Dennis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I think that many (here) try to always look at the motivation of Rossi > et al, as only being monetary gain. They then do not understand the actions > of Rossi. There are many in this field that are motivated more by altruism > and will gladly give their results and knowledge away. The problem, of > course, is that the financial supporters often restrict the actions of the > researchers. It is nice to know that Rossi does not seem to be restricted > in that way. > Rossi emphatically does not want to give his results away! He has made it clear on many occasions that he hopes to make a lot of money. More power to him. I just wish he would get to it and start doing things that soon lead to making money, rather than being distracted by 1 MW reactors. He has also said that he cannot reveal the nature of the device because that would jeopardize his intellectual property. I told he should make haste to file another patent because if someone else finds the secret they will file a patent before him. He said that if someone else files a patent that patent would be invalid because he has already discovered the secret. I do not know much about patent laws but I believe he is wrong about that. At least in the US it does not matter whether you are the second or third person to discover something as long as you are the first to file patent. If you steal the idea from the discoverer your claim would be invalid, but I believe if you independently discover it you can get a patent. there is enough information about Rossi device out there that someone may independently discovered. I do not think it would take 1000 Iterations, which is how many Rossi says it took. (I assume those are round numbers, and they include many minor variations done rapidly.) Even if it does, there are plenty of organizations who could assign 100 people to the job and have each of them do 10 iterations in a reasonably short time. - Jed
