Craig Haynie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. However, > it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What about all the > previous tests, going back to 2012? > In my opinion some of these tests may have shown excess heat. It is difficult to judge. In this discussion I am only talking about the 1 MW reactor, and the only data I have is from Rossi, not I.H. I believe I.H. may have additional data, but I know nothing about it. In the motion to dismiss they refer to "reactors" (plural). I have no knowledge of other reactors. So my comments are limited to this one reactor and this year-long test. > Why raise money at all, if they weren't certain? > To find out, I suppose. You have to do tests to become certain. You don't get certain first. If you did, there would be no point to doing tests. You have to take chances and risk money in business. Perhaps, in retrospect, this was too risky and they did not do enough due diligence. I know nothing about what transpired between Rossi and I.H. before this test, and nothing about their business arrangements other than what was revealed in the lawsuit, so I cannot judge. > Isn't that a type of fraud? > On Rossi side, yes. I do not see how anyone can accuse I.H. of fraud for making an $11 million mistake. Who are they defrauding? Themselves? > Why sign the patent applications? > I know nothing about patent applications. But I have heard that people sometimes submit patents for inventions that turn out to be mistakes. They later let the patent applications lapse. Why do you think that would be fraudulent? I suppose it would be expensive. > Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives Rossi's guy complete control > over the final test? > It seems like a stupid agreement in retrospect. Again, this is a mistake, not fraud. > Why hire Rossi's other guy to observe this test? What was their role in > the Lugano test? > No idea. I have not discussed this with anyone. > Didn't they build the reactor for that? > I think the Lugano report says they did build the reactor. > For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and > if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit together > for me. > I do not see how you can expect pieces to fit into place unless you are given access to the contracts, email, notes from meetings and so on. You have no knowledge of what went on between I.H. and Rossi. I have no knowledge either, so I do not have a clue about any of this. The only thing I know about is the calorimetry in the 1 MW year-long test. I know about this because I have some sample data and information on the configuration. People who do not have this information cannot judge the test. Regarding the test, yhe only thing you have to go on are a few details provided by Rossi in his interview with Lewan. Remarkably round numbers. One of these details should set off alarm bells is that he did not allow the I.H. expert into the customer site, even though the expert insisted on that. You can do a little more Google homework and you will soon discover that the customer is a fiction. He has done no business, paid no taxes, and has no equipment (nothing that has been inspected). So the whole thing is a scam, and there could not be 1 MW of process heat. I do not see how anyone can reach a different conclusion. > I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm happy waiting for > it. > I hope more information will be released, but if the case is settled out of court it may never be released. - Jed
