Oh yes, "Proprietary" .. what a great cover story. Well .. frankly, I'm tired of 'proprietary'. There are plenty of good folks doing good science and publishing at conferences. They are interesting.
"Proprietary" is not. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > *Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting > tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break.* > > Why so cynical? What other "statements and videos" (beside BLP, which is > of course stresses credulity as it stands atm) has been released lately > that has been such an annoyance? And 3.0 COP is break even, so COP 4 is > nothing insignificant. Once we hit 6-10 that's the money range, but 4 is > progress. And I rather them be honest about their output than bullshit and > have to retract later. You're annoyed because these guys are actually > conservative business people? > > > *If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP > folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor > yourself and stay invisible.* > > You should know issues associated with the patent office Blaze. And MFMP > is of course Open Source, while Brillouin is Proprietary. Apples and > Oranges. Can't Open Source everything (btw I am a huge OS proponent). Your > statement is just beyond silly. > > Regards, > John > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Sigh. These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting >> tiresome. 400% 4x .. gimme a break. >> >> If you actually have something, apply for a patent and go to the MFMP >> folks, and help them set it up to show the world otherwise just keep it tor >> yourself and stay invisible. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I agree with everything Mike says in this video. I think the part around >>> minute 15 is important. He is asked, 'is cold fusion safe?' His response: >>> >>> >>> "It has demonstrated itself so far to be safe. Unconditionally safe? We >>> won’t be able to answer that until we have a very good physics-based model >>> for the process itself. We need a theory in this case to protect us from >>> inadvertent mishaps on scale up. So it would be very, very imprudent to >>> scale this effect without having a pretty good handle on what exactly it is >>> that you are scaling. >>> >>> Everything that I know suggests that this is a nuclear process. We have >>> identified the nuclear products. . . ." >>> >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
