Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #522000 > unrolled thread

ITER superconductor production nears completion

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  ITER superconductor production nears completion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 09:05 -0500
    ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:03 -0700
      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 15:33 -0500
        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 19:51 -0700
          Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 23:12 -0500
            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 06:54 -0500
              Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 06:09 -0700
                Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 06:30 -0700
                  Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:20 -0500
                    Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 08:08 -0700
                      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:29 +0200
                        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 18:08 +0200
                          Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:16 -0700
                            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 18:29 +0200
                            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:33 -0700
                              Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 18:45 +0200
                              Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:27 -0500
                                Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 10:46 -0700
                                  Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:48 -0500
                                    Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:56 -0700
                                      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:53 -0500
                                        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:42 -0700
                                        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 06:56 +0200
                                          Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 06:43 -0700
                                            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:11 +0200
                                              Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:56 -0700
                                                Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:18 -0500
                                                  Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 14:29 -0700
                                                    Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:46 -0500
                                                      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:50 -0700
                                                        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 18:52 -0500
                                                          Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 17:08 -0700
                                                            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 19:49 -0500
                                                      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 01:10 -0400
                                                        Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 06:46 -0500
                                                  Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 01:14 -0400
                                                Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 09:56 +0200
                            Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:04 +0200
                      Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:24 -0500
                    Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 17:23 +0200
                Re: ITER superconductor production nears completion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 09:17 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#522603

On 9/21/2015 5:56 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> So- what criterion are you using to
> decide that hot fusion should be
> funded an d cold fusion should not
> be funded?
>

Hot fusion results are consistently corroborated by independent 
researchers. Cold fusion results are NOT consistently corroborated by 
independent researchers -- in fact, cold fusion work is positively rife 
with results that can't be reproduced by other researchers. This is the 
hallmark of fraud.

What you are basing it on is how fast someone claims they can bring new 
science to marketable product, regardless whether they actually do that.

To you, if someone CLAIMS they have an antigravity drive and will bring 
it to market in 5 years or less, then to you that's gold -- science in 
its prime. And you praise that news up one side and down the other. But 
claims are cheap. Faked results and "corroboration" by business partners 
is easy, and it is targeted at goofballs like you who are willing to say 
that if the government is sponsoring something different then they must 
be doing it for weaponry.

I answered your question. Now you answer mine. What to you is the cap on 
time and money to be invested in a research direction before it has to 
produce a product or be canned?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522616

Odd
You are so totally full of shit!
You should read a little.
MANY independent researchers
are corroborating cold fusion every 
day.
Japan is using nickle wire and getting
results.
I don't understand you, Odd.
Why are you SO against LENR?
Because you were zombie-ized by 
the text books you read?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522637

Dne 22/09/2015 v 02:53 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):
> To you, if someone CLAIMS they have an antigravity drive and will bring 
> it to market in 5 years or less, then to you that's gold -- science in 
> its prime. And you praise that news up one side and down the other. But 
> claims are cheap. Faked results and "corroboration" by business partners 
> is easy, and it is targeted at goofballs like you who are willing to say 
> that if the government is sponsoring something different then they must 
> be doing it for weaponry.

What again reminds magister Edward Kelley
promising he is ready to produce gold soon.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522682

Odd and Poutnik-
How do you "fake" results when
several dozen scientists are present
monitoring every possible facet of
the third-party verification?
How do you "fake" isotope shifts in
both the Lithium and the Nickle
measured four different ways to within
3%?
When the president of the Swedish
Skeptics Society becomes a believer
and Sweden commits to LENR, how
do you then say that I am being
duped by a con artist?
Why does Wiki keep showing "no
3rd party verification" when that was
done last March, and his ECat ran
for 34 days, and the MANY scientists
who were there affirm that HUGE
amounts of energy were released?
And sign their names and reputations
to it?
How do you "fake" that? Or is that
what ALL scientists do these days?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522683

On 09/22/2015 03:43 PM, john wrote:
> 
> Odd and Poutnik-
> How do you "fake" results when
> several dozen scientists are present
> monitoring every possible facet of
> the third-party verification?
> How do you "fake" isotope shifts in
> both the Lithium and the Nickle
> measured four different ways to within
> 3%?
> When the president of the Swedish
> Skeptics Society becomes a believer
> and Sweden commits to LENR, how
> do you then say that I am being
> duped by a con artist?
> Why does Wiki keep showing "no
> 3rd party verification" when that was
> done last March, and his ECat ran
> for 34 days, and the MANY scientists
> who were there affirm that HUGE
> amounts of energy were released?
> And sign their names and reputations
> to it?
> How do you "fake" that? Or is that
> what ALL scientists do these days?
> 
Too many words and theatral shows
and too few references, equations
and experimental phenomena verifications.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522721

Poutnik-
How many equations did the Wright
brothers have?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522725

On 9/22/2015 3:56 PM, john wrote:
> Poutnik-
> How many equations did the Wright
> brothers have?
>

Don't confuse inventors and physicists.

