FRC+IEC ?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Chris, no joke; free energy devices have been getting patents for more than a century. The plethora of them applying at present is just because for about 15 years, physicists have been reexamining the ZPF issue.

I don't want to be understood as saying ZPF is silly. Guys like Hal Puthoff are amongst the smartest guys of our generation. Could be he's right and there is a harvestable ZPF (though I personally do not think so.). The point is, there's no evidence he's right and yet, we have all these patents GRANTED for free energy devices.

The simplest examples are for "magnetic motors". Since permanent magnet motors appear to violate conservation, their operation is defended through reference to ZPF these last few years. They were however getting patents before the latest ZPF craze.

Try to remember, patent ownership is not some validation of a technology. It is merely a protection. No savvy investor will be swayed by the existence of a patent. However, once a patent is granted, the owner can present his concept to would-be investors without an NDA, so there are serious financial and practical concerns here. Many investors will never sign an NDA for good reasons.

I haven't done any patent searches on things like free energy devices for about 4 years, but I assure you, many have been granted.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

While I wished that the whole ZPF thing was true, because it would solve our energy problems quite nicely, I would put it into the cathegory of bogus. The science behind this is not even solid yet, how can there be any solid inventions?
If you wanted to patent this, you should have at least a small scale prototype or some setup that proofs that what you are doing actually works. Otherwise it is a perpetuum mobile machine, a scam, something that has no place in a serious patent book.
All it does is waste space. With the millions of patents out there, moving about certain fields is already a major PITA, especially for smaller companies. You have to invest a lot of time researching existing patents, so you do not violate some of the quite ridiculous claims out there. Even then you may sometimes end up being wrong with it, just because the claim was written in such a broad and unspeciffic fashion.
Giving people patents for things that can not work, or that are just ideas, or vague fantasies, only makes the whole thing even more complicated and expensive.
Soon nobody will be able to do anything anymore, unless you are a huge corporation that can afford a patent department to check this mess.
It will not motivate people to develop and invent, it will inhibit development.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Just because Chris was right to ask for evidence, I'll post the following. Sorry for being this lazy but it's example enough of free energy devices:

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/04/0 ... gy-patent/

I should mention that I have met Frank on a couple occasions and he is an authentic genius. He's your top-shelf, civilian defense contractor. I didn't know he had a ZPF patent back when I met him at STAIF '07 and '08 but that would not have injured my opinion of him. He's an excellent man.

If we don't KNOW there is no ZPF, what is the harm in applying for a patent of something we hope will change the world? No harm, no foul.

Here's another quick find, again my apologies I haven't even read what's at the link:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/ta ... ction.html
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Skipjack wrote:Giving people patents for things that can not work, or that are just ideas, or vague fantasies, only makes the whole thing even more complicated and expensive....It will not motivate people to develop and invent, it will inhibit development.
that's why I was asking for ZPE examples - I believe most patent offices have come down on these things hard in recent years, for much the reason that you have stated. I'm just not sure these type of patents have been given much regard in the last few years and are summarily thrown out now. I would tend to be surprised if any had been granted in the last 5 years, but would be interested to see how they got on.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Yes well, I should admit to you that the bulk of speculative physics being done in energy and propulsion is embracing ZPF. Fact is, those who have voiced concerns that the ZPF model must be wrong have been ostracized to some extent.

There most certainly are able and accomplished physicists supporting the ZPF model. I just have never seen them answer the objections to that model so I am not an adherent.

I am also not a physicist, so what does my opinion matter to anyone but me? :-)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

We might get commercial ambient energy powered devices very soon. They are testing some with claimed production of 5mW, to charge cellphones and for various sensors. There was a link on GeekPress or Instapundit or somewhere. No doubt this will fuel notions of free energy.

