From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Business is not science
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:12:28 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Tom Droege comments:

"So the most likely thing is that P&F don't know a secret.  Else it would be
in their patent application.  But it is remotely possible that they think that
the secret is so obscure that it is unlikely that others will find it.  So they
withhold it to gain time to tie up the field."

I am not a lawyer, but I happen to know about patent law. Under U.S. laws, if
it could be shown that P&F withheld information, or knew a better method of
achieving the CF effect, the patent would not be granted. The patent filer must
state the best, most up-to-date, most effective method and art that he knows.
Uncle Sam is very strict about that.


Tom makes some other astute comments, worth rereading. As Fleischmann often
puts it, "I want you to think carefully about what that gentleman just said:"

"The assumption is that P&F are scientists and that we are operating under the
rules of controversial science.  But what if P&F turned commercial the day they
thought that they had 'fusion in a jar'?  Then word leaked out. How would they
react? ... In commerce, it is perfectly proper to mislead a competitor."

I had a chance to talk to Pons on several occasions about these topics. After
the conference, MITI asked me to testify before them, the NHEP and the STA, so
I got a chance to talk to them at length about their attitudes and the extent
to which they felt this research should be "open" or "proprietary." Of course,
there are substantial disagreements about these things within the leadership,
but let me generalize, and try to express what I felt the consensus opinion is.
This is my opinion of what *they* think, by the way, I may not be right, and
I may not agree with the following:

      They feel that they have acted as openly as any prudent, responsible,
      research consortium. Their activities have been reported regularly in the
      national media. They have offered to share significant amounts of
      technical information. They will meet with qualified, high level officials
      from the U.S. or elsewhere. This has to be on an appropriate government
      to government level.

      On the other hand, they are not going to go out of their way to advertise
      what they have, and what they plan to do. They are certainly not going to
      hand out trade secrets for free, or hold open meetings. If the U.S., or
      some other country, wishes to make a commitment, and to take an active
      role in the research, then of course that country will get appropriate
      access to the information, just like any other member of the consortium.

Now, back to my observations. I see zero -- absolutely zero -- evidence that
P&F, Technova, MITI or any other responsible party has deliberately mislead
anyone in any way. Such tactics are regularly employed in business, but only
on a short term basis (like months), and if I do say so myself, I can usually
see through them. This sort of thing is done all the time in the computer
business, where phantom features in unreleased products appear and disappear
like spirits from the vasty deep. There is nothing unethical about this kind
of deception as long as it does not unduly or deliberately impact on the market
value of the stock, or endanger consumer safety, or something like that; but
it is rather silly, undignified, and it does not work for long. Also, MITI is
a government agency, so by itself, it would not be allowed to play such games.
If the NHEP members chose to issue some confusing or misleading information...
perhaps MITI might overlook it for a while.

However, as I said, they are not playing any such games. To the contrary, I am
amazed how much MITI and the NHEP is willing to share. Still, they are
obviously keeping many secrets, just as you would expect. As I have pointed out
time and time again, Intel does not publish detailed specifications of the CPU
chips it plans to introduce two years from now. No private corporation or
consortium could possibly, under any circumstances, survive if it gave away
trade secrets. Indeed, the members would get in serious trouble for violating
fiduciary responsibilities. It is absolutely unthinkable. Most of the readers
on this forum appear to be scientists, who are not used to this ethic. You must
realize that what you consider correct, appropriate behavior -- revealing
methodology, and publishing papers -- would be considered criminal behavior in
a business setting; or if not criminal, it would be considered madness. You
should not judge others by standards that do not apply to them.

By the way, the Ministry of Education, and NIFS, operates by your rules: free
and open. Internal MITI stuff depends (usually open, sometimes not). I don't
know about the STA.


John Logajan asks the question:

"Is there any Mills cell anywhere in the world that produces more excess heat
than the limit set by 1.48*I?"

Yes, several:

Mills told me that his is far above the I*V (total input power) level. I asked
him very specifically, after explaining Tom Droege's concerns about
recombination. However, when he and others working with him say 900% excess,
I do not know whether they mean 9 time I*V, or 9 times the joule heating only.

Bush uses as closed cell, with a recombiner in it. I believe he is getting 7
times I*V, but I am not sure of the exact number. I *am* sure that he is
considerably above I*V.

Srinivasan's preprint graphs show both lower joule heating level and total
power, and the power has clearly far exceeded both.

Notoya is way over the limit.

Some of the others in the U.S. are also over the limit, but others are not.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion