Peter, when someone has a technology that is as revolutionary as
Commercial-level LENR as DGT has, they cease to have this implied protection
anymore.
LENR is a symbol and icon of hope for many many people. DGT has a social and
ethical responsibility to address people's concern about it. If DGT does not
feel it is their responsibility; then they should stop danggling a carrot in
front of a hungry world. A world hungry for LENR technology. It is cruel and
unethical to danggle food in front of hungry orphans. A sane and reasonable
man would not do this, and yet both DGT and Rossi feel that this is their
right. If they do not want to have to explain their technology, then stop
teasing people with it. DGT and Rossi has been the recipient of people's ire
because of this.
And you, having participated in this, will receive people's ire. You can not
do this and expect people would reciprocate you with respect. You get what
your actions dictate; the same respect one gets when one danggle food in front
of hungry orphans.
I stand by my original assessement. DGT is a company of crooks headed by a
person who practically admitted to stealing another's IP and come out with a
straight face. Unbelievable how you think this company deserves our continuing
adoration and attention.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Gluck
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Dear Steven,
This could be significant only if DGTG is in some trouble, however they will
demonstrate their Hyperions, get them on the market and that's all. Almost
equally interesting is their
contribution to understanding of LENR
Then they will publish more data, independent ones included.
Their strategy is their strategy and that's not a tautology.
Their responsibility is not toward people who are just curious
and unpatient.
Peter
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
<svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mainly their own data, but why are you asking- do you think only
independent
> data = good? DGTG has reciprocal NDA with independent observers.
> in the next paper you will receive these data- I also have a very strict
NDA
> with them.
Hi Peter,
I assume the biggest complaint that will be raised on this matter is
the fact that not having at our disposal sufficient "independent data"
to collaborate Defkalion's claims reduces the authenticity of such
claims.
Skeptics will immediately focus on such issues, as is their right to do so.
If we don't have "independent data" how do we go about assessing the
merits of whether Defkalion's claims are accurate?
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
