John Fields
Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:33:52 -0700
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:07:54 -0500, you wrote: >From Mike Carrell: > >> A standard tactic of patent examiners is deny and cite objections and force >> the applicant to overcome the objections. Objections of this type have been >> seen before. The process of overcoming them is iterative, lengthy, >> expensive, and private. It is reasonable to believe that such interaction is >> ongoing and necessary to protect investors and prospective partners. Legal >> action may follow, which would make interesting theater. >> >> Mike Carrell > >Hi Mike, > >Is the new "solid fuel" process commercially viable? The implication >over at the BLP web site has been that the new-and-improved process >has been proven experimentally to self-generate through well-known >chemical manufacturing processes. If this really is an authentic >breakthrough in how to sustain the critical regenerative process to >produce excess energy couldn't BLP & lawyers simply patent the process >that generates the excess heat and, well, sort of gloss over (at least >for now) the alleged theory behind it? > >Hasn't experimental evidence always trumped what theoretical >explanation may currently be in vogue? > >Regards >Steven Vincent Johnson >www.OrionWorks.com >www.zazzle.com/orionworks --- In time, yes. When it's important for the scientist doing the work, not always. Galileo, with his observational evidence supporting a heliocentric system and thus his support of Copernicanism, fell afoul of the theoretical explanation given by the Roman Catholic church for geocentrism and, certainly in fear for his life, had to recant his position and endure house arrest for the rest of his life. About 400 years later, the Church admitted he was right. JF