scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial
> Heat team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the
> technologies in our portfolio.
> 
> 
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor
> in the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived
> from sound experiments which we design, control and monitor. 
> 
> 
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn
> from both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of
> premature proclamations in the LENR sector. 
> 
> 
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe
> society suffers when technological advances and innovative
> experimentation are stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer
> when results are promoted and claims are made without rigorous
> verification and precise measurement.
> 
> 
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any
> claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied
> upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third
> parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments.
> 
> 
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited
> about the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than
> just hope, yet a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of
> today must be met with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
> 
> 

[Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Jed Rothwell]

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

March 10, 2016

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation
and development.

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
portfolio.

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in
the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound
experiments which we design, control and monitor.

Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature
proclamations in the LENR sector.

Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society
suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are
stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are
promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
measurement.

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
verified our results in repeated experiments.

Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about
the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet
a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met
with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.