The criteria corresponding to the numbers below are given on the previous page.
In this example some beads were coated with metals, placed in water, and a current was applied. According to the proposer, this resulted in 200 times more energy coming out than goes in.
| Criteria | Condition Met? | Rationale for the Patterson Cell Theory |
| #1 | no | There is no fundamental theory and a lot of questions. |
| #2 | no | Conservation of Energy seems to be violated. |
| #3 | no | This theory has no way of explaining what happens. |
| #4 | yes | Not sure on this one. Will give the benefit of the doubt. |
| #5 | no | This person is known for outlandish ideas. |
| #6 | no | Other, well-known scientists would not collaborate. Those who did where somewhat suspicious. |
| #7 | - | Apparently no math was used. |
| #8 | no | Appears to be a money making proposition. |
This theory would not have merit as a scientific theory.
This theory proposes that the dinosaurs were killed by the effects of a meteorite.
| Criteria | Condition Met? | Rationale for Meteorite Theory |
| #1 | yes | The theory is not complicated and has no inconsistencies |
| #2 | yes | No fundamental principles are violated. |
| #3 | yes | This theory is consistent with the initial observation. |
| #4 | yes | The theory applies to the area of investigation and does not go far beyond. |
| #5 | yes | A competent, well-known researcher put forward the theory. |
| #6 | yes | The proposer was aware of other theories and disclosed all methods. |
| #7 | yes | The math used is appropriate. |
| #8 | yes | No outside agenda is known. |
This theory would have merit as a scientific theory.