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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peter Gluck <[email protected]> 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
>
