Patent App. 11/527906; Filed 2006, published yesterday...

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Patent App. 11/527906; Filed 2006, published yesterday...

Postby chrismb » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:15 pm

United States Patent Application 20110170647
Kind Code A1
Bussard; Robert W. July 14, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and apparatus for controlling charged particles


Abstract
An apparatus and method for controlling charged particles. The charged particles comprise electrons and positive ions. A magnetic field having only point cusps is used to confine energetic injected electrons and so to generate a negative potential well. Positive ions injected into or created within the negative potential well are trapped therein. The magnetic field is generated by current-carrying elements arranged at positions spaced from but closely adjacent and parallel to edges of a polyhedron which has an even number of faces surrounding each vertex or corner. The current-carrying elements must be spaced apart at their corners (the vertices of the polyhedron) so as not to touch, and the containing structures for the current-carrying coils of the magnetic-field-providing system are conformal to the fields so produced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Bussard; Robert W.; (Santa Fe, NM)
Assignee: EMC2


Serial No.: 527906
Series Code: 11
Filed: September 27, 2006



I have been looking through the examination notes on this application. They are extensive. This has been rumbling on as an appeal against a final rejection made some years ago, but it was never published as an application [before yesterday]. I will download the examination report, Nebel's replies, and the appeal documents. Makes interesting reading [in a few places]. Looks like there is still an appeal due over it.

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

Perhaps they don't believe it could work ??

Postby Nik » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:22 pm

Hmm. I note abstract makes no mention of reaching fusion temperatures and densities, never mind break-even conditions.

I suppose it is a case of 'first catch your rabbit'...

Ivy Matt
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:43 pm

The examination notes on the international patent application can be found here, but I'm not sure where those on the US application are to be found. :?
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:23 am

I looked only at the USPTO but, blimey, even the WIPO opinion has said every claim lacks either novely or inventive step!

So between WIPO and USPTO, it lacks novely, inventive step and enablement...... ooops.

The other thing to note is that this might hint towards the question about what EMC2 are doing in respect of IP - if Nebel is fighting this one so hard then it suggests they don't have something 'better' in the pipeline, to take on the task of protecting their 'commercial interests'.

Giorgio
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:53 am

I wonder than what is their definition of novelty and inventive.

I'll download the papers and give it a look too...

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:13 am

Giorgio wrote:I'll download the papers and give it a look too...

For what? :)

Giorgio
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:17 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:I'll download the papers and give it a look too...

For what? :)

Knowledge.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Giorgio wrote:Knowledge.

I would advise first of all to learn something basic.
For example how magnetic field works. If you do not know this thing how you can learn more about any magnetic confinement concept?

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:21 am

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Knowledge.

I would advise first of all to learn something basic.
For example how magnetic field works. If you do not know this thing how you can learn more about any magnetic confinement concept?


Because we'll see how the USPTO examiners are seeking to argue the reasons it is not an 'enabled' piece of tech. Is this not obvious?

JC, if you are not going to contribute anything constructive to this thread then kindly sod off. If you do not comprehend that this forum is about Polywell then just go away. Go build your beam thing and then come back with photos of it working. 'Till then, I ask that you don't post in any threads I start.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:42 am

chrismb wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Knowledge.

I would advise first of all to learn something basic.
For example how magnetic field works. If you do not know this thing how you can learn more about any magnetic confinement concept?


Because we'll see how the USPTO examiners are seeking to argue the reasons it is not an 'enabled' piece of tech. Is this not obvious?

JC, if you are not going to contribute anything constructive to this thread then kindly sod off. If you do not comprehend that this forum is about Polywell then just go away. Go build your beam thing and then come back with photos of it working. 'Till then