What he is "doing wrong" is that somehow he is managing to suggest that he is ready to commercialize a process which has not even reached the level of a laboratory curiosity. I will be nothing less than amazed if there is anything there at all.
Can you describe even one case of a similar scientific development being commercialized in this fashion?
Fire?
The first users of fire had no theory of how combustion worked, and no papers in peer-reviewed journals about it. They just observed an effect, and saw that it did useful things.
To get a patent, it should not be necessary to be able to explain a theory behind the operation of a device. All that should be needed is to have a device which does something useful (like generate energy) along with reproducible instructions for how to construct the device so that others could reliably replicate it. If this guy can accomplish that, then he should get his patent. Later on, some theoretician can figure out WHY the effect occurs, and get his Nobel Prize.