Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned > out the way it has. >
I.H. hates it way more than I do! I feel terrible for them. Fortunately, it seems they intend to stay in the field and continue funding other researchers. Thank goodness! > This is not what I would have ever expected a year ago. It is a sad time > LENR. > Yes. On a few occasions over the last year I heard from I.H. and from others that the test was not going well. No details -- just that they disagreed with Rossi's analysis. I hoped that I.H. and Rossi would get together and iron out their disagreements. I hoped there would be a positive final report. That's why I agreed to take part in Mats Lewan's symposium, which was predicated on a positive report. I would not have agreed if I had known the outcome. Mats can tell you I was worried about it, but I hoped things would turn out okay, and I was working on the presentation. Then on March 10 I.H. issued the press release, and I knew they & Rossi had not reconciled. I thought "it's over now." I spent a few weeks trying to convince Mats to cancel the symposium, which he finally did when it become apparent Rossi would not release the report. The lawsuit came as a complete surprise to me. As I said -- over and over -- I know several skilled people who are working with I.H., and who knows what Rossi has done. They agree with me that I.H. must be technically right. There is no comparing the two. > We need not wait long. It will be interesting to see IH's response to the > lawsuit. > I hope we do see it. But we may not. They might settle out of court. A lot of money is at stake. If their lawyers advise them to settle, they should. The rest of us will never know what happened. Also, I gather it is easy to get an extension to that deadline. The judge can grant one, or if the two parties agree they get one. It might drag on for years. - Jed
