Eric, your point is well taken. Very little IP can now be patented and
defended. The ideas have either been described in rejected patents or
they have been described in public. Any attempts made now to get a
patent would only make the lawyers rich. Most of the patents presently
granted also
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
I tend to go to the mail archive site to search for historical postings
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/
>
> which seems to allow seqrches of the last 10 years of the list
>
This list goes back to 1996 or so -- it would be n
I tend to go to the mail archive site to search for historical postings
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/
which seems to allow seqrches of the last 10 years of the list
Nigel
On 25/01/2014 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
I suppose the archives of this mailing list will be a
>
>
>
> I suppose the archives of this mailing list will be a mine-field for them.
> It would be nice if the older stuff were easier to get at in a search
> engine (rather than having to download in compressed form).
>
> Eric
>
> Absolutely! You should get Jed to host it or something.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
That is the big unanswered question which I have: why did Ampenergo unload?
I got the impression along the way that Ampenergo was not an entity that
was independent of Rossi; sort of a Leonardo Corp. II.
Eric
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
>
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1700070
>
Kudos to Frank Acland and the fellow who broke this story well before it
was announced to the public.
>From the press release:
Since acquiring Rossi's technology, IH has engaged in a broad-
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
> Going black or project completed?
My opinion on Pentagon "agility" and brain-power - as it applies to advanced
technology is that yes, they can "unbloat" and do that kind of thing rapidly
on the rare occasion when it is given the highest priority
Going black or project completed?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton
>
>> After all, even NASA is openly discussing it. DoD has to have at
> least a 3 year head start. And how long has the Naval Labs known?
>
> But that could
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
> After all, even NASA is openly discussing it. DoD has to have at
least a 3 year head start. And how long has the Naval Labs known?
But that could be giving them more credit than they deserve.
They're probably not that smart, and Rickover is lo
Stephen Coonts' "America" gives an idea of how far ahead naval tech
is above what is openly known. He's the new Clancy.
After all, even NASA is openly discussing it. DoD has to have at
least a 3 year head start. And how long has the Naval Labs known?
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
"Don't cha thin" that the DoE deal has been long made and is separate
from the commercial deal?
Well, you do not have to be John Grisham to realize the whole "brownfield"
thing is chock-full of hidden value ... and to piggyback the kind of R&D
that
One of the first comments on 22Passi years ago was that the Rossi
reactor was already on a USN ship. Maybe yes?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton
>
>>> That is the big unanswered question which I have: why did Ampenergo
> unload?
>
>>If you can't grow it yourself, you find someone who can and take the
> money and a percentage and run with
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
>> That is the big unanswered question which I have: why did Ampenergo
unload?
>If you can't grow it yourself, you find someone who can and take the
money and a percentage and run with it.
That makes perfect sense, but it may not be all of the sto
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> That is the big unanswered question which I have: why did Ampenergo unload?
If you can't grow it yourself, you find someone who can and take the
money and a percentage and run with it.
From: Analog Fan
Anyone else think Darden and Cherokee may have been conned by Rossi? I
notice their scientific evidence is the previously disputed report from
2013.
AFAIK - there is no evidence that Rossi was involved at all. He sold the US
license for his technology some time ago to Ampe
That's just a copy of the press release.
Anyone else think Darden and Cherokee may have been conned by Rossi? I notice
their scientific evidence is the previously disputed report from 2013.
On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
See:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/17
See:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1700070
19 matches
Mail list logo
