Posts by Nigel Appleton

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I believe there are exceptions such as refusing inventions claiming perpetual motion, and from what I read, refusing inventions of cold fusion as a result of a letter to the Patent Office from DOE.

It is not clear if the lattter restriction has been eased recently.

It has been said patents are worthless until they have been tested in court.

Not quite true. Patents can have a valuable effect of deterring one's competitors from copying your invention lest they be sued for infringement and damages. Not everyone wants to risk the costs involved in using lawyers, particularly if buying a license to the patent is possible

Quote from SSC

I find that your questions are somewhat absurd .... do you really think that if Cherokee had built commercial buildings on polluted land it would be less serious than if they had built homes? Business buildings are not frequented by humans? And it make no sense proving that Cherokee has built the buildings in Lot 1. That land was bought by Cherokee: who do you ever think could build on that?!

Anyway, you can take a look at this document (LINK) where you read the following:

2003 – 2004 Cherokee Simeon introduces housing or big box retail for Lot 2 and Lot 3

• Lot 2 10 acres and Lot 3 58 acres = 68 acres

• Lot 2, 10 acres previously named as part of 27 acre biotech park moved to residential/big box retail plan

o 2003 City or Richmond Redevelopment Agency supported Cherokee-Simeon Ventures’ housing or big box retail proposal

And you can read this article where they talk about community activist protests about cases of illness and death caused by toxic substances.

http://eastshorepark.org/articles%28PDF%29/zeneca.pdf

But in any case I find quite useless to answer you. On a polluted land, nothing should be built, not even a garage, because any activity involves the presence of people who are potentially at risk. If for a fortunate case none of the people who passed through one of the Lot of Cherokee died of cancer, then does this mean that Cherokee made a good thing when they built without cleaning up?

Your reasoning are quite astonishing. There is an Order and there is a settlement agreement. These documents prove that Cherokee did not perform the planned remediation. And there are two documents that show that they built on Lot 1 when the remediation wasn't finished. Whatever they built, they should not have done it before they had clean up the ground. It seems clear to me, isn't it?

Display More

Please, please, show the evidence that anyone actually built anything on this land.

Thank you

Quote from SSC

They received funds to clean-up the area and did not do it! There would not have been the need for a Order if they had done their job regularly, don't you think?

Those are not a false claim. Instead of accusing me of lying you might dedicate yourself to some research on the internet.

Here's how things are.

Cherokee-Zeneca had already started redevelopment in Northern Lot 1 before California's DTSC intervened with two orders: Order n.1 Docket n.04/05-006 date of issue February 8, 2005 (which I have already published) and Order n.2 Docket n. IS / E-RAO 06/07-005 date of issue September 15, 2006.

From the map attached to the first order of 2005, called "Exhibit D - Area to be fenced", we can see that in Northern Lot 1 there are three buildings:

Site Map

As a further proof of the existence of the buildings built by Cherokee, you can also consult the written report from Erler & Kalinowski consultants dated July 2007, which on page 22 shows Lot 1 with the three built areas. This is the link to the report and below is an enlargement of that map:

http://rfs-env.berkeley.edu/do…dArsenic7_23_2007_EKI.pdf

Northern lot 1 -

In 2009, Cherokee-Zeneca signed a settlement agreement with California DTSC, which obliged them to pay and clean up but did not release them from their responsibilities. The document is as follows:

https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressR…enecaConsentAgreement.pdf

Although you read only the name of Zeneca Inc, you have to remember that Zeneca has sold the lots to Cherokee and therefore according to the CERCLA law, Cherokee is liable as Zeneca. About CERCLA:

"Also known as "Superfund", CERCLA is aimed at cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, and prevent contamination of future sites by assigning liability to parties involved. The liability requires the parties to pay for the clean up of the sites. A part of Environmental Law.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)

§107(a) lays out the responsible parties and in doing so establishes expansive liability.

1) Current Owners / Operator. Although this excludes property acquired through foreclosure or a security interest, this will still include current owners even if they made no contribution to the hazardous release.

2) Past Owner / Operator at time the pollution occurred."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/we…_and_liability_act_cercla)

After the 2009 Consent Agreement, Cherokee-Zeneca demolished the buildings, and this is the reason why they are no longer on the Richmond landfill map or on Google images today. In fact, in this document (Assessor's map), which is today's cadastral map, buildings no longer exist.

Assessor's map -

From this photo taken by Google, however, you can see the clearer strips in the ground that most probably were the points where the foundations of the three buildings were:

Ground zero - LINK 4

So that's how it went: having started the redevelopment before cleaning up the area, Cherokee was subjected to an Order and the three buildings in Lot1 were demolished ..... so now there are no traces of the buildings!

