Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: Didn’t everyone expect that it had to magically appear just in time to be > released on April 1. > > > > It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it. >
As far as I can tell, they have already repudiated it in their March 10 statement: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741 ". . . Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. . . . 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. . . ." Rossi is the only person in their portfolio who has made statements. His statements have been positive most of the time. They talk about "embracing failure." What can that mean other than "it does not work"? It goes against their interests to say it did not work. That will hurt their credibility. People will say their judgement was poor, funding an experiment that did not work. I cannot see why they would claim it failed when it really worked. Some people have speculated that they are trying to hide a success. In other words, I.H. wants to keep the success a secret, to avoid competition. I don't get that. If they want to keep it secret, they can just keep it secret. There is no need to lie about it. Suppose it actually works, yet for some reason they implied it did not work in their March 10 statement. The report will soon circulate proving that they are liars. What would be the point of that? Why buy ~20 days of credibility knowing that you will soon be proved a liar? - Jed
