Re: hard vs soft evidence; appeal to authority, etc.

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> I am surprized about Stefan's drawing a distinction between
> designing, and implementing a device.
> When someone in this field claims a novel design, it is given that
>   they are claiming a design that works. It may have been made
>   by them, or for them, but it has been made.

I might claim the same statement applies to all the patents applied
for regarding Perpetual Motion machines. Interestingly, the method by
which we distinguish between novel designs and Perpetual Motion
machines, is on some level via an appeal to authority.

Regardless, I don't see that this (implementation) follows (from
design), although I guess we need to carefully define the terms
design and implementation. I am interested in reading JD's paper, but
do not have Phys Rev A in my library at home. Based purely on the
abstract, it is not clear that the design, in detail, could be
realized in any implementation in 1984, or now, 20 years later. Or
that it was intended to be implemented.

> In engineering. ideas are cheap.

Even after I read the paper, I'm not sure I'll know if any device has
ever been engineered from it. JD can comment I'm sure. At least, I
need to get a copy of the paper. After that, I may have a different
viewpoint.


Stefan Jeglinski