Peter, I agree with what you said with two exceptions: 1) Technology does not necessarily imply money. There are huge amounts of open free technology -- particularly in software.
2) "skilled in the art" has a legal definition as a consequence of patent law's definition of "disclosure". Although it is true that this must be "defined in each case" the legal definition is constant and is applied in case law. That said, I'd define, as the final stage: Technology, anyone who can afford it can use it. Folded into the word "afford" is not just money but the time it takes to follow the instructions. Folded into the word "anyone" is the reasonable connotation that they are an adult competent to manage their own affairs. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear James > > I think this list is not complete: > *Technology*- anybody paying for it and respecting > some simple instructions can, use it. > Unfortunately "skilled in the art" has to be defined > in each case. > Technology is much more than applied science. > > Peter > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We're at the magic stage. >> >> Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it. >> >> Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it. >> >> Religion, no one can reproduce it. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and >>> operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently >>> and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long >>> as possible. >>> >>> When asked :"how does it work" the builders will then ask "you tell Me". >>> >>> LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> On the matter of scepticism: >>>> >>>> No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of >>>> LENR but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test >>>> and put your eye to the telescope. >>>> >>>> For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been >>>> published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not >>>> science. >>>> >>>> For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym >>>> attacks, is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not >>>> science. >>>> >>>> If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party >>>> test report: >>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 >>>> >>>> and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued >>>> it at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main >>>> stream media as these and others did: >>>> >>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says >>>> >>>> Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid >>>> scientific scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on >>>> the paper or critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, >>>> is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. >>>> >>>> Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month >>>> Third Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the >>>> first Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the >>>> fundamental principles of the scientific method: >>>> >>>> In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based >>>> on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of >>>> reasoning. >>>> >>>> This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio >>>> report are engaged in religion not science. >>>> >>>> The Experiment is king. >>>> >>>> To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and >>>> put your eye to the telescope. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards walker >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
