Posted by Morris Dovey on November 3, 2011, 5:40 pm
On 11/3/11 7:58 AM, vaughn wrote:
I must have a strange view of science - I'd be pretty happy with
ordinary proof and I'd be even happier to know that Rossi's claimed
results had been reproduced independently elsewhere on separate
equipment - and I wouldn't much care whether the folks who did that were
scientists, engineers, or taxi drivers. :-)
Google: ["Brian Ahern" fusion] for some interesting reading.
Posted by vaughn on November 3, 2011, 8:09 pm
OK, I take your point, but we are still a long way from that (lower) standard of
proof; yet we don't need to be. Rossi's stated excuse seems to be a desire to
protect his industrial secrets. He doesn't want to give others access to the
internals of his invention. But once you sell the first unit of ANY new
technology, that information is potentially "out there". The inventor must
choose between keeping his invention to himself forever, or marketing it and
depending on the patent system and our justice system to do its job. Now that
he has supposedly started marketing his device, his stated objections quickly
begin to fail to hold water..
Going back to my example of the AirCar, we see exactly the same behavior.
Pleading protection of his "secrets" the "inventor" has consistently refused to
allow third-parties access to his prototypes to verify (or refute) his claims
for them. Proving the claims for the AirCar would be as simple as handing a set
of keys to a few reputable members of the media and letting them go for a ride,
yet it has never happened. Guess why?
Posted by Morris Dovey on November 3, 2011, 9:01 pm
On 11/3/11 3:09 PM, vaughn wrote:
I think you're right with all of the above - and he has some (for him)
difficult choices to make. He recognizes that he's in a very vulnerable
position - and it appears that none of the people he feels able to trust
have marketing/sales skills.
If he does have a process breakthrough, then /his/ problem isn't proving
that it's real and it isn't selling devices that employ that
breakthrough - the problem is finding someone he can trust who will
underwrite his patent filings and honestly look after his interests.
There're three words used to describe individuals who depend on the
patent and justice systems to protect breakthrough inventions: "naive",
"broke", and "disillusioned". Exceptions have been unfortunately few.
I can see that the AirCar might be a hot-button issue for you. :-)
Posted by Martin Riddle on November 4, 2011, 2:00 am
He doesn't have a patent on the process does he?
If not then thats why he wont go public to disclose the inner workings.
For fear of it being stolen.
And he can't get a patent because he really does not know what is
Or it could really be a hoax.
Posted by Morris Dovey on November 4, 2011, 5:16 am
On 11/3/11 9:00 PM, Martin Riddle wrote:
I think I recall reading that he's submitted applications in Italy and
the USA for a Ni + H + proprietary catalyst process
It could be. AFAICT, there aren't many people who care enough to try
finding out whether 'tis or no. If none care, does it matter? :-)