ZPE, otoh, is still a bit of a pipe dream. There's lots of it around, but you can't really build something small enough to harvest enough of it to be useful, even with nanoengineering. I'll be shocked if any make it to market in the next 100 years. I'd put it somewhere below Mach effect in likelihood.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Dave, you can find a few ZPF designs that can indeed be very small here:

http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Propuls ... 750&sr=8-1

This is because one of the editors, Dr. Eric Davis (whom I count a friend) is a strong ZPF supporter who works at EarthTech with Hal Puthoff.

The reason there is almost nothing in the book about M-E theory is that when Marc Millis invited the Woodward group to write something to include, we were all much too busy.

C'est domage. It's a good book.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Chris,
It seems you have a bit of a problem with time. In the following exchange, GIT says "exists" (present tense) and then you say "is a" (also present tence) but use a definition about what WAS. GIT is correct.
Not at all. Patents 'exist' because during the Renaissance [particularly] there were monarchs sufficiently enlightened to issue patents to those they wished to bestow monopolies on due to those persons with curious skills and knowledge.

That is why "they exist", because of this history precedent which has evolved into the patent system known and hated today.
Again, he described what they exist TO DO NOW, and you are saying he is wrong because they now exist BECAUSE OF. You may be correct wrt the because of. He is correct wrt the TO DO.

PATENT DISCUSSION TAKEN TO "GENERAL". Please reply there.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

So does anyone have any additional insight on Tri-Alpha's latest claims?

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Cpt. Beowulf:
You mean someone actually put forward some insight?

I guess I missed that amongst the patent pontificating (ad nauseum). Someone should have sent that tangent of the discussion off to a General "Patent Backwaters" topic 2 pages back.

We have real, bleeding edge (novel and interesting) plasma/fusion physics results presented and all we get is a never ending patent discussion/drivel and repeated references to fringe-dwelling, gravinertial thrusters and ZPF drives. :roll:

Has everyone become unhinged?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Alright, there is a new Patent Law Thread in General now.
Please for the sake of the original threads integrity, lets move the (quite interesting) discussion over to there:
viewtopic.php?t=2333

I also made another thread for the ZPF- discussion. Since that is yet another topic drift.
viewtopic.php?p=42669#42669
Thanks guys!

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Lets remember that patents exist to protect intellectual property.
Uh. No. Patents exist to protect an expression of an idea.

Ideas themselves are not patentable. (of course that is not always what happens).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Has everyone become unhinged?
I was already in that condition long before the start of this discussion.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Post by Robthebob »

pfrit wrote:Actually, this is wrong. Intellectual property is a legal fiction. Patents exist to encourage invention. This was considered by Jefferson to be worth the loss of freedom by the fiction of owning an idea for a time to be rewarded for having come up with the idea. I agree with Jefferson on this. Patents are a very good idea. However, the idea that one person can OWN an idea or a specific collections of words is fairly ridiculous. Changing patent law has no bearing on your rights. You do not have a right to own an idea. I do agreee with your central point. If you can only patent a fully realized idea, you have no incentive to publish. Your bad idea or non working invention may spark an idea in someone more capable than you to make a workable idea or invention. This is good.
really? what about all those patents hold by big oil on solar and no one can use those inventions and ideas or improve on those inventions or ideas?
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

?

Post by bcglorf »

Robthebob wrote:
pfrit wrote:Actually, this is wrong. Intellectual property is a legal fiction. Patents exist to encourage invention. This was considered by Jefferson to be worth the loss of freedom by the fiction of owning an idea for a time to be rewarded for having come up with the idea. I agree with Jefferson on this. Patents are a very good idea. However, the idea that one person can OWN an idea or a specific collections of words is fairly ridiculous. Changing patent law has no bearing on your rights. You do not have a right to own an idea. I do agreee with your central point. If you can only patent a fully realized idea, you have no incentive to publish. Your bad idea or non working invention may spark an idea in someone more capable than you to make a workable idea or invention. This is good.
really? what about all those patents hold by big oil on solar and no one can use those inventions and ideas or improve on those inventions or ideas?
Examples?

Post Reply