hey dex, page-4

I usually read this before before making decisions based on the evidence of others. It is a way of "realigning" your gut and helps avoid a decision clouded by emotive beliefs invoked by the spin and carefully designed language of others:

Pickubrains;

"to see company cxy prosper o/seas would be an insult, BUT this seems the norm"

The tech comes from overseas so I would not see this as an insult.

In business we often identify or create problems so as to sell the solutions to these problems. The matter of solving the problem is an inconvenient detail that is no consequence. It is the promise of a solution that is all that is required to bring in the cash.

If you read the research into UCG you will be aware that many attempts have been made by companies OS to demonstrate and commercialise this "new" technology. None of them have succeeded in a succesful trial let alone commercialisation. Many trials have been conducted by Government departments(eg CSIRO) with no success despite their vast resources benefit in succeeding. This is a clear signal that the flaws are yet to be solved to any degree of confidence that will permit the investment required for a commercial venture.

If a UCG company had something different, insight or a patent for something genuinely new which revolutionises UCG or builds markedly on the idea of UCG then lookout. Too many people get sucked in by Mathematical models as "truth". Unfortunately, nature is probabilistic, and the reactions in UCG cannot be predicted with adequate resolution by any mathematical model available today. Further, the probabilistic nature of the reactions themselves limit the accuracy and resolution of the model itself (Heisenberg). Think 1 part per billion detection in realtime by 1000's of underground sensors linked to CPU when considering resolution.

There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Science. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty ? a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid ? not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked ? to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can ? if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong ? to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.