The Burden of Proof.

Quote from RobertBryant

High energy... as in 12 million electron voltsper deuterium atom..12MeV/D ?

Cold fusion was dismissed for a number of reasons. including

1. it was too cold.. sufficient collisions could not happen at temperature less than 100 million K... according to theory

2. There was no ash... not enough neutrons/not enough gamma radiation commensurate with the anomalous heat produced..

not because there was no anomalous heat... the anomalous heat is always way above the heat produced by chemical reaction

... the patent office may conclude not enough burden of proof..

Display More

Thanks for the link to NEDO. Yes, an expectation of millions of electrons volts rather than energy in the range of chemistry. The rejection is called a judicial exception. Particularly, cold fusion is dismissed as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patentable. For example fusion without the three evidence you mention could be an abstract idea if there were no other persuasive evidence generated by methods accept by person skilled in the art or if there is not reasonable evidence to suppose that a nuclear reaction could occur without those evidences.

Therefore, if a new theory shows the magnitude of coulomb barrier is lower when the target and projectile element nuclei have been modified from their ground state, then the patent office would then need to consider the evidence of such modification. If that modification changes the reaction under consideration (other than D to D fusion), then the other evidences you list also may not apply. So, then it becomes what are the evidences to support modification of nuclei and what are the persuasive evidences generated by methods accepted by person skilled in the art for the specific fusion equation.

Hence, a "colder fusion" patent grant depends on there being enough persuasive evidence to consider the invention significantly more than just an unproven concept. I believe a data derived equation of state for the fusion reaction is extraordinary evidence of fusion. It is hard to refute that evidence of fusion. The are many other arguments that an idea may be abstract instead of physical or concrete. Each argument will need to be considered, then the weight of the arguments is used to make a ruling.

So you can imagine I got a mailing about an inch and 1/2 thick against "cold fusion" concept set forth by Pons and Fleischmann. Which is non relevant but was send as weight of the evident against "cold fusion"

Quote from Drgenek

So you can imagine I got a mailing about an inch and 1/2 thick against "cold fusion" concept set forth by Pons and Fleischmann. Which is non relevant but was send as weight of the evident against "cold fusion"

Yes they send you the Widom Larson nonsense and IH sponsored anti Rossi propaganda publication.

But they soon will have a problem with our next application, as we will send them a ton of gamma spectra of classically inactive powders...

USPTO will face hundreds of lawsuits and the state of US will have to pay billions of damage...

Quote from JedRothwell

That's what several academic scientists told me, especially Peter Hagelstein. It should be clear how it enforces conformity. Plagiarism by senior scientists is widespread because they are often chosen as anonymous reviewers. They reject a paper, steal the idea, and later publish the results themselves, taking credit for them. Two scientists told me that happened to them when they were young nobodies. Here is a well known example of this in cold fusion. In 1989, many distinguished scientists published vicious attacks against F&P, sometimes calling for their arrest and imprisonment for fraud. At the same time, some of those scientists were quietly applying to EPRI for funding to do their own cold fusion experiments. In other words, they were hoping to sabotage F&P and others, and then grab credit for the research themselves. That's according to Tom Passell, who was the cold fusion project manager EPRI.

Academic science is corrupt to the core. Academic science is ridden with lying, cheating, knife-in-the-back betrayal, politics, plagiarism and publishing fake data. I think the main reasons are:

• No one checks the work. People assume it is right. Experiments are seldom replicated. Most academic research is put aside and forgotten, because most of it is inconsequential. So it is easy to cheat. Programmers and engineers are as likely to be jerks as scientists, but they cannot get away with making programs that do not work. The customers won't buy them. The marketplace enforces a level of honesty and forces them to work hard, whether it is their nature or not.
• As Woodrow Wilson put it, academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low. They have nothing better to do than argue about things like priority. (Wilson was the president of Princeton U. before becoming the U.S. president.)
• It is all about ego, money and power. Nothing else counts. They don't have to worry about making a living, or satisfying customers, or shipping a product on time. As one scientist put it soon after F&P announced cold fusion: "Why would I bother to replicate that? It would just mean Fleischmann and Pons get a Nobel. There is nothing in it for me." The fact that it is scientifically important and it might prevent global warming and save millions of lives meant nothing to that professor. It means nothing to Robert Park and the other opponents. They couldn't care less about the truth, or progress, the scientific method, or the other things they pay lip service to. They care only about their own prestige, their own egos, and their funding. And their parking space outside the lab.

It is no wonder people are suspicious of global warming climatologists. I am not suspicious of them. On the other hand, I know in great detail how the academic scientists opposed to cold fusion ran roughshod over the researchers, and betrayed every supposed principle of science, not to mention logic, decency and probably several laws.

I don't know where to begin. Some of what you say is right, but much is dead wrong in an overgeneralized, conspircist type of manner that reinforces your prejudices. Much of this is because your are not, yourself, a researcher and so lack a sense of proportion and context.

