Dear James, your definition is perfect, thanks
1) is irrelevant THIS technology implies money, a lot, in and out. 2) re patents, know-how I am speaking from practice. Rarely patents are sold without know how. Peter On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:35 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
