Yes, Bob I think business climate is important. I have not been so impressed by Swedish business climate in the past, but it has some advantages to the US systems particularly the government and the universities are only part of the equation. The Royal academy of science and similar organization has a say as well. They are mostly made up of the private industry. My information is 30 years old so . . .
Jed, you think you have the answer. If you gave the background I might see the same , but as you just continue to say the same sure thing without any support it sounds really weak. That IH should pay if the result was positive is not absolutely true. Many reasons has been brought up here and on other blogs why that is not so sure. To me there is other evidence that 'proves' the opposite; i.e. when Rossi has received $10M plus and knows he is a scammer why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life in peace. No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork. 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 Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous >> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO. When this came out IH got upset I >> would imagine. They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for >> only the E-Cat IP license. And that is where it stands now. >> > > As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very > clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not > produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess > heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know. > > Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has > clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no > heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a > large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides > sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional > motivation for a lawsuit. > > Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think > I.H. is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are > wrong about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you > should at least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off > inventing imaginary reasons for the dispute. > > If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good > reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just > making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and > sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more > than enough grounds for a lawsuit. > > There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi > refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by > I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about > I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an > absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work. > There is no excess heat. > > If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to > pay the $89 million. > > - Jed > >