To start with something that is really just a detail but nonetheless unfairly colours your account ... "plagiarism" is the wrong word. It connotes copying, particularly of the cut-and-paste variety whereas you are talking about stealing ideas. But such "stealing" is often in the eye of the beholder. I have had colleagues complain to me about such things whereas my thoughts at the time were that the party being complained about was just pursuing some obvious next step. You will find below that I pretty much reject all the motives and personality defects you attribute to researchers but I do know on personal experience that they are neurotic (often paranoid), egotistical, opinionated and unafraid to air complaints [Department chair's joke ... Q: What is the difference between a having a faculty member and a dog outside your door? A: Let the dog in it and it stops whining!]. It is those properties, not corruption, that account for the vast majority of the incidents you are thinking about. Ask Thomas Passell about the incident you mention and I bet he will say that the scientists applying for EPRI funding thought that the F&P experimental technique was bad and that they they could do better. It that outrageous? I don't think so. It is looking at something, believing it is poorly done, and then saying 'I can do better'.

As for science corrupt to the core? I don't recognize what you are saying as typical of what I have seen -- and I am an insider.

People do check published work. I hear lots of sttements at meeting along the lines of "this doesn't work in my hands". But those complaints don't make it to the literature because researchers (and editors) want to publish on something that works, not something that doesn't. Moreover, there is dense form of replication that is very common but not much highlighted. When I had a lab I can think of many many techniques in use that came from published research. We weren't trying to "replicate" the findings, we were using them to push on to the next question. I have to give a neuroscience example because that is my field -- when I read a report that said that a commonly used dye for biological staining causes neurons to release internal calcium stores I thought 'what a great, repeatable, way to evoke neurotransmitter release!'. From then on it was my preferred way to release neurotransmitter experimentally ... I wasn't even researching such release, I was researching the kinetics of the membrane molecules that bind the neurotransmitter, but that technique was then in daily use in my lab -- each use a replication. This is what happens to successful findings .. they are replicated daily without much notice in the literature specifically because they really do work reliably. I can think of many many other such techniques in use in every lab I have ever seen.

People have nothing better to do than to argue about priority? Bosh. Drivel. Uninformed and overgeneralized. Priority is important because editors always want novelty and so it become harder to publish your work if someone has published something similar. But researchers have lots of better things to do, like writing grant proposals and trying to push their research program ahead. Nothing better to do than argue about priority? What an ignorant and silly thing to say.

All about ego, money, and power? Well some of that pops up of course but the money academic scientists want is money for the lab space, supplies, equipment, and students to do the research that they are enthusiastic about. Same for power. Scientists want to influence research in the direction they think is best. Would you have it otherwise? Pure scientists don't have to worry about shipping a product on time but so what? They aren't asked to ship a product on time. That isn't their game. On the other hand they do have to worry about where the grants are going to come from to fund the students and technicians in their lab. No money and those talented employees lose their jobs or funding. What a soft life. Don't care about truth or progress or scientific method? More drivel. I can't think of a single one of my colleagues who this applies to.

If your claims are true of your own tiny part of science it seems to me that this is because of its dysfunction. The founding claims of your field have never really worked out. People struggle along trying to deny that but it is true. Maybe great discoveries are in the offing, but trying to cook up stories that the lack of progress is because of widespread corruption in science is wrong, self-serving, and small minded. Thee are problems with the culture of science but corruption isn't one of them.

Academic Physicists and Physicians have something in common..

etymologically their labels are grounded in the word Physis- the Goddess of Nature,,

They are also human and prone to corruption.

Its only natural

Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015

Quote

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”

Quote

"It is the failure of doctors and universities to keep their greedy paws out of the corrupting influence of Big Pharma money that is the problem. If Big Pharma is allowed to spend lots of $$$ paying off doctors and universities and professors, then it should do so to maximize profits

https://medium.com/@drjasonfun…g-for-profit-41f2812b8704

Of course I am incorruptible... at the $10,000 level

But at the $100,000 level I am not so sure.. that would be enough to do some cool cold fusion research,,,

... for the good of mankind... could justify the means. .or not

I think it would be interesting to gather some volcanic mix from TAAL as it was producing lightning and forge a casing from it. add the fuel Aluminum mercury ect and get a hot reaction going within the tubes and add sea water for the eruption to push it though the casing.. never know.. the burden of proof is sorta already on video.

"Mankind" is a born as a hunter. The easiest victim to catch is your neighbor. 11'000 years ago mankind started to farm cattle. Today the bankers and investors have found the most clean working "animal husbandry". They construct large apartment buildings and attract families or even better "single nerds". Man live on man, its the easiest way to earn an income without doing real work.

Science is the same. Once you earned enough credits you are allowed to hold "credit makers" also called master students or phd's... This is one reason why I left academics science to many profs were illiterates, even unable to master a bachelor examen, but with a lot of credits. But this primitive animal behavior usually only works in fields that are either new or not well defined. In 1989 LENR was new & undefined and most worse, a promise for the millennium check-pot.

