Nigel Appleton Member
  • Male
  • Member since Apr 2nd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Nigel Appleton

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)



    Yes I was wondering about that.


    Could the fact that the glowing alumina enclosed glowing resistive heaters make a difference to the apparent overall or band emissivity?

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Nigel - you're under the influence of the Planet Rossi propaganda machine. If possible, you need to relax and allow your perception to broaden to recieve additional information and other viewpoints. All IH investors are intentional professionals who know that they are doing. The bet on Rossi was very intentional and a long shot with everyone being fully aware of Rossi's history and reputation. Thank God for Tom Darden and the folks at Woodford for caring enought to put capital at risk with the goal of bringing LENR out of the dark ages and into a stage where we can figure out how to put it to work. We may be 2 years away or 5, 10 or 50 years too early but we are moving the ball down the field. Its time for all folks who really care about this sector to realize who is taking the risk, putting capital in the most of the right places and making progress. Rossi's ongoing deception and greed will no longer be the focus in the not too distant future. I hope that you're capable of grasping that possibility.


    Well, I agree with almost all of this. However, I keep a sufficiently open mind to not, as yet, condemn Rossi out of hand. There is simply insufficient reliable information. With all due respect, your own information sources and motives are completely unknown.


    However, I most certainly do entertain the possibility that Rossi is wrong, possibly even criminally so. The only thing certain about him is that he lacks judgement when dealing with other scientists and engineers who ask legitimate questions about his methods. In that respect, he is his own worst enemy.


    I have learnt not to rush to judgement on the basis of Internet discussions; but I note that your mind is made up already.


    ETA I have NEVER had a problem with those who invest in early-stage technology, and am a satisfied investor in Woodford funds

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Sifferkoll - You're moving even deeper into the weeds than Axil. How do you lose (did I get that write?) access to IP when you have a paid up license for $11.5M that includes derivative rights? Maybe you should stick with oil and gas and blogging snifferswill. Nobody at IH is scared of anything from Rossi or his malviolent posse. With all of the fervor, fury and toil coming out of your kind, curious minds have to wonder if the opposite is true? Here's an anticipatory nugget for you - the return volley is reverberate throughtout Planet Rossi.


    Now, now, Dewey.


    No need to go overboard with scattering "malviolent" mis-spellings "throughtout" your posts, however much they have "reverberate" with you!

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote

    And relevant to this is Dewey's statements about the warnings about Rossi from Darden to investors which Dewey felt were over the top.Woodford would I guess have invested on assurance from the Lugano and other test reports. They had poor technical advice, if Lugano results were billed as positive.


    I really doubt they care that much. The Woodford Funds response to queries is that they didn't invest on the basis of a single technology, but on a portfolio of potentially successful ideas.
    I think we can be sure that the scenario of complete failure of IH was factored into the decision

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote

    axil wrote:IH was well into the year long test when the Lugano demo occurred.
    Axil,The Lugano test took place in March 2014. The 1MW 1 year test began Feb. 2015 and ended Feb 2016.So just to be clear...Lugano ended well before the 1 year test began.


    This is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation that characterises so much of the discussions round LENR.


    In this case the original false assertion was corrected. That is not always the case.

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote

    Nigel Appleton wrote:Nor can I see why the writer should have checked with Mats before posting.
    I believe the writer obtained the information from Mats. Perhaps the information was provided together with a request for confidentiality.


    I don't see why you think my comment was "heated"? - I was simply expressing that I saw no reason. Perhaps there was a reason.
    Mats didn't actually say that the writer obtained the info from him, or that he had imposed confidentiality, so we don't know that either.


    And if Mats had indeed imposed confidentiality, then I would still wonder why.


    What we DO know about LENR and its supporters and detractors -


    Whatever is presented as fact should be treated as factoid or unsupported assertion unless and until there is independent supporting evidence.
    Whatever is presented as opinion should be regarded as biased unless there is evidence otherwise.


    Anyone wanting to get at the TruthTM will have to be rigorously forensic in his or her approach.

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote

    Snobben alan3 days agoTom Darden has visited the Lugano Scientists in Sweden not long ago, and the information he gave them made them very confused and now they don't know what to belive. Tom Darden told them some thing like "there is no production" This is information that i got after a brief talk to Mats Lewan on the phone, I don't know if Darden meant that ther never was any production in the factory ore not? This is of course information that Mats Lewan got from the Swedish scientists. I don't know how much more information Mats Lewan got. But i know that all involved parts feel very unsure right now. I know that for just a couple of months ago the sweds didn't missbelive anything. So very bad information has been deliverd...1 ReplyMats Lewan 3 days agoI can confirm what 'Snobben' writes and I also have written evidence (although I would have liked Snobben to check with me first, before spreading this info!).


