<[email protected]> quoted the patent examiner:
> "...The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to > render credible low energy nuclear reactions, in particular fusion > reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical > arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the Coulomb > barrier." > I think the examiner is right. The declaration does not provide such evidence. Godes should have presented such evidence, in the form of affidavits from scientists and engineers testifying that the machine works. > > "... The finding of lack of utility and enablement may be overcome if an > independent committee of peers in the pertinent fields, such as a third > peer review by the U.S. Department of Energy, were to conclude that cold > fusion or low energy nuclear reactions were shown by the basic research > continued after the latest Review by the U.S. Department of Energy > (December 1, 2004...) to be reproducible and thus to have utility. > Applicant could have his invention tested by such organizations as the > U.S. Department of Energy or NIST." > Again, I agree with the examiner. They could never get it tested by the DoE or NIST, but there are plenty of other authoritative places that would test it, such as EPRI or ELFORSK. Or any of a hundred major industrial corporations. Or SRI. They should have attached a positive report from McKubre, if they have one. > The reviewer then goes on to question Godes' electron-capture hypothesis. > He could similarly argue that all LENR theories are wrong since all violate > conventional beliefs. > David French and other patent experts say it was huge mistake for Godes to mention his theory in the patent. He should have described only how to make the machine and that it produces heat. I have often heard this advice. I do not understand why Godes did not follow it. Either he did not consult with an expert or someone gave him terrible advice. - Jed
