View Single Post
Old 02-03-2010, 02:03 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I would remind you all, readers, experimentalists, contributing members all. The initial tests was designed to evaluate a thesis. Not COP>17. Nothing but a thesis. The thread was designed to invite members and readers to test COP>17. COP>17 referred to a paper published in Quantum magazine October 2002. it may not be a wonderfully clear copy. But the fact is that the printed article does, indeed, refer to my magnetic field model. That's the thesis. And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of this thread and throughout. And the understanding was that all tests would be made freely available to the public.

May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement. I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly seems to be in support of Open Source interests. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?

While I grant you that the 'unfolding' of that cop>1 was due to your skills at experimenting, it has much, much more to do with the equipment made available to you to realise that advantage. And I would remind you that I was in constant contact with you in evaluating those waveforms, trying to find the correspondence to our own findings. My findings took years to perfect. With that equipment that I negotiated, and with my guidance, you found the required waveform in a matter of weeks. That equipment and that 'unfolding' are, to use Harvey's term 'intertwined'. You could not have done it without the right equipment. The equipment could not have done it without you. And neither you nor the equipment would have managed it without my first disclosing its existence. And that 'reverse engineering'? To the best of my knowledge it took one first attempt to get a resistor that romped home with COP>1. I am not here trying to belittle your capabilities. I am simply pointing out that we are all - yet again to use Harvey's words, 'intertwined'. Credit perhaps could be a little more generously shared and acknowledged.

Last edited by witsend; 02-03-2010 at 11:14 PM.