    I cannot quite get my head around the proposition that Mr Darden would fly around the world spreading deliberate falsehoods; but I can't see what he might have told that group that they should not have known already - viz that severe and genuine doubts have been raised over their results as well as over everything else Rossi has been involved in.


    Nor can I see why the writer should have checked with Mats before posting.

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote

    Frank - I'm going to try and do a better job at being nice to you because you need some help. Where do you get that the ERV is in the court docket? I can share that IH has no obligation to put it there. In fact, it is not even marked as a confidential document by Penon / Rossi which is interesting in and of itself. If a jury seating becomes necessary, many matters in this litigation will be decided long before a jury is even contemplated.


    Frank didn't actually assert that it was in the docket. Basically, he was asking you if you knew enough to confirm whether it was or not.


    That's all


    I enjoy your posts, by the way. Not that I have a clue WHY you post them.

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Zuffhaus

    In the lawsuit, Rossi asserts that he transferred the technology to IH, that IH based there on successfully and independently replicated the ecat. He shares some details around this. Nothing of this has to be true of course. IH certainly don't agree, according to IH the ecat has never been validated. I can't see the point in assuming a scenario (ecat works but the technology not transferred) that both parties involved agree is not the case


    If it's the case that IH never saw evidence of LENR producing excess heat, why on earth did they pay the the first lot of money?


    If they thought they did, then changed their minds, will they be countersuing to get their money back?

  • me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

    Oh, I can see governments making it illegal for individuals to own and operate small static LENR plant; and to limit their operation to registered/inspected/audited sites producing minima of MW.


    Vehicles carrying their own LENR power source could easily be taxed, at a rate replacing the tax revenue otherwise lost. Harder but not impossible to tax those who connect their LENR cars to power their homes.


    That won't stop fossil-fuel-dependent economies collapsing, of course. The individuals with oil-derived wealth will decamp with the money and leave poverty, anarchy, and violent chaos behind.


    If LENR is a realistic proposition, then there may be just enough time to manage a transition - but it will be a damned close-run thing, and I for one have little confidence in the competence or will of most governments to manage to zip their trousers up, let alone anything complex.

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    I've invented another scenario


    IH and Cherokee know that Rossi's thing actually does work


    However, there is enough laxity and ambiguity in the ERV report to allow a prima facie case for it NOT working


    Much doubt is cast on Rossi and LENR. Shady people make many unsubstantiated, vague allegations - nothing very specific for which they might be later held to account.


    At some point, Cherokee et al find, surprise surprise, they need more money


    So they go through a fund-raising exercise. Nothing unusual about that. Happens all the time


    With all the doubt, shares go cheaply. Many crocodile tears from the Cherokees while they and their friends "reluctantly" pour money in.


    Then, IH settles with Rossi, reluctantly admitting that they were wrong, and it DOES work


    The value of Cherokee, IH et al shoots up - the license becomes a very valuable asset. The $89 million for Rossi, and the legal fees, are small beer


    Everybody happy

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    At one time, Rossi claimed that 3 more 1 MW ecat plants had been ordered by the Mystery Customer, and that delivery would be in 180 days or so.


    I have not seen that Rossi has walked back that claim


    IF that is true, then at least one organisation is convinced by actual demonstration that they can save considerable amounts on their energy bills (or have allowed themselves to be utterly conned). Presumably, they will not pay the full cost of the plant until installed and working to specification


    If that Mystery Customer can be persuaded (or ordered by a Court) to reveal themselves and what they did/are going to do with all that steam, and testify as to savings, that would be more convincing to a jury than any amount of complex technical argument.

  • me356: Reactor parameters [part 2]

    Please, me356, carry on just as you wish.


    I'm sure you understand the feelings of all the LENR supporters here - mostly of frustration that they cannot get to know more about the nuts and bolts of successful methods; that real doubt can be cast on all demonstrations so far; and that acceptance of LENR as a real phenomenon is stalled yet again, this time by the antics of Industrial Heat and/or Rossi.


    I personally would rather you worked until you were sure that you and your equipment are safe, and that your results can be reliably replicated.


    You probably already have this covered, but may I urge you to be sure that your experimental records are well-kept, with duplicates in a safe place?