Unluckily most people in LENR research even if skilled in physics/math do not even understand a beginners course in system design or simple are unable to answer the question: How do I have to define "my" successful research? The problem is "my". In a fields with no theory background you end up like once upon time in the west. Except that in LENR nobody knows how the nuggets look alike - but - crazy enough they all dig for them like the famous Japanese Shogun treasure hunter, that for halve of its live time manually turned over a small hill in the hunt for gold or what ever his rotten brain imagined. He infected his son too, who still is digging.

This only to say that most LENR researchers are no grain brighter than these lost Japanese... Success will only come if they exchange their beloved secretes that most of the time have no other value than: " I already did try this and saw a reaction...", what to many already did.

To make it short: If you have a clear written "how to do LENR" receipt that you can follow with material everybody can buy on the free market and you know how to prepare the fuel, to start and control the LENR reaction for at least a month with a "constant" COP above 5 then this is worth a secrete if you did it 10 times and it fully worked out 5 times out of 10. Before you reach this state a secrete is a mental distortion and may be needs medical treatment, especially when this secrete phase last longer than 2 years...

Quote from Drgenek

Therefore, if a new theory shows the magnitude of coulomb barrier is lower when the target and projectile element nuclei have been modified from their ground state, then the patent office would then need to consider the evidence of such modification.

No, the Patent Office does not deal in theories. It only accepts engineering proof that the invention works. Nor is it supposed to reject a claim because that claim violates theory except in the case of perpetual motion machines.

On the other hand, if a patent includes theory, and the scientific consensus says the theory is wrong, the P. O. may reject the patent on that basis. So, experts in patent law have repeatedly told cold fusion researchers they should never include any theory in their applications. Theory cannot help a patent. It can only cause problems.

The high energy but sub nuclear power results are expected to, not a suprise at all! Quite a good confirmation of certain trends and overlaps in various researchers and theoreticians data. Lovely the pico-chemistry thing has been given some sort of positive progress amidst it's arguments!

Quote from JedRothwell

No, the Patent Office does not deal in theories. It only accepts engineering proof that the invention works. Nor is it supposed to reject a claim because that claim violates theory except in the case of perpetual motion machines.

On the other hand, if a patent includes theory, and the scientific consensus says the theory is wrong, the P. O. may reject the patent on that basis. So, experts in patent law have repeatedly told cold fusion researchers they should never include any theory in their applications. Theory cannot help a patent. It can only cause problems.

Theory in a patent is not without value but almost without value. A theory per said is by definition an abstract idea and therefore not patentable. A patent must persuade about what is physical. So in a patent, theory is restricted to an operative model and the statement is made that other models are possible so that the model should not be considered restrictive. A model has moving parts. The model predicts physical behavior as a sequence of steps. Those predictions of physical behavior are the basis of the scientific method. A list of steps that changes physical behavior of matter becomes a method. A method which produces physical results is patentable if the method has utility, novelty and unobviousness.

An examiner's attempt to label something as "cold fusion and discard it based on scientific consensus can only work if the examiner describe how the physical description of that something is "cold fusion". Not so in my case. The examiner states the cold fusion concept relies on incorporation of deuterium into a crystal matrix. No combination of hydrogen and a crystal matrix is required in my method. I will fight every false generalization the examiner thinks he can use.

I am fighting for my rights, I have not succeeded but I am confident that I can use the law to prevail.

Quote from Curbina

Just because I have read the rejection reports of the patent applications of Santilli and Ohmasa, I know that in their case the strongest argument was that, no matter how correct and independently verified their unexpected experimental results were, and no matter the fact that there was no mainstream theoretical support for their results, there was no way that a person skilled in the art would have been able to get the same results just from reading and doing what is written in the application, which is a condition sine qua non for a patent grant.

I have seen this argument in my office action. One of my embodiment uses Aquafuel as an example of colder fusion. There are several examples of an arc though water to generate a fuel: all of them would produce a gas like Aquafuel. I make the argument that the utility of the method is to produce a fuel which a has potential energy derived from the equation of state ( balance equation showing transmutation). Hence, I responded as follows:

"Further, paragraph 0005 cited examples where an electric arc is used to produce chemical fuel. Clearly, if so, many processes can produce such a chemical fuel, nothing is hidden or prevents one skill in the art from producing such a gas. The reproducibility of making magnecules is the basis of the commercial venture Magnegas."

The primary physical argument is that magnecules are evidence of a fuel as described above. Mass balance validates the equation of state showing transmutation. In an engine test comparison to gasoline, Aquafuel produced 3x the energy expected based on its composition and compositions know relationship to energy on combustion (thermodynamics). Given conservation of energy, the energy predicted by the equation of state (by transmutation) doesn't disappear but is converted to potential energy as a fuel.

A general disbelief that colder fusion can be that easy doe not make it so. Being ignorant of the origin of the energy of the fuel does not invalidate evidence of its nuclear fusion origin.