BizJournal Article: Industrial Heat Continues to Invest in “About Six” LENR Projects Worldwide

A Feb 1, 2017 article in the Triangle Business Journal writes about how Industrial Heat is continuing to invest in LENR technologies, despite the ongoing lawsuit with Rossi/Leonardo and disagreements about the E-Cat.

The article by Lauren Ohnesorge, who talks with IH chairman Tom Darden, is here: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2017/02/01/despite-lawsuit-industrial-heat-continues-mission.html

An excerpt:

Rossi’s research was just one of a dozen avenues Industrial Heat was exploring. Of those 12, Industrial Heat has halted or slowed funding on about half, he says, adding that the management team feels “increasingly good” about the remaining avenues. “Our triaging process is working pretty well to figure out which ones we want to continue to support and which ones we don’t.”

  • cashmemorz

    Most important, do any of those technologies have a firm theory to support it. If not, no amount of triaging is worth anything. Without the underpinning of a solid theory even the best “sounding” tech is worth next to nothing. Next to nothing meaning it “might” pan out by luck and risk involved. Those with lots of money are always able to risk unproven investments. LENR is real but not developed enough to know the actual risk. That puts it in the high risk area for all intents and purposes. IH is an investment firm and puts out “news” to get more investors to risk their money.

    • cashmemorz

      The most important point in this theory or just working device debate is, would you bother with something that is unknown. A bicycle is easy tech that works by intuition. LENR is at the complete other end of that spectrum. I couldn’t run one on my own if you paid me big bucks. Not that I would have any inclination anyways. For that reason any one who will use it in the near future will do so on a very big need to basis. This will be decided on risk, of it being down for any reason versus the short term savings. Someone who has to compete in any way that will save money, whether it be in energy or whatever else to beat the competition. Say a car manufacturer is having a herd time in the market place like Volkwahg=gen with their cutback in deisel vehicles in North America. I don’t know if this applies to them in particular, it is just a possiblity as an example. If LENR is able to help them produce their vehicles so cheaply that they can afford to put htaextra savings into femmision controls that work full time then that is one example of what I mean by a big need to basis.
      Same for some poor countrytwhose people have no choice but to risk the unknowns in LENR to just try it and see. On average it may be so low cost overall that it is worth the risks.

      Where is see the doubts that may hold back use are those who would be tempted to use it, but after weighing the pros and cons would rather wait it out untill the depenability is more favourable.

      At this time most would rather be safe then sorry.

  • cashmemorz

    Most important, do any of those technologies have a firm theory to support it. If not, no amount of triaging is worth anything. Without the underpinning of a solid theory even the best “sounding” tech is worth next to nothing. Next to nothing meaning it “might” pan out by luck and risk involved. Those with lots of money are always able to risk unproven investments. LENR is real but not developed enough to know the actual risk. That puts it in the high risk area for all intents and purposes. IH is an investment firm and puts out “news” to get more investors to risk their money.

    • roseland67

      Cash,

      Gonna have to disagree with you:
      IF, my experiences, experiments and observations are accurately measured & replicable by anyone then I do not need a theory.
      The “theory” can be researched and developed to fit the results of the experiments above.

      • cashmemorz

        Sorry, that is exactly, NOT how proper science is done. That is how religion works. One does not start with what one assumes is experimentally or any other means that “appear” to work, then fit a theory around it. Experiments are designed always with accurate measurements, to allow the exposure of flaws in the hypothesis towards a theory. When many such experiments find no flaws in the proposed process, only then can the process be called a theory. Accurate measurements, replication and observations are the minutae of how one does the work and is used in all serious work. That minutae has to be used inside the proper sequence of steps that define the scientific, experimental process which sequence consists of: “informed speculation”, then a “working hypothesis”, “experiment(s) with falsification”, and then, if the fasification step allows it, “the theory” comes out on its own, no need to force fit anything. A theory is the best explanation of what is happening that is available under the scientific process. No fitting around to suit ones purpose as in religion. If one does not need a theory then one is not scientifically grounded. Without science anything goes, fitting or anything unfit.

        • roseland67

          I disagree

          Very few, if any, experimenters, actually think about theory before they “try”.
          THey try and fail countless times, but occasionally they suceed, only then after careful measurement, replication and exposure to others does a theory begins to take shape.
          “How is this possible, and why did it happen”.
          Scientists then can evaluate the results, verify replication and try to understand the how and why, then inevitably, improve upon the results.
          Only theoretical physicists do “thought experiments” based on potential theories.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yep.
            If an easily applicable theory exists, it may be used to design the experiment, if doing so saves time or money. But often it’s not the case.

