I refer also often to Millis slides http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?804-Why-Reactors-demo-and-proofs-are-so-weak<http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?804-Why-Reactors-demo-and-proofs-are-so-weak&highlight=millis> http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusioneFredda/FF_doc/2009-06-25_NASA-GRC-Millis_AnomalousHeatEffect.pdf
*Risk:*(For commercial research) Competitive advantage weakened from premature disclosure *Mitigation:* - Threshold of attention is when device can be engineered - *Disclose only enough for independent verification of key principles*, not device, not best demo - *After independent verification, advertise improved version whose performance is more pronounced* than verification demo I concede to Jed that we should be careful about interpreting corporate behaviors. I just eliminate (not totally, but as a unreasonably improbable possibility) the hypothesis of conscious fraud like those who claim that Rossi or DGT have faked their tests. I can concede possible exaggeration, problems hiding, and at a low probability extreme self-delusion... scam is out of what seems reasonable. 2013/8/1 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> > Regarding Rossi, Jed recently posted:**** > > ** ** > > > Rossi allowed independent testing of his devices in 2009. I have the**** > > > data and photos right here. I have had this data for a long time.**** > > > For some reason the people doing these tests and Rossi himself wish**** > > > to keep these results confidential. I cannot imagine why, but I feel**** > > > I should honor their desires. **** > > ** ** > > Side comment…. Back in 2009? Is that the correct year? Seems awfully early > to me, particularly since Rossi didn't really didn't start making noises > till 2011.**** > > ** ** > > Regarding Defkalion, Jed also posted:**** > > ** ** > > > Defkalion has said they have definitive information in reports compiled* > *** > > > by experts under NDA's. They recently told me they do not wish to**** > > > publish any of this, for the time being, because they feel it is not in* > *** > > > their interests. I disagree. In any scenario I can think of, for any**** > > > business, it is best to enhance your credibility. That makes it easier** > ** > > > to borrow money and sell products. Perhaps there is something about**** > > > Defkalion's situation that overrules this, and makes secrecy more**** > > > valuable than enhanced credibility. Who knows? There is no point to**** > > > speculating.**** > > ** ** > > Ah, but Jed HAS openly speculated on this very matter in the past!**** > > ** ** > > See:**** > > ** ** > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg56388.html**** > > ** ** > > ...where back in March 2011, Jed stated:**** > > ** ** > > >> [Rossi] does not want to say outright "I do not want too much**** > > >> credibility because that will encourage competition" but I**** > > >> suspect that is the strategy. Other people, such as Patterson,**** > > >> have used the same strategy. Patterson himself told me this.**** > > ** ** > > Following up on this train of thought...**** > > ** ** > > While I basically agree with Jed's assumption (and experience) that > increased credibility ought to make it easier to borrow money and sell > products, it seems to me that neither Rossi nor Defkalion need to borrow > money right now. I'm under the impression that both Rossi and Defkalion > currently have sufficient cash reserves infused from private investors to > carry on with their very private R&D work. If that truly is the case, they > have absolutely no need to enhance their credibility particularly when they > are still in an extremely vulnerable R&D stage of trying to enhance the > reliability and stability of the reaction. While good progress has been > made, I'm still under the impression that the reaction is still highly > unstable. That would mean their prototypes aren’t ready for > commercialization plans on any kind of a large scale. If so… best to stay > under the radar of public scrutiny and continue tinkering.**** > > ** ** > > While I may not necessarily agree 100% with the following conclusion, it > does seem to me that maintaining tepid credibility in the public eye IS a > sound strategic maneuver. It helps keep potential competition from meddling > in their private affairs. Too much outside meddling inevitably translates > into losing control of the current business goal strategy where I would > imagine they envision themselves situated at the top of the financial > pyramid. Granted, many of us in the peanut gallery honestly wish a few more > potential outside competitors would begin to meddle in their affairs more > aggressively - to quicken the R&D pace. I especially think this would be a > useful state of affairs considering the fiasco that recently happened when > Rossi attempted to demonstrate his device to NASA officials - with less > than stellar results. When one hears about botched demonstrations like that > happening, all at NASA's beckoning, and it seems pretty obvious to me that > Rossi still has a highly temperamental & fickle device that is not prone to > sing on queue in a very reliable manner. Setting my own wishes aside, one > has to understand how Rossi or Defkalion are likely perceive themselves in > the big scheme of things. The point being they want to STAY in the big > picture. Under the circumstances, if I was vying for a big slice of the > future energy business I sure wouldn't be interested in enhancing my public > credibility either... not just yet. After the reaction has been > stabilized... when the prototype can reliably generate enough steam to run > a generator and produce enough juice to both self-sustain AND power many > outside devices, THEN it’s time to increase one's public credibility.**** > > ** ** > > I've gotten the impression that when it comes to product development much > of the strategic positioning involved is based on the fine art of bluffing. > I suspect few have ever won at poker by openly attempting to sell an > impression to poker players at the table that they are holding > four-of-a-kind, particularly if they really are. Under the circumstances, > the best way to increase potential earnings is to market an impression that > one is gullible, stupid, or perhaps even a habitual cheater, and then give > out as much circumstantial evidentiary "rope" as can be ravenously consumed > by pseudo-skeptics so that they eventually hang themselves with it.**** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Steven Vincent Johnson**** > > svjart.OrionWorks.com**** > > www.zazzle.com/orionworks**** > > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/**** >
