Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: EXACTAMUNDO! He cannot have it both ways. >
Of course he can it both ways! All discoverers and inventors do. AT&T had it both ways with the transistor; Edison with countless discoveries. The discoverer wants people to replicate, sell the technology BUT he also wants a share of the money they make. Therefore he wants a patent. It seems like the most natural thing in the world to me. > Even if he has said elsewhere and a few days ago - that such-and-such a > question is off-limits, and he continues to answer many similar questions, > then the present implication is that he has relented and wants others to > replicate. > I see no such implication. I have never met a good scientist, inventor or programmer who did not enjoy talking about his or her work, and sharing ideas, but they all want to be paid for their efforts. After all, and for an eternity – we here on vortex have been preaching that > REPLICATION IS ESSENTIAL. This is why I find Rothwell’s position so hard to > swallow. > There is nothing complicated about my position, and nothing new. Yes, of course, replication is essential. That is why we should all hope that Rossi gets a valid patent soon. That's the whole point of a patent! It ensures two things: 1. The information is shared, allowing replications. If you can't replicate from the patent, it is invalid. 2. The discover gets what he or she deserves for all that hard work. Given the effort it takes to discover something like this, and the opposition and calumny heaped on discoverers, without #2 nothing new would ever be invented. > He is doing a complete U-Turn because he is completely convinced of > evidence that is not yet fact - and never will be fact till someone can > replicate. > First of all, several people have seen heat from Ni-H systems. The Rossi experiment is itself a replication of earlier work, albeit a vast improvement. Second, tests such as those done by Levi et al. are as good as an independent replication, as a means of verification. They do not serve the other vital purposes of replication, such as teaching and spreading the technology. That will have to wait for a patent. It is regrettable that a patent has been delayed. That is partly Rossi's fault. He is taking steps to remedy that problem, mainly by hiring a professional. > Rossi clearly should STFU until he is ready to answer everything > truthfully, because in so doing he will always be tempted to misdirect and > prone to deception - and he will set the entire field back. > I do not think it certain he has employed misdirection or deception. I will grant, it does sometimes look that way, but I think it is mostly confusion. Bear in mind that he may not fully understand what he is doing. In 1989, many people accused Fleischmann and Pons of misdirection and deception. They were completely wrong about that. There was great confusion and they said many contradictory things, but that was because they did not understand what they were dealing with. They were making mistakes. If scientists are accused of deception every time they make a mistake . . . there will be no science. > Many honest researchers, Dennis included – can and will spend a significant > portion of their “underfunding” on Rossi’s red-herrings . . . > Those are nature's red herrings, not Rossi's. For instance, when he says - in the patent - that copper is necessary, but > then tells another questioner – point-blank - that there is no copper, then > one might be led to believe the verbal deception . . . > Or that he has changed his mind, or that he is confused, or the situation is complicated and cannot be summed up in a short e-mail. Fleischmann and Pons told people they had detected neutrons at first, then they said they hadn't. First they said this was caused by the tremendous pressure of electrolysis -- which Fleischmann compared to conventional plasma fusion theory -- then they backed off. Was that verbal deception? No, it was a mistake. > . . . even knowing that if it is specifically in the patent then that is > what one ‘skilled in the art’ must do – and that is all the warning they > get. Waste, waste, waste. > If you dabble in cutting edge science, you will find that most reports are wrong or confusing, and most approaches turn out to be waste, waste, waste. If you don't like that, get another hobby such as Paint-by-the-numbers, where the answer is always clear. Enough pandering of Rossi. When the guys deceives and lies, we should make > it clear that he is doing actual harm over and above the immorality of it > all. > No one is pandering to him. I wrote here repeatedly over the last year that he has a strange personality and it gives the strong impression that he is a faker or a con man. When I had the distinct impression that he was lying about Defkalion, I reported it here in no uncertain terms: "Defkalion Energy has no knowledge of Rossi, and Leonardo Company is defunct" http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42228.html When I discovered that neither of those statement were right, I reported that as well. There is no evidence that he is lying. It is abundantly clear that he has difficulty communicating. So does Arata. So does Fleischmann, for that matter. It seems likely he is confused, but who wouldn't be? He is working in terra incognito with no theory on the most surprising and inexplicable phenomenon in the history of the last 100 years. You cannot expect clarity or easy answers in this situation. Don't mistake that for double-talk or lying. > The best thing that can happen for the field - is for him to shut down the > blog completely - and get to building reactors, so as not to use the blog as > an excuse when he cannot deliver in time. > There are a thousand reasons why he is likely to be delayed. It will be a miracle if he manages to make a 1 MW reactor in time. He uses the blog for recreation, and as a way to connect with people and get ideas. I use this forum for similar purposes. I sometimes post contradictory ideas, and often post mistakes. What harm is there in that? - Jed