        • Brent Buckner

          High temperature superconductors were commercially viable as a technology without a firm theory to support them.

        • This is how formal, institutional science works, not technological progress. Our Sun was producing heat reliably long before anyone understood nuclear fusion. And there are still discussions and disagreements in New Scientist magazine about why a bicycle works. But that doesn’t mean you can’t ride one now.

    • cashmemorz

      The most important point in this theory or just working device debate is, would you bother with something that is unknown. A bicycle is easy tech that works by intuition. LENR is at the complete other end of that spectrum. I couldn’t run one on my own if you paid me big bucks. Not that I would have any inclination anyways. For that reason any one who will use it in the near future will do so on a very big need to basis. This will be decided on risk, of it being down for any reason versus the short term savings. Someone who has to compete in any way that will save money, whether it be in energy or whatever else to beat the competition. Say a car manufacturer is having a hard time in the market place like Volkwagen with their cutback in diesel vehicles in North America. I don’t know if this applies to them in particular, it is just a possibility as an example. If LENR is able to help them produce their vehicles so cheaply that they can afford to put the extra savings into emission controls that work full time then that is one example of what I mean by a big need to basis.
      Same for some poor country whose people have no choice but to risk the unknowns in LENR to just try it and see if it will improve their lives. On average it may be so low cost overall that it is worth the risks.

      Where I see the doubts that may hold back use are those who would be tempted to use it, but after weighing the pros and cons would rather wait it out until the dependability is more . And that favorability will most certainly be decided by dependability based on knowing its inner workings according to its theory.

      At this time most would rather be safe then sorry.

      The power from the grid is getting expensive. At some point the expense will drive some to switch to LENR or whatever else makes sense. Currently its solar-voltaics and sometimes wind power. The time for LENR is approaching. The biggest things holding it back is high enough COP, certainty it will work about as dependably as the grid, and the cost of procurement long term costs and the like. WIthout a certain high degree of dependability the other factors are secondary. That is exactly what I am looking at if I were to get a LENR device. How about each of the bloggers?

      Edit: Further to what may get in the way of LENR usage, is insurance. Insurance companies are known to get fearful of anything unknown. That is why thy use actuaries to get a defined risk factor for whatever they insure. LENR will get a low rating for many reasons. If one were to get a LENR device in the house the first thing is the many unknowns related to its, not just use, but just having the thing in your house in the first place. For the insurance companies it is better to have the devil they know than the devil they know nothing about. For that reason insurers will allow kerosene heaters in the house despite yearly deaths because or their usage. Same for any known dangerous tech short of nuclear. And LENR has that “N” word right in the middle. To try and get around that point by renaming it is like hiding a big needle in a very small haystack. They will research and will be stunned by the number of theories that use allusions of nuclear incorporated in most of them. The fact that there is no one clear theory that does not have nuclear allusions in it will be enough to deny coverage. The unknown risk is the same as too high a risk.

  • sam

    Rossi claims to have invented a device called the “Energy Catalyzer,” or “E-Cat,” a black box he says generates a cheaper, greener energy source in the form of a low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR). He accused Darden and others of breaching a licensing contract for his technology. In his lawsuit, he said they owe up $89 million in licensing fees. Darden, however, has maintained Rossi’s technology never worked as promised. And the situation continues to play out in court.

    Darden says he’s moved on to other possibilities when it comes to LENR technologies. Rossi’s research was just one of a dozen avenues Industrial Heat was exploring. Of those 12, Industrial Heat has halted or slowed funding on about half, he says, adding that the management team feels “increasingly good” about the remaining avenues. “Our triaging process is working pretty well to figure out which ones we want to continue to support and which ones we don’t.”

    Interesting that Darden says the Ecat did not work as promised but does not say it did not work.

    Does anyone know who the other Lenr
    technologies T.D is investing in?

  • sam

    Rossi claims to have invented a device called the “Energy Catalyzer,” or “E-Cat,” a black box he says generates a cheaper, greener energy source in the form of a low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR). He accused Darden and others of breaching a licensing contract for his technology. In his lawsuit, he said they owe up $89 million in licensing fees. Darden, however, has maintained Rossi’s technology never worked as promised. And the situation continues to play out in court.