Display More

So - no objective evidence that there were ever houses on the site (your "most probably" doesn't qualify). In fact, as far as I can ascertain, that area is in an industrial area, and was never zoned for housing. Furthermore there is no mention of buildings, let alone houses, in the documentation.

You are letting your obsession with "proving" that Cherokee are villainous overcome whatever capacity you may have for sober and objective judgement

Quote from Jimmy

Yeah, the PDF has nothing that hasn't already been discussed here. Is it such a big surprise that they are liable for clean-up when they bought the site? I guess UC Berkeley are bad guys too right, since they are in the same situation?

You and ele must spend too much time together, your tricks of linking to long-winded documents with nothing in them and trying to add innuendo are transparent and boring. I'm just interested in the facts, which are very easy for anyone to find with Google. The fact is that there were never any houses built there leading to illness, which is what both you and ele claimed.

So, would you like to retract your false claim, or leave it hanging around here as a testament to your willingness to lie in your unquestioning support of Rossi?

Yeah, I've been wondering for a while why some people persist with this claim of housing built on contaminated land. The fact is that there are no houses there, so persisting with this claim makes the claimer a liar, no bones about it.

Quote from Forty-Two

"Voluntary astroturfing" - aren't this two words kind of contradicting?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Can't see how astroturfing would be anything but voluntary. Perhaps Alan meant "unpaid"

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. Not as far as I know. McKubre retired. Nearly all the researchers I know are retired or dead. There is practically no research going on, never mind advances.

Still, the proof that McKubre cites in the paper is as good today as it was when the experiments were done. Scientifically proven facts do not have a shelf life.

How would you go about reviving research into what could be be a very important technology, given the apparently ample evidence from reputable teams and individuals that excess heat can be obtained without irradiating everything close to the reactor? (and without the involvement of known scammers)

Quote from JedRothwell

That may be true of Rossi's version of LENR, but it does not apply to what Fleischmann and Pons discovered. That has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Thanks, Jed.

That McKubre review was published in 2009. Have there, in your view, been significant advances since? I recognise, of course, that there would be an understandable tendency to keep any such under wraps for as long as possible and for damn good reasons. Nevertheless, one would like to think that good, careful science and engineering were taking this forward.

LENR now shares the same space in my mind as the Philosopher's Stone, Bigfoot, and the IC engine that runs on water. Phantasmagoria, followed by dedicated deniers of reality, but which fade and vanish when solid evidence is demanded.

That's a bit silly. If Rossi's technology actually did work, why would IH break a contract that, if in force, would net them billions?

The courts would absolutely slay them with damages and penalties.

In my experience, businessfolk (even VCs!) are not generally that devious. Greedy, yes, often: but openly so, and they stick to contracts because failing to do so costs them bigly in money and reputation.

Trump has a history of not sticking to contracts and stiffing his suppliers. Now he can get no credit, even lawyers don't want to deal with him, And if does buy any goods or services, you can bet your boots he pays top dollar, because the risks of dealing with him are priced in. So it goes for people who won't honour contracts.

As I understand it, IH does not have a world-wide license to Rossi's "IP". I wonder why he is not selling his "technology" elsewhere. If it all works as claimed, $100 million would be chump change by now

I must say that if Judge Altonaga authored Doc 303, it shows that there are no flies on that lady, and that she has a firm grasp of the essentials of the case. In particular, she will have no truck with any argument that it matters not if the ecats don't work and that it's all about the letter of the agreements. If the ecats don't work, IH owe Rossi nothing.

And wouldn't I just love for her to order Rossi to produce a working ecat to avoid criminal prosecution. (Yes, I know it won't happen, but a man can dream...)

Quote from Wyttenbach

Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.

That's not true.you know. The law allows for the instance where a deceived party does not realise the deceit for some time after the event. The case books are full of such cases. Just consider a number of corporate acquisitions, where despite due diligence the acquired company is later found to have deceived the acquirer. Getting away with something for a while does not mean you can claim innocence.

Quote from joshg

Mike, thank you for e-mailing me your story.

Everyone else: Mike has a fascinating and quite relevant story to tell about his close-up eyewitness account and personal involvement with Gerald Schaflander's Consumer's Solar Electric Power Corporation. In the 1980s, Schaflander developed a cheap way of creating hydrogen-based fuel that could be used in easily modified gasoline engines. But he was crushed by allegations of fraud. Apparently, though, his invention was later validated. For anyone naive enough to think that energy interests couldn't care less about LENR at this stage and who are dismissive of so-called conspiracy theories, Mike offers an eye-opening tale. You can read his "not just another conspiracy theory" here at ECW.