Sometimes physicists make inventions. When they do, they don't always 
need equations. But when they're doing physics, they do. Always.

That's a problem, John. You're looking at physicists as though what they 
do should be tracked to practical advances, things that change the 
general quality of ordinary life. But there is a lot of work done by 
physicists that is just done to know how nature works and has absolutely 
no practical objective in mind. What practical goal do astronomers have? 
What about elementary particle physicists? Cosmologists?

For that matter, what about paleontologists? What do they do of 
practical value?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522728

Odd
Also remember that the scientists of
the Wright brothers' day had determined-
using equations, probably- that heavier-than-air
flight was an impossibility. That's where
YOU are right now re the ECat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522733

On 9/22/2015 4:29 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Also remember that the scientists of
> the Wright brothers' day had determined-
> using equations, probably- that heavier-than-air
> flight was an impossibility. That's where
> YOU are right now re the ECat
>

Lord Kelvin is famous for having tossed out the casual comment that 
heavier-than-air travel is impossible. However, he did no calculations 
in making that claim, which is why it was an unfortunate mistake by 
someone who should have known better.

But I think the main thing to point out is that after the Wright 
brothers showed it could be done, within five years there were other 
people making airplanes with 3-axis control all over the world. That is, 
people OTHER THAN the Wright brothers and their business partners. And 
they were selling them. You may recall that they revolutionized World 
War I, just a dozen years after the initial demonstration. Made lots of 
people very rich.

Now, here we are in the LENR world about 20 years after the initial 
claimed demonstration. So where are the LENR tycoons, making billions of 
dollars from the roll-out of LENR products?

Heck, Elon Musk delivered almost 12,000 Tesla Model S's in the second 
*quarter* of 2015. He's a billionaire.

So what's going on with your LENR hopes? If your eCAT people are the 
Wright brothers, then how come there aren't two dozen LENR companies 
making money hand over fist right now?





-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522739

Odd
I don't know.
Too many people like you?
What happened to Pons and Fleischmann ?
Received with open arms?
Or lost their everything and became
pariahs?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522754

On 9/22/2015 5:50 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I don't know.
> Too many people like you?
> What happened to Pons and Fleischmann ?
> Received with open arms?
> Or lost their everything and became
> pariahs?
>

I've talked with someone who worked at a major physics lab and where 
there was a presentation by that research team about their experiments 
and their results, a few days after their announcement. At the time 
there were lots of experimental teams -- like 12 -- that were working 
very hard to replicate the claimed results. My acquaintance was sitting 
about in the 15th row of a packed auditorium while the results were 
presented. Then came the questions. Lots of questions about the details 
of their methods and of their analysis. Suddenly the presenter was 
answering those questions with responses like, "I'm not prepared to 
answer that," or "We are not willing to share those details," or "Our 
data are still in the process of being examined, though we're confident 
our conclusions will stand," or "I'm not sure, but it was probably 
something like this...." And the more the presenter stonewalled 
questions that are customarily asked and for which any presenter should 
be prepared to answer, the more irritated the scientists in the audience 
got. A rather awkward hush began to descend on the auditorium. And then 
a senior scientist stood up, expressed his disgust out loud, and stalked 
out. Keep in mind that this NEVER happens in large colloquia.

And then a few days later, the dozen or so teams that were following the 
instructions of Pons and Fleischmann reported that they were not seeing 
the same results, and in fact were not seeing key signals that Pons and 
Fleischmann didn't bother looked for.

So it's no surprised they were pariahs. They may have had honest 
intentions, but they were so enamored with what they hoped they would 
see that they fooled themselves. This is the same thing that happened to 
Eddington in 1919, which made Einstein famous overnight. The difference 
is that people with cooler heads confirmed Eddington's claim (even 
though he didn't have the data to claim it), and people with cooler 
heads did not confirm the results of Pons and Fleischmann, which should 
have been doable within 2 days.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522759

Odd
You have admitted that you aren't
strong on logic.
Instead of trying to use logic, maybe
read a little more.
Some very strong critics of Rossi have
made an about-face, lately.
LENR is real

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522763

On 9/22/2015 7:08 PM, john wrote:
>
> Odd
> You have admitted that you aren't
> strong on logic.
> Instead of trying to use logic, maybe
> read a little more.
> Some very strong critics of Rossi have
> made an about-face, lately.
> LENR is real
>

I don't care about anecdotal onesy-twosy testimonials, which seems to be 
what you thrive on.

