I've followed most of the conference remotely as well.
Mixed observations in addition to what Guenter already posted here:
- rossi now says Ni conversion to Cu is a tiny side effect, when responding
to a public question on Helium production. So what about the ash that he
allowed a Swedish university to check that contained 30% Copper? A clear
indication of a misleading action.
- prometeon, the Italian licensee/distributer, mentioned cooperation with
Siemens in a public presentation
On Sunday, September 9, 2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
> Inline...
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell
> <jedrothw...@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'pdx...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Scientific publication approach or commercial enterprise approach:
>>> choose one.
>>>
>>
>> Why choose one? They are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream companies
>> routinely publish information that meets scientific standards of
>> reliability, although details are often missing to protect trade secrets.
>> Companies such as IBM that do a lot of fundamental research often publish
>> scientific papers.
>>
>
> Scientific papers published along with breakthrough product innovations,
> as you point out, are often missing key details to protect trade secrets.
> But "experimental" (as opposed to "theoretical") scientific publications
> are, in principle at least, supposed to contain sufficient detail about
> protocols to allow replication of the results. So I tend to see this as an
> example of the commercial side compromising the scientific side. To put it
> differently, the ability to buy a working product that implements a
> principle can legitimately replace publication of certain details about the
> principle without loss of credibility. I wasn't making a value judgment, I
> was just observing.
>
> More generally, companies like IBM that do this "for real" usually try to
> establish some kind of clear organizational separation (e.g. Watson Lab)
> between their scientific side and their industrial side. Despite that,
> scientific research conducted in industry is a common subject of criticism
> for bias. This is a hotly debated issue in the pharmaceutical industry
> right now, for example.
>
> In any case, these are huge industrial corporations that can afford to
> segment themselves, at least to some extent, in an effort to give their
> scientific publications the required degree of impartiality. It hardly
> applies to this situation (or for that matter to any start-up commercial
> enterprise) because both the internal segmentation and the actual process
> of scientific publication are very expensive. Start-ups can never have too
> much working capital, and scientific publication usually doesn't play a big
> role in directly returning the capital to the investors.
>
> So overall I stand by what I said: strong factors work against mixing
> commercial enterprise with scientific endeavor.
>
>
>> Rossi has chosen to ignore scientific standards, and to conduct what I
>> consider a tawdry sales campaign. I think it makes him look bad. I do not
>> think it will work.
>>
>
> I have a relaxed attitude about this. He's free to conduct his enterprise
> any way he sees fit. I don't intend this comment to be argumentative.
>
>
>> I agree that believable testimony from a real customer would make his
>> case better than anything else. I doubt he has any customers, but who knows.
>>
>
> There are several threads around the net that suggest more than one person
> has seriously tried to make a purchase and been unable to do so. I agree
> the truth is hard to know.
>
>
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