    Darden says he’s moved on to other possibilities when it comes to LENR technologies. Rossi’s research was just one of a dozen avenues Industrial Heat was exploring. Of those 12, Industrial Heat has halted or slowed funding on about half, he says, adding that the management team feels “increasingly good” about the remaining avenues. “Our triaging process is working pretty well to figure out which ones we want to continue to support and which ones we don’t.”

    Interesting that Darden says the Ecat did not work as promised but does not say it did not work.

    Does anyone know who the other Lenr
    technologies T.D is investing in?

    Anyone looking for a job.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/jobs/details/109592?ana=e_ae_jobs&u=XbGmH9k4DwgDudhZipKrYA0f726663&t=1486162396&j=77281821

  • cashmemorz

    Sorry, that is exactly, NOT how proper science is done. That is how religion works. One does not start with what one assumes is experimentally or any other means that “appear” to work, then fit a theory around it. Experiments are designed always with accurate measurements, to allow the exposure of flaws in the hypothesis towards a theory. When many such experiments find no flaws in the proposed process, only then can the process be called a theory. Accurate measurements, replication and observations are the minutae of how one does the work and is used in all serious work. That minutae has to be used inside the proper sequence of steps that define the scientific, experimental process which sequence consists of: “informed speculation”, then a “working hypothesis”, “experiment(s) with falsification”, and then, if the fasification step allows it, “the theory” comes out on its own, no need to force fit anything. A theory is the best explanation of what is happening that is available under the scientific process. No fitting around to suit ones purpose as in religion. If one does not need a theory then one is not scientifically grounded. Without science anything goes, fitting or anything unfit.

    • Brent Buckner

      High temperature superconductors were commercially viable as a technology without a firm theory to support them.

    • This is how formal, institutional science works, not technological progress. Our Sun was producing heat reliably long before anyone understood nuclear fusion. And there are still discussions and disagreements in New Scientist magazine about why a bicycle works. But that doesn’t mean you can’t ride one now.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yep.
    If an easily applicable theory exists, it may be used to design the experiment, if doing so saves time or money. But often it’s not the case.

  • Achi

    Get ready for some new blood. LENR is now trending on The_Donald on reddit. A lot of people are going to be red pilled all at once. Cold fusion was mentioned in wikileaks. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1252928_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-postopec-age-cold.html

  • Achi

    Get ready for some new blood. LENR is now trending on The_Donald on reddit. A lot of people are going to be red pilled all at once. Cold fusion was mentioned in wikileaks. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1252928_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-postopec-age-cold.html

    • bachcole

      What does “red pilled” mean? And “pilled” isn’t even a word.

      • Achi

        It doesn’t matter. The post died in the midway before it could really blow up. Probably just a few hundred gained knowledge of LENR and the suppression being imposed on it by the scientific community.

        Red pilled is Internet slang for having your eyes opened to the greater world around you. It is a concept from The Matrix movie where the MC took a red pill.

        The seed is still there though. I could definitely shine a HUGE positive spotlight on the field at any time if there comes a point when we want it.

  • bachcole

    Actually, I.H. investing in six other LENR projects tells me that they are lying about Rossi. Why would they bother investing in some other LENR projects if they already were severely disappointed in someone who had such good testimonials as Rossi? If it were me that got burned, I wouldn’t want to even hear about LENR again.

    • Maybe they are simply aware that LENR is a scientific reality, with huge pile of evidences.
      I believed Defkalion, who screwed us, then I defended Rossi, but anyway I’ve never been screwed by Miles, Storms, Srinivasan, Bockris, Fleischmann, McKubre, Takahashi and Iwamura, Biberian…
      there is something, but what?

      It seems they are funding the proof of something, and the study of what.

  • Achi

    It doesn’t matter. The post died in the midway before it could really blow up. Probably just a few hundred gained knowledge of LENR and the suppression being imposed on it by the scientific community.

    Red pilled is Internet slang for having your eyes opened to the greater world around you. It is a concept from The Matrix movie where the MC took a red pill.

    The seed is still there though. I could definitely shine a HUGE positive spotlight on the field at any time if there comes a point when we want it.

  • Maybe they are simply aware that LENR is a scientific reality, with huge pile of evidences.
    I believed Defkalion, who screwed us, then I defended Rossi, but anyway I’ve never been screwed by Miles, Storms, Srinivasan, Bockris, Fleischmann, McKubre, Takahashi and Iwamura, Biberian…
    there is something, but what?

    It seems they are funding the proof of something, and the study of what.