I am pretty neutral on this issue, as long as we don't know the details.
One scenario (and not a far fetched one IMHO) may be that they learned
(where some say: stole) the catalyst or idea from Rossi, only to find
out that that catalyst or idea was not Rossi's to begin with. For all we
know, Rossi may have found the idea somewhere in existing literature and
was lucky enough to strike gold when implementing it, where others
hadn't (yet).
If that is what happened, and Rossi was asking a large license fee for
IP that was not (entirely) his at all, DGTG, with all good intentions
that they may have had for this cooperation, must have scratched their
heads and weighed their options.
Depending on the contracts they had in place with Rossi at that point,
in fact, the choice for re-engineering it themselves from that
documented point versus signing and paying for an unsound licensing deal
may have been the legally better one.
Andre
On 07/17/2012 12:48 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Dave, I appreciate your comments.
My opinion of DGT was heavily influenced by one of the earlier
Xanthoulis interviews where he admitted to have gained access, by
subterfuge, the identity of Rossi's catalyst. The guy practically
admitted he stole Rossi's Intellectual Property. Now, after having
stolen the idea, they are claiming that their process is their own
innovation. Yes, they have better reactors, but only because they
have a lot of engineers working at these control issues. But make no
mistake about this. DGT reactor technology was stolen from Rossi.
This was the seed for my negative feelings about DGT, and everything
they have done to date has only served to reinforce that feeling. And
until they can prove otherwise, their behavior is worthy of contempt.
To add insult to injury, they now compete with Rossi. Even Stremmenos
seems upset at DGT's behavior, and being an insider, he is in a
position to know the truth. This gives credence to his assessment of
DGT; heavily influencing my opinion of that company. When one of the
insiders, a member of the board, openly criticizes your companies'
behavior, there has got to be something to it. Otherwise, you just
can't explain Stremmenos' behavior any other logical and consistent
way. And to me, Stremmenos has infinitely more credibility than
Xanthoulis.
When a board member essentially says, it's a company of crooks
(hyperbole and overemphasis is used liberally here.), I tend to
believe it.
Who knows if DGT even had the original intention to ever work with
Rossi. Me Thinks, they just partnered with Rossi until they can
discover the secret catalyst. And based on my understanding of the
timeline (someone correct me.), the divorce occured shortly
after Rossi submitted his ash for spectral analysis. This little fact
seems to strengthen my original thesis.
Respect for DGT will come when they start acting and doing things that
will earn them respect. Like behave honestly, for a change.
Why do I despise DGT so much? Because I despise dishonesty and
dishonest men. Is Rossi right to call these folks snakes and clowns?
... you betcha.
Is Rossi acting dishonestly also? You betcha. But at least Rossi did
not steal anyone's ideas or stabbed anyone in the back. Rossi is just
acting to protect his interest. And he has provided proof, albeit not
the proof that pseudo-skeptics would like.
Jojo
PS. 70% chance they will withdraw from ICCF17. And by this, I don't
necessarily mean physically withdraw from the conference. This could
include withdrawal of essential data that would essentially render
their participation a mockery of the process and the goals people are
trying to achieve in that conference. In other words, severely
incomplete and censored data. In other words, they are simply using
ICCF17 to advance their own agenda like they did with Rossi. Anyone
willing to bet a steak lunch over this?
----- Original Message -----
*From:* David Roberson <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
Jojo, you are entitled to your opinions of the parties involved in
this shaky afair. I feel that DGT should be given a bit of
respect since they seem to have moved forward a major distance in
their design . Do you feel that you stole Rossi's design and are
just making improvements upon what he has initiated? I believe
that most important discoveries of the past have been followed
closely by new patents offering improvements that make the final
device more useful.
Of course we all know that Rossi himself is standing upon the
shoulders of all of those before him as the saying goes. I
believe that Rossi deserves to make a modest fortune for his
championship of the LENR field in the recent past and it is
important to reward him and others who have worked so hard to
bring forward this important technology that is so world
changing. I do not believe that these people deserve to have
total control over the fortunes of the rest of mankind by
defeating the competition with legal authority. Let competition
determine their rewards to the major extent and may the best
products prevail.
DGT is not a company of crooks as far as I can determine. Neither
is Rossi or the other researchers trying to cash in on these
products. We should reserve judgement until the facts become
clear and they are entitled to that level of respect. Later, we
might agree to hold them in contempt, but for now lets cheer them on.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 17, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology
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 <mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com>
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.orionworks.com/>
www.zazzle.com/orionworks <http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks>
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/>