That led me down quite an interesting trail, through ammonia storage in salt pellets (I didn't realise that ammonia can be used as a fuel in IC engines!) to what seems to be a pretty good new method (validated and now being used on 55 London buses) for reducing NOx emissions from diesel engines.

http://www.amminex.com/news.as…ewsId=27&M=NewsV2&PID=850

Apposite because there's been (rightly) a deal of fuss recently in UK about NOx emissions from diesels. Perhaps I won't have to feel guilty about driving my 3-litre V6 diesel for much longer - the system can be fitted to cars, apparently

Yes new evidence can be introduced after discovery. How could it be otherwise?

Quote from IH Fanboy

@sigmoidal

We need the test data and reports. The emails indicate some tests were producing high COPs. You assume it is due to a thermal camera issue. Para disagrees with you. The emails do talk of Vaughn trying water calorimetry with >1 COP. I'm sure Dameron has a significant amount of test data, engineering notebooks, etc. wouldn't you think? You all here have assumed for some time now that the COP 9 tests were invalid, but there is no evidence on the record that refutes or withdraws those tests. The fact that Dameron was still testing the Dameron/Rossi built reactors as late as January 2016 speaks volumes.

Yes, speaks volumes of the desperation to find ANYTHING to justify continued investment in what was being realised to a boondoggle. It is to their credit that they tried for so long. My heart goes out to them - I have spent many a long day and night in the lab trying to confirm some potentially valuable but ultimately ephemeral effect. I've never had more than a few hundred quid tied up in it, though!

These ephemera invariably turned out to be founded on error- error of mine, of a colleague, of instrumentation, of understanding.... but then I've never had a problem admitting error when shown it.

Quote from IH Fanboy

But it could damage their very valuable portfolio of non-commercially-viable LENR technologies.

What the heck is valuable about a non-commercially-viable LENR technology? If there exists a commercially viable LENR technology, then the non-viable stuff gets walked away from (or sold to someone who thinks they can make it viable)

Quote from IH Fanboy

While I agree with you on this point, IH is (humorously) claiming otherwise in the suit. They think their territorial license somehow blocks Rossi globally.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

I infer you think that IH are just lying about their inability to show any excess heat, (let alone the risible COP levels claimed in the equally risible ERV report). Totally illogical. The market for any energy device with a COP of 80+ is such that $100 million would be a very cheap price to pay.

Why on earth should IH fart about reneging on their obligations if they could access trillions of dollars potential revenue ? AND when they are faced with the fact that theirs is NOT a world-wide license and Rossi/Leonardo could simply introduce working eCats into those territories where it's permitted for them to do so and make IH look like complete clowns (as well as criminals)

I reiterate as above. I would be interested in your answer to the question of why Rossi does not simply introduce working eCats in those parts of the world where he can That would show the skeptics! And show up IH for the scoundrels that you and others claim them to be.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@AN: You just forget, that all useful reactors were built by IH...

May be you should explain the intention behind your posts!

We all would like that IH makes/agrees such an independent test of a big franky. May be You don't like this idea?

There are no "useful "reactors!

IH have already tried and failed to reproduce Rossi's claims.

Rossi either cannot or will not tell them where, if anywhere, they went wrong.

Rossi also claimed on JONP to have built more eCats for commercial use, although he seems to have been lying about this.

I infer you think that IH are just lying about their inability to show any excess heat, (let alone the risible COP levels claimed in the equally risible ERV report). Totally illogical. The market for any energy device with a COP of 80+ is such that $100 million would be a very cheap price to pay.

Why on earth should IH fart about reneging on their obligations if they could access trillions of dollars potential revenue ? AND when they are faced with the fact that theirs is NOT a world-wide license and Rossi/Leonardo could simply introduce working eCats into those territories where it's permitted for them to do so and make IH look like complete clowns (as well as criminals)

Face it, Witters, Rossi is an out-and -out fraudster and has never had anything worth a plugged nickel.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@NA: This assumption is totally wrong: AR sold (already 2013) his IP to IH. Only IH can decide whether such a test can be made or not.

IH certainly will not allow any further (complete independent) tests until the trial is over.

I personally would ask IH to allow for such a test with the big frankies. But then they would need to overrule the military partners...

Sorry, but you're wrong. Rossi can do anything he likes with the IP, so long as he doesn't SELL items made using it in the territories already ceded to IH.

You or I could do it, so long as we didn't profit from it or otherwise damage IH's business by giving away free eCats

(Notwithstanding the undoubted fact that the IP is worthless anyway)

Assuming this fascinating business comes to trial, I do hope that counsel for IH ensure that the idea that Rossi could could at any time have openly demonstrated a working eCat is firmly in the mind of the jury. So simple a solution, even the least technically minded and bored juror will grasp it and hang on to it.

AR could easily have saved a lot of money and time, gained fame and fortune, and have been justified in raising a middle finger to all skeptics, along with emitting a loud raspberry.