Here's what's going to matter to me.
1. Independent verification by a team that is not in business cahoots 
with IH.
2. IH producing and selling units.
3. Other companies producing and selling units.

Buzz is just buzz. It's what people like this quack put up on their 
websites in substitution for actually delivering. It works on people 
like you.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522798

On 09/22/2015 05:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 4:29 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> Also remember that the scientists of
>> the Wright brothers' day had determined-
>> using equations, probably- that heavier-than-air
>> flight was an impossibility. That's where
>> YOU are right now re the ECat
>>
>
> Lord Kelvin is famous for having tossed out the casual comment that
> heavier-than-air travel is impossible. However, he did no calculations
> in making that claim, which is why it was an unfortunate mistake by
> someone who should have known better.
>
> But I think the main thing to point out is that after the Wright
> brothers showed it could be done, within five years there were other
> people making airplanes with 3-axis control all over the world. That is,
> people OTHER THAN the Wright brothers and their business partners. And
> they were selling them. You may recall that they revolutionized World
> War I, just a dozen years after the initial demonstration. Made lots of
> people very rich.
>
> Now, here we are in the LENR world about 20 years after the initial
> claimed demonstration. So where are the LENR tycoons, making billions of
> dollars from the roll-out of LENR products?
>
> Heck, Elon Musk delivered almost 12,000 Tesla Model S's in the second
> *quarter* of 2015. He's a billionaire.
>
> So what's going on with your LENR hopes? If your eCAT people are the
> Wright brothers, then how come there aren't two dozen LENR companies
> making money hand over fist right now?

Great incisive cogent thinking Boinker. Just typical of your level of 
mentality. Lessee, once the United States showed that atomic bombs could 
be done, why aren't companies building them like by the millions and 
selling them all over the world? Oh, that's right, Atomic bombs are just 
a big hoax. IF they weren't, millionaires all over the world would be 
buying them. I'm sure ISIS would want a few. But nothing!

I'm sure the fact that the government keeps all the technical details 
secret (except from those countries with the spies to steal it) has 
nothing to do with anything.

Boinker you are a moron.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522817

On 9/23/2015 12:10 AM, benj wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 05:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/22/2015 4:29 PM, john wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> Also remember that the scientists of
>>> the Wright brothers' day had determined-
>>> using equations, probably- that heavier-than-air
>>> flight was an impossibility. That's where
>>> YOU are right now re the ECat
>>>
>>
>> Lord Kelvin is famous for having tossed out the casual comment that
>> heavier-than-air travel is impossible. However, he did no calculations
>> in making that claim, which is why it was an unfortunate mistake by
>> someone who should have known better.
>>
>> But I think the main thing to point out is that after the Wright
>> brothers showed it could be done, within five years there were other
>> people making airplanes with 3-axis control all over the world. That is,
>> people OTHER THAN the Wright brothers and their business partners. And
>> they were selling them. You may recall that they revolutionized World
>> War I, just a dozen years after the initial demonstration. Made lots of
>> people very rich.
>>
>> Now, here we are in the LENR world about 20 years after the initial
>> claimed demonstration. So where are the LENR tycoons, making billions of
>> dollars from the roll-out of LENR products?
>>
>> Heck, Elon Musk delivered almost 12,000 Tesla Model S's in the second
>> *quarter* of 2015. He's a billionaire.
>>
>> So what's going on with your LENR hopes? If your eCAT people are the
>> Wright brothers, then how come there aren't two dozen LENR companies
>> making money hand over fist right now?
>
> Great incisive cogent thinking Boinker. Just typical of your level of
> mentality. Lessee, once the United States showed that atomic bombs could
> be done, why aren't companies building them like by the millions and
> selling them all over the world? Oh, that's right, Atomic bombs are just
> a big hoax. IF they weren't, millionaires all over the world would be
> buying them. I'm sure ISIS would want a few. But nothing!

Oh, that must be it, then.

LENR energy devices must be enormously explosive, killing tens of 
thousands of people the moment they are turned on. This is why no 
company (other than IH) would be interested in making them.

>
> I'm sure the fact that the government keeps all the technical details
> secret (except from those countries with the spies to steal it) has
> nothing to do with anything.

Oh, and that's true here, too. Because the government knows all the 
technical details of LENR, but is keeping them secret. Which means IH is 
the only company that has had those secrets leaked to them.

>
> Boinker you are a moron.
>
>

I do love the way you think, Ben.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522799

On 09/22/2015 05:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 3:56 PM, john wrote:
>> Poutnik-
>> How many equations did the Wright
>> brothers have?
>>
>
> Don't confuse inventors and physicists.
>
> Sometimes physicists make inventions. When they do, they don't always
> need equations. But when they're doing physics, they do. Always.

Boinker you are a moron. Your understanding of science and technology is 
zero. MAth is nothing but fantasy like most of what comes out of our 
mouth. Physics is about reality, not fantasy.

> That's a problem, John. You're looking at physicists as though what they
> do should be tracked to practical advances, things that change the
> general quality of ordinary life. But there is a lot of work done by
> physicists that is just done to know how nature works and has absolutely
> no practical objective in mind. What practical goal do astronomers have?
> What about elementary particle physicists? Cosmologists?

Cosmologists? <snort>! Talk about fantasy! You hit the nail right on the 
head there! Let's all speculate on a bunch of stuff that we haven't a 
clue about using made-up data from places so far away we'll never be 
able to actually measure it! I guess you forgot we are all trapped here 
on the prison planet.

> For that matter, what about paleontologists? What do they do of
> practical value?

What practical value do YOU have Boinker?  None as far as I can see.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522807

On 09/22/2015 10:56 PM, john wrote:
> Poutnik-
> How many equations did the Wright
> brothers have?
> 
They did not pulled the their airplane out of their pockets.
They stood on the shoulders of many theoretical analysis
and aerodynamical tests.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522497

On 09/21/2015 06:16 PM, john wrote:
> orted "Rossi claims that the device produces massive amounts of excess heat that can be used to produce electricity, but independent attempts to reproduce the effect have failed."
> 
> This statement is completely false.
> Third-party verification has confirmed LENR.
> Why won't Wiki allow this to be changed?
> Because they are controlled propaganda,
> that's why.
> A Rossi device ran for 34 days and was
> monitored every conceivable way.
> Wiki LIES.
> 

Charlatans always accuse all around for lying and conspiracy.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention
of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument,
and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522500

On 9/21/2015 10:08 AM, john wrote:
>
> Odd
>  From the article above:
>
>> Without superconductivity, the pursuit of fusion energy would be
>> impossible. Superconductors consume less power and are cheaper to
>> operate than conventional counterparts, while carrying higher current
>> and producing stronger magnetic fields.
>
> So, Odd.
> Without super conductivity hot fusion
> is impossible?

Depends on the fusion technology. Laser-driven hot fusion doesn't 
require it that I know of. ITER-like confinement hot fusion requires it 
because you need an extremely strong magnetic field to contain the 
plasma (otherwise it melts the vacuum vessel). To get that strong a 
magnetic field requires way more electric current than you can push 
through conventional conductors without melting them.

> How much energy has been produced
> by hot fusion?
> How much money has been spent
> trying to get more out than they
> put in?

A few billion.

> Why do you have no issues with that?

Why would I have issues with that? The claim is that the payoff is worth 
trillions, and so the investment scale of a few billions is entirely 
worth it. And yes, something that takes billions of dollars is not 
something that can be typically solved in 3-4 years' worth of work.

> Whose money is being spent on that?
> Whose money is being spent on
> Rossi's endeavors?
> Why do you have no issues with
> billions being spent on something
> that hasn't worked yet, while Rossi
> has already sold a working 1 MW
> ECat which has been running for
> 6 months and has not yet been
> re-fueled? (And won't be for another
> six months.)

I'm sorry, SOLD? Sold to whom? Which non-partner customer has bought one 
and is using it? Note the phrase "non-partner" -- it's a critical one. 
Selling to an investor doesn't count.

If HI has a demonstrated technology that they can commercialize and make 
a product that external, non-investor customers purchase, then hot 
fusion attempts will be defunded in a heartbeat. But that hasn't 
happened yet.

This is what happened with the human genome project too. When a certain 
private guy showed he could do it faster and cheaper than the alternate 
approaches being taken by government-sponsored bodies, then the latter's 
methods were the ones that took over. But you'll notice that private 
venture made no excuses about not having people to certify the method. 
They sold working systems far and wide.

> I don't understand you, Odd. Are you a
> shill for those in power (oil interests)?
> I just don't understand you
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522482

On 09/21/2015 04:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/21/2015 8:30 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd- here yiou go; is this fake?
> 
> No, heck no, it's not fake.
> Were you under the impression that patents are only awarded for 
> technology proven to work?
> 
> Really? Do you know how many patents have been awarded for products 
> never made?


That reminds me the book "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynmann !"

Richard Feynman was once faced by a diligent army officer
who wanted to dig out from Feynman interesting ideas to be patented.

Feynman was not able to escape from him,
so he invented multiple fantasies what could be done
with nuclear energy.

Some years later Feynman was invited
to a nuclear submarine development project as an expert,
what was a big surprise for him.

When asking why, he was told
he had been considered as an expert for the topic,
because he was the holder of the nuclear submarine patent !


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention
of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument,
and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web