Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
"The check is in the mail"
Merged Cold Fusion Claims
- Thread starter JoelKatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- andrea rossi cold fusion
- Status
No, the whole point is that it is never open to question. A valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless of the motivations of the person making it.
Yeah, so unwilling he's applied for a patent which requires full disclosure of all critical details.
However, that's completely beside the point because we're not talking about Rossi here. We're actually talking about your refusal to provide a link to research you think supports cold fusion because you're scared someone might find fault with it, or most likely simply point out that it doesn't say what you claim it does. This isn't a question of an inventor protecting their secrets, it's a question of you refusing to support your claims by linking to published research.
What a silly statement.
This is kind of an interesting development if true. http://the-explorer.com/steven-chu-...lear-reactions-cold-fusion/2011/3429583.html/
Yeah, so unwilling he's applied for a patent which requires full disclosure of all critical details.
This statement shows that you're either unaware of the dragging out of the patent pending process or all the other games that are played where obtaining patents are concerned. Please goto the Burzynski thread for a lesson on patents.
Just to name a few, there's names like McKubre, Case, and US Naval Research. Go look it up.
I'm not scared you'll find fault with it. I know you will. But I really don't care much what you do at this point.
Let me tell you something. If I were told that some posters on this forum were either planted here by big money, or were big money sympathizers, I would not dismiss that as untrue.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
No it is not silly. When one looking at a critic in science should not look at the reason a person did the critic, or who did the critic, but rather "is the critic well founded?". If the critic is valid, then it does not matter if it was done to torpedoe somebody, or to support them.
And there were a lot of well founded critic aimed at Rossi. His failure at answering them fully lies on his shoulder.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
As far as I know he got his patent back in 70 (76?). Problem is, he never really went the proper way to tet his claim, neither did he document them , and practically frankly there are even more reason for this.
The point cuddle was making (i think) is that you cannot avoid FULLY disclosing everything in a patent, failure to do so make it invalid/useless to protect your invention.
Grassy Knowlington
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 527
Have you been through the patent process yourself, i.e. you are a patent attorney or have been a named inventor and have gone through the process of application, examination, responding to the examiner's objections etc.?
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
That you'd believe a random unlikely claim without evidence is not really a surprise, given your stance in the thread so far.
I certainly understand there has to be skepticism in science. I'm not sure when a skeptic crosses the line and becomes a cynic. I'm not sure of the power of main stream science and commerce to block innovation if they perceive it as a threat? When history is written on lenr, and it turns out it is for real. How do we explain the last 20 years of bickering that delayed such an advancement to the world?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Underlined : when he is close minded to the remote possibility that a new described phenomenon could be false a-priori. So far as I can see, none of us crossed that line in this thread.
Italic : none. Just go to another country in an opposite political block or even anotehr continent. None of the conspiracy stuff make sense at so many level as there are countries which are dependent on resource not available within their frontier. Toa scribe commercial power the possibility to squelsh that is to assign it quasi-divine power.
Bolded : lack of evidence is enough. Some theory which turned out later right were rightfully rejected due to lack of evidence, but accepted later when the evidence came up. The problem for cold fusion "proponent" (to not say believer) is the lack of solid evidence, or heck, the lack of clean and proper evidence.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
CT forum is that way>>>>>
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
And a valid criticism is a valid criticism, regardless, so you made a double silly statement.
I 'm thinking more in terms of the unwillingness to give it an intense effort in the past and possible ignoring some data rather than a full blown conspiracy theory. Even in countries outside the US, it was pretty lightly funded. Some physicists seemed pretty stubborn about not wanting to change their text books. Actually things seem to be picking up steam in the effort now, and I'm not talking just about Rossi. The US Navy, Nasa, and the Department of Energy seem to be showing interest in lenr.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Attaboy
Now, now! Which of the anti-Rossi contributors has suggested that the cryofusionists are implicated in the various scams that seem to dominate the world of "free energy"? If I go bananas and send a cheque to Rossi in November, will you be taking a cut? I don't think so.
Well, neither am I a "big money sympathiser". It's the "small money" that scammers get from each of their victims that concerns me.
I've researched some stuff on McKubre by the way. His background isn't as lurid as that of Bockris and Champion (see #1289, page 33), but interesting nonetheless. More soon.
Now, now! Which of the anti-Rossi contributors has suggested that the cryofusionists are implicated in the various scams that seem to dominate the world of "free energy"? If I go bananas and send a cheque to Rossi in November, will you be taking a cut? I don't think so.
Well, neither am I a "big money sympathiser". It's the "small money" that scammers get from each of their victims that concerns me.
I've researched some stuff on McKubre by the way. His background isn't as lurid as that of Bockris and Champion (see #1289, page 33), but interesting nonetheless. More soon.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Never mind the lack of replication under controls, it must be a conspiracy! It is not bickering, who has shown a consistent effect, that is where you start.
Are you for reals or just fooling?
I am actually a bit of a skeptic myself, and I'm not 100 percent sure lenr research is going to lead to commercial devlopment. I'm just 100 percent sure that the potential is great enough and past research is tantalyzing enough for a hard look.
actually I'm hoping the replication issue, which I believe is material science in nature, may be solved. Last weekend Brian Ahrens was supposed to present information at MIT on an lenr experiment that is low output but easy to replicate. I haven't heard if it happened or not yet.
- Status