|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
Register / Login
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
Register / Login
|
In Reply to: Re: legitimate disagreement posted by geoffkait on May 7, 2005 at 18:38:12:
You have poorly summarized the discussions between Klaus and me (why do you even care is the question). I responded to most of his questions, as you will see if you read the thread(s). Have you even read them?Yes, I have read them and even went back and read them again. And while I found some answers from you, they were pretty much exclusively on the generic topic of quantum dots and not the chip itself.
For example, Klaus posted a number of Chip-specific questions here:
These questions include some of the most fundamental questions of all, such as "how does the CDP laser light reach the QD" and conversely "how does the QD emission reach the CD."
Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see a single answer from you to any of these questions in the follow-up posts. Or even to any of the questions Klaus asked in his original post in this thread.
Do you honestly think because Klaus rejects a statement of mine that means he is correct?Of course not.
All I'm saying is that given the responses (and non-responses) he's been given, I can understand why Klaus would want to simply reject the Chip.
He rejected them because he had made up his mind for not reason other than he would not accept the proposition that the chip could possible work. Period.I haven't seen any indication that he cannot accept the proposition that the Chip could possibly work. But why should he necessarily accept the proposition without a plausible explanation? I mean I looked, but I couldn't find any explanation, plausible or implausible, with regard to the most fundamental questions of all, i.e. how does the CD's laser light reach the quantum dot and how does the quantum dot's emission reach the CD?
Did I miss something? If so, where is it? If not, until you can get over this hurdle, everything else is pretty much moot.
Oh, by the way, while I was going through the threads again, I came across this post of yours which I didn't catch the first time around:
The Bedini does not appear to be an over unity device. Where did you ever get that idea?Where did you ever get the idea that I was referring to the Bedini Clarifier as an over unity device? Certainly not from what I wrote, which was "Bedini also has been granted a US patent on what appears to be an over unity device." Note the use of the word "also." Bedini's over unity device was something OTHER than the Clarifier and covered in a DIFFERENT patent.
Mr. Chip also does not appear to a be an over unity device.I never said the Clarifier was an over unity device and I said absolutely nothing at all about the Chip in my post. So what's the point of this comment?
Nice straw man argument, though, Steve!What straw man? My post had absolutly NOTHING to do with the Chip. It had ENTIRELY to do with the PATENT OFFICE and Klaus' statement that "If the examiner has doubts whether or not the claimed device works as claimed, he may request evidence, in some cases the applicants have to come and do a demo." I cited the Bedini patents as an example of how the Patent Office will rubber stamp an application even in cases where the claims made are complete bullshit.
I go through the trouble of quoting what I'm replying to so that it's perfectly clear to the reader exactly what the context of my reply is, yet even that doesn't seem to be sufficient for some people.
Gonna start calling you KRAMER from now on. This is the same sort of crap he was pulling on Wellfed over at JREF.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: legitimate disagreement - Steve Eddy 21:00:13 05/07/05 (1)
- Re: legitimate disagreement - geoffkait 02:02:53 05/08/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
