No, you make a mistake. You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have value and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value and no form of evidence is perfect.
Of course a patent can have scientific value bit if it has value to scientist who are disinterested in another matter again. The patents are evidence that something like this may have worked, that someone considered it worthwhile patenting. In the case of the JLN patent it states they replicated Hiddink and got success though less than they expected so they patented an improved version. That is evidence, not proof but evidence unless you care more about games than truth. On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com>wrote: > I meant full refs of the scientific papers, or at least links to well > documented experiments by serious experimenters. Patents have no > scientific value of course, you can claim any impossible thing and get > a patent for it. > > Michel > > 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: > > The former will take more time, but the latter have already been given. > > > > Stiffler replication | variant > > "JLN Patent" replication | variant > > Edwin Gray > > Imris Pavel > > and probably Testatika > > > > A list of course is not much use, I have however already detailed these > in 2 > > posts so far... > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Refs please. > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > Given the evidence that both of these effects exist, both the electron > >> > being > >> > ejected and arcs creating excess energy... > >> > > > > > >
