Replies

What is it about “...well enough to explain it in a patent application” that you don’t understand?
***Go ahead and explain what a flame is well enough for a patent application. Very few people can do it, and indeed, no one really needs to. Because there are technologies such as ovens, stoves, internal combustion engines, lighters, etc. that have been patented without ever knowing how a flame works. Understanding flames is not necessary. Similarly, understanding how the plasma from the anomalous heat event generates nuclear events is not necessary. What is it about this whole process that you do not understand?

You display a knee-jerk, paranoid defensive attitude worse than that of a long-tailed cat in a room full of (actively) rocking chairs.
***Such a cat would have lots of injuries from such an activity. If you have problems with someone’s attitude then take up your own attitude and those of others who have been anti-science on these threads.

There seems to be no way to have a pleasant, conversational exchange with you.
***This latest set of exchanges has been far more pleasant than what I have had with skeptopaths in the past. This is the level of heat that LENR advocates have had to endure on FR. If you don’t like it, then take it up with the mods who have had more than a hand in generating the heat, and also take it up with the skeptopaths who not only generate heat but throw gasoline on the fire.

This latest set of exchanges has been far more pleasant than what I have had with skeptopaths in the past. This is the level of heat that LENR advocates have had to endure on FR. If you don’t like it, then take it up with the mods who have had more than a hand in generating the heat, and also take it up with the skeptopaths who not only generate heat but throw gasoline on the fire.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Now, instead of calling your critics seagulls, you are calling them skeptopaths.

Kevmo: "If you have problems with someone’s attitude then take up your own attitude and those of others who have been anti-science on these threads."

TXnMA: "There seems to be no way to have a pleasant, conversational exchange with you."

Kevmo: "***This latest set of exchanges has been far more pleasant than what I have had with skeptopaths in the past."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wonder Warthog, two questions:

1) Have I shown any sign of being "anti-science" on this thread?

2) After our conversation here, would you classify me as a "skeptopath"?

Kevmo also wrote: "Similarly, understanding how the plasma from the anomalous heat event generates nuclear events is not necessary. What is it about this whole process that you do not understand?"

Plasma is a HIGH ENERGY state. I have seen no credible evidence or data indicating that a plasma state occurs in a LOW ENERGY Nuclear Reaction. Until you can point me to such (replicated) experimental results and data, you are correct: I do not "understand" that "the plasma from the anomalous heat event generates nuclear events" -- because it ain't been shown (to me) to be so!

And don't think you can snow this old pchem dog by tossing around terms like "plasma".

My very first patent (P/N 3866398) relied on the high energy in a silicon plasma generated by laser ablation to effect dissociation of a normally-inert reagent (Freon vapor) to create free fluorine radicals which then reacted in the gas phase with the vaporized silicon.

As for "your" 'patent claim': no plasma = no prior art = no patent.

Not sure what happened. This supposedly posted before my #135 -- and they should be read in that order.

(I really don't know why I go to the trouble of explaining the following to you -- except that other thread participants might find the explanation to be of interest. I have ceased to expect any rational explanation to affect your attitude...)

~~~~~~~~

TXnMA: What is it about “...well enough to explain it in a patent application” that you don’t understand?

Kevmo:"***Go ahead and explain what a flame is well enough for a patent application. Very few people can do it, and indeed, no one really needs to. Because there are technologies such as ovens, stoves, internal combustion engines, lighters, etc. that have been patented without ever knowing how a flame works." "Understanding flames is not necessary."

In my #107, I wrote: "Flame physics is well understood, is accepted as 'prior art', and is used all the time in designing engines. LENR physics is not (yet) well understood."

The key term therein is the patent office term, "prior art". The application of flame has a database of prior art going at least back to the first Neanderthal to eat a 'possum killed and cooked by a forest fire. And the patents to which you referred are all additions to that "prior art" base. By referring to that "prior art" in an application patent, indeed, your "Understanding flames is not necessary." is accepted as a given. Appeal to "prior art" is the key to avoiding discussion of first principles in patent applications.

But, I also wrote, "LENR physics is not (yet) well understood."

IOW, LENR has yet to establish a base of "prior art".

Therefore, understanding, discussion, and demonstration of "first principles" is still required for any application patent based on LENR, etc. There is no conspiracy; the "homework" simply has not been done yet.

~~~~~~~~

I reiterate: Can you (are you willing to) comprehend the difference?

~~~~~~~~