Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Max Nozin

Would a government be able to expropriate a patent(s) when deeming them important to the nation's security.

The U.S. government cannot do this. A patent is property. The government cannot just take it without paying. However:

In some cases it can declare the patent a military secret. That would never be the case with cold fusion because it is already known worldwide, and any practical form would be known worldwide with days of its discovery.

The government can force a patent holder to either manufacture or license the technology. You are not allowed to use a patent to suppress important technology. That defeats the purpose of the patent system, which is to spur the development of technology. (The other purpose is to enrich inventors, but that's not why the government invented the patent system.) In this regard, if Rossi's gadget is real, he has already violated the regs by keeping it secret. No one believes it is real so they are not going after him. If you have a patent for unimportant technology, the government will not care if you use it to suppress that technology.

The government can change the rules for a given patent or set of patents, in special situations critical to national security or the national interest. For example, in 1917, the government forced all aviation patent holders to join a patent pool. This was done to expedite the manufacturing of military airplanes for WWI. The government did not take away anyone's patent (their intellectual property), but it forced a new set of rules on this particular set of patents. There have been other patent pools. The ones I have heard of were voluntary, but there might be others the government forced on industry.

Quote from Shane D.

Dewey,

Yes, Rossi is still attacking Piantelli's patent. I agree with you that his doing so is despicable. I just cannot figure out why he (Rossi) is doing it? You and I both agree, know he ripped IH off, and that Doral was a shameless sting operation. The guy has no morals whatsoever, etc.

So why work this patent angle like he is? Not baiting you, as I am truly confused myself. It just does not fit into the picture I have in mind.

SHane,

The patent angle is strictly a smoke and mirror distraction.

R67 - You're partially correct - he's all mirrors with no smoke and that is now only a distraction to a handful of knuckleheads.

True troll - from your point of view - there was copious smoke. AR cost IH a bucket load of precious CF research $$. The smoke from burned money is exactly the extraction distraction

he had in mind. The guy is no dummy.

Quote from Shane D.

These people were not dummy types either, but mostly scientists and businessmen.

So I've heard. But note that the opinions of any businessmen will be reducible to those of any scientists they have consulted who are in a position to assess Rossi's tech, or they are flying blind without research upon which to base an impression. So it all turns on any scientists (or engineers) who have the qualifications to make an assessment. And we've heard nary a peep from certain ones to defend their previous work, so that work by itself cannot provide the basis for a positive assessment from the outside.

The Stockholm presentation and Rossi's tech more generally, then, amount to an informational black hole on which you can project the existence of qualified scientists who have succeeded in carrying out rigorous evaluation of Rossi's tech and found it pleasing, or you can project scientists who made mistakes somewhere and haven't found them yet, or you can project scientists who are in doubt but not yet willing to retract their earlier conclusions. And the most we have to evaluate the situation at present emerging from that black hole of information, apart from that unpromising action with the control box at the Stockholm demo, are rumors here and there that some people, specifics unknown, are impressed.

It is not a total black hole of information, however. We have, of course, all of the preceding history, which tells one to run away as fast as one can.

Quote from Eric Walker

So it all turns on any scientists (or engineers) who have the qualifications to make an assessment. And we've heard nary a peep from certain ones to defend their previous work, so that work by itself cannot provide the basis for a positive assessment from the outside.

Maybe they might not be that interested in publishing their views on random Internet forums? And they might not care what any number of anonymous posters think? Seems though as some of them were present in Stockholm... And if their opinions have not changed, why should they even bother to say so?

Quote from Eric Walker

But note that the opinions of any businessmen will be reducible to those of any scientists they have consulted who are in a position to assess Rossi's tech, or they are flying blind without research upon which to base an impression

What does this tell us about IH? What scientist did they consult?

Quote from argbo18

Maybe they might not be that interested in publishing their views on random Internet forums? And they might not care what any number of anonymous posters think? Seems though as some of them were present in Stockholm...

I agree that the Lugano group may not wish to publish on Internet forums. I similarly agree that they may not care what Internet posters think. That does not change my point: their results have been roundly called into question by competent analysis, so we on the outside cannot use the results as the basis for optimism about Rossi's tech until there is a defense of some kind (which presumably there won't be).

The main critiques were not anonymous. There was Bob Higgins's analysis, there was Thomas Clarkes's analysis, and (I vaguely recall) there was the GSVIT analysis. (It has elsewhere been suggested that Thomas Clarke is anonymous; the Lugano group would no doubt be able to find and get in touch with him if they wished to verify his identity.)

Does it matter what Internet posters say (even anonymous ones)? It surely does: if what the Internet people are saying is true, the Lugano scientists should care and want to know. And absent engagement in a formal publication process, what Internet posters say becomes an important channel for feedback.

Quote from argbo18

And if their opinions have not changed, why should they even bother to say so?

Yes, that's the informational black hole that I was talking about: we can project the possibility of their opinions not changing onto it, as you might be doing here.

Quote from argbo18

What does this tell us about IH? What scientist did they consult?

Can you clarify your point? Initially IH based their optimism on the conclusions of Penon, Levi and the Lugano group. Later they brought on board in-house expertise. Arguably there may have been some flying blind on IH's part, but they later rectified this. But my point was not addressing IH's due diligence, which left something to be desired. My point was about what we can conclude about the fact that there were reportedly lots of people at the Stockholm demo who continue to take interest in Rossi: next to nothing.

True troll and latest SP - you're cornered and you're going to have to earn your way out.

Best of luck moving forward!

Quote from Eric Walker

My point was about what we can conclude about the fact that there were reportedly lots of people at the Stockholm demo who continue to take interest in Rossi: next to nothing.

I agree - only conclusion seems to be that there were both science and business people present - and that they are not sharing the information they might have here. We can of course speculate on the reasons in any direction we like but i seems at least somewhat likely that they have not distanced themselves from Rossi in any meaningful way. On the contrary - it looks as if many of those with first hand knowledge of the tech is still on the Rossi train (both from the science and the business side). It would be interesting to know your interpretation of this?

Quote from argbo18

... they might not care what any number of anonymous posters think? Seems though as some of them were present in Stockholm... And if their opinions have not changed, why should they even bother to say so?

It is best to be clear what the Lugano report actually is. It is not a "published" paper as this term is usually thought of in the scientific community. It has not withstood scrutiny from expert reviewers as you see in most journals. Instead, ArXiv.org accepts and publishes preprints of articles with no peer review. There is some moderation but only to make sure that the paper is written in a general scientific style and that it will be posted under an appropriate subject heading.

Most researchers who put their preprints up on ArXiv.org do so in order to seek commentary from the community prior to actually submitting their work to a peer reviewed journal -- to just post a work on ArXiv.org and then never see it published in a regular scientific journal is a failure. But over 5 years there is no indication that the Lugano authors have ever paid the slightest attention to the responses to their paper. If they have prepared a revised manuscript and submitted it to journal somewhere then it has either been rejected or they are very slow in getting on with what people are assuming they must consider a central set of findings in one of the most significant invention in the history of humankind.

The ArXiv paper was posted just under 5 years ago. I assume that a work that has remained undefended and unreviewed for so long has now been abandoned and that the original authors have lost confidence in their findings. Most people used to how things are done in science would feel the same. Given this, I am amazed that the Lugano professors showed up at Mr Rossi's demo in November. What are they up to?

Quote from argbo18

On the contrary - it looks as if many of those with first hand knowledge of the tech is still on the Rossi train (both from the science and the business side). It would be interesting to know your interpretation of this?

The interpretation of the (70 or so?) businessmen and tech people being at the Stockholm demo depends critically on their involvement and qualifications. Among them I take interest only in the handful that will have actually put Rossi's tech through testing. The others are just there because they find Rossi interesting, they see a lot of promise in what he's doing, or they know the people who have put Rossi's tech through testing. So let's whittle the total number down to those who are of interest. Among the presumably handful that remain, they must be qualified to rigorously test Rossi's tech, and they must have rigorously tested the tech, they must not have made mistakes during the testing. Since the situation is obscured on our side by a lack of information, I'm not in a position to assess these questions. But extrapolating from previous attempts at testing Rossi's tech, I find the prospects unpromising.

Quote from Eric Walker

Since the situation is obscured on our side by a lack of information, I'm not in a position to assess either of these questions, apart from extrapolating from previous attempts at testing Rossi's tech.

Fair enough. But most of these tests had positive results, right? I agree that theres been a number "mistake scenarios" posted here and elsewhere, but by second hand people with no direct involvement, or by IH of course, but only after they were sued ... What do you make of this?

I think people can fool themselves when it comes to testing like this, and that the only real way to know that testing has succeeded is through defense of results, through repeated trials and, under more open circumstances, through replication. So for me the sheen on those earlier nominally-positive results was dimmed when competent critique came out to cast them into doubt. The only way to revive the sheen would be for the researchers and engineers who did the testing to defend their results against the critiques, or to conduct new tests incorporating the feedback. I doubt this will happen.

That leaves in doubt the status of the earlier positive tests as a basis for concluding anything. Perhaps a robust defense or future testing would support the earlier tests, or perhaps the critiques were spot-on. Which way one leans on this question will depend on whose judgment one trusts.

Quote from Eric Walker

I think people can fool themselves when it comes to testing like this, and that the only real way to know that testing has succeeded is through defense of results, through repeated trials and, under more open circumstances, through replication. So for me the sheen on those earlier nominally-positive results was dimmed when competent critique came out to cast them into doubt. The only way to revive the sheen would be for the researchers and engineers who did the testing to defend their results against the critiques, or to conduct new tests incorporating the feedback. I doubt this will happen.

That leaves in doubt the status of the earlier positive tests as a basis for concluding anything. Perhaps a robust defense or future testing would support the earlier tests, or perhaps the critiques were spot-on. Which way one leans on this question will depend on whose judgment one trusts.

No doubt a level headed approach. What is your take on the fact that many of the first hand testers seems to still be on the Rossi train? Does that support your "critiques spot-on" scenario?