Replies

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?

~~~~~~~~

"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."

Nope. Afraid not. A theoretical basis is not, and never has been, a requirement for getting a patent. A working model is "supposed" to be an equivalent. But the US patent office simply refuses to examine ANY patent involving cold fusion. Some few researchers have managed to patent aspects of the subject by concealing the direct connection to cold fusion.

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.
***Ok, then let’s use this as the analogy. The first person to invent a stove did not have to explain the concept of a flame in order to get a patent on a stove. Similarly, neither did the first person to invent a cigarette lighter. Flame physics was certainly not well understood enough to provide a scientifi explanation of flame by that time, it was simply, as you say, an accepted application of something that no one really understood. Moving forward, the Wright brothers did not have to explain the equation of flight in order to get a patent on a flying machine. No one at the time understood aerodynamics. So why is it that this is required for LENR? This burden you place on LENR is a burden not previously placed on other engineering endeavors.