3 ms·
This part also made me wonder: > “We have clear, detailed instructions on how to make our samples,” Dias said. “We are not going to distribute this material, c
by munchler 4y ago
This part also made me wonder:
> “We have clear, detailed instructions on how to make our samples,” Dias said. “We are not going to distribute this material, considering the proprietary nature of our processes and the intellectual property rights that exist.”
How do the instructions work if the processes are proprietary? It seems self-contradictory.
- lallysingh 4y agoThey're saying that they can reproduce the process, but don't want anyone else to.
- aperrien 4y agoThen they should readily produce samples, so others can verify their claims.
- XorNot 4y agoYep - this reeks. When the conclusion of their "necessary IP constraints" is "no one else will be able to verify the material exists or try and make it by the same process" then this turns into junk science. It's some guy just saying "trust me bro" except he's already been caught out committing academic misconduct. The history of scientific fraud is full of mysteriously uniquely special researchers who were only able to get their results in their own labs, with their own equipment, when they alone were using it. No end of "free energy" charlatans do the same thing.
- lallysingh 4y agoAgreed, I think this is probably more BS.
- nl 4y ago> How do the instructions work if the processes are proprietary? It seems self-contradictory. This is pretty normal in materials science. You can produce a super amazing product you keep the recipe as secret as possible.
- mojomark 4y agoEven with work completed at National Laboratories? I can see protecting the information due to national security concerns, but rice-bowling knowledge for financial gain (to an individual or otherwise) seems contradictory to the point of funding basic research with tax payer dollars.