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. > > >
