Hi Bob, My understanding of the details around that email about the positive test is vague. In your quote from Mats Lewans, he is is quoting Rossi, whose testimony I do not at all take at face value or assume to be accurate. What I do know is that at one point early on IH thought they had replicated Rossi's technology. That early positive replication was later called into question by at least two events later in the timeline:
- IH claim to have gotten a significant COP using Rossi's methods but without any fuel in the reactor. - IH claim that as they tightened up their testing after that initial period, they no longer saw evidence of excess heat. There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere, including the fact that they began to diversify their portfolio, essentially demonstrating in monetary terms that they didn't want to put all of their bets on Rossi. (That was Woodford's money, by the way, not IH's, and they were and are responsible to Woodford for how they spend it, at the risk of incurring a lawsuit to have it clawed back if they improperly enrich themselves.) Now, what do we learn about Rossi from the court docket? Too many things to be worth mentioning at this point, at the risk of forever plowing over old ground. Enough, though, for anyone who has followed the details, even those who are strong supporters of Rossi, to no longer take at face value what he says. Eric On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I would agree that the court documents were significant. I particularly > thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of > fuel and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture , > known by only 4 individuals, was deterministic. > > > > From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted: > > > > “During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made > public, where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process > successfully. We also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at > such replications. Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of > those replications, after which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat, > even before the [one-year 1MW] test started in Doral [Miami], at a time > when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.” > > > > I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true. > > > > Bob Cook > > *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an > extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile > excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of > Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the > contents of the lawsuit docket. No need to postulate the eating of crow, > except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome > of the lawsuit. Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any > particular outcome. > > > > So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more > divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in > their impressions. > > > > Regards, > > Eric > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < > bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud > etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their > anti-Rossi claque. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > > > *From: *Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' > > > > > > This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now > (again), if it hasn't. > > > > > > Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority > <https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/> > > > > > > The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply > could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at > least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the > case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would > have been liable for. > > > > Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he > valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to > 'fold' and walk away. > > > > > > Is that it, or close enuff..? > > > > > > > > > > > > >
