At 09:07 AM 3/29/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
The
comment about the patent office not being permitted to grant patents
in the "cold fusion" field is still galling.
Sure. However, "not being permitted" has a lost performative. By
whom? The patent office position was always officially based, as I
understand, on an idea that cold fusion was rejected by the
mainstream as impossible. Patents have been granted, nevertheless, by
avoiding the cold fusion claim; generation of energy was listed as an
additional claim. It's tricky.
With PdD cold fusion, one would have to list the Fleischmann work,
which has always been the tipoff that this is "cold fusion." However,
NiH reactions are not known to be "cold fusion," though they
certainly look like some kind of LENR, assuming they are real. I
don't consider that fully established yet. If McKubre replicates,
darn tootin' it's real. He doesn't mess around.
However, the situation is different now, and the mainstream
peer-reviewed journals have largely accepted cold fusion. I don't
think a position of total exclusion can ultimately be maintained,
it's discriminatory. (i.e., you can get a patent on a fantastic and
scientifically unaccepted process like Larsen's gamma ray shield,
without any proof of workability, but not something *more*
established, such as PdD cold fusion?)
In any case, if there is a working model, that clearly demonstrates
what is being patented, any patent office objection can be overcome.
The problem in the past has been that such reliable demonstrations
did not exist.
As I understand the matter.
Sure, Park has been there, behind the scenes, pulling strings,
getting anyone who disagrees fired, etc. But that will end, it can't
be sustained.
