Replies

Interesting comments at the site:

Rob Lewis • 3 hours ago
The Patent Office's job description does not include verifying that the claimed invention will actually work (as evidenced by the multiple patents on perpetual motion machines). All they require—at least in the U.S.—is that the invention be novel, useful, and non-obvious, and that it be disclosed in sufficient detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it.

And 12 years is a long time for an application to be pending. •
Reply • Share › Avatar LukeDC • 4 hours ago

Like all the physicists that have wasted their careers on hot fusion researchthe same can be said for a generation of academics who are now facing the reality that their careers have been based on a falsehood. The end of Supersymmetry.... https://medium.com/starts-with...

• Reply • Share › Avatar Obvious LukeDC • 3 hours ago

A negative result in science is not a necessarily waste of a career or time. In science, a negative result informs scientists of the refined limits of where the actual answer or theory can be. It may be disappointing, true, especially if it is pet a theory. Besides, a physicist collecting a paycheck (and some of them get rather nice ones) don't have to hand it all back if the science work done is proved to be based on flawed assumptions. Does a musician decide his career was a waste of time if his lyrics are shown to be better prose than catchy songs? Does a garbage man decide his career was a waste of time if it shown he is better at making garbage than dumping it in a bin?

• Reply • Share › − Avatar graham bell • 9 hours ago
Has anyone else seen this story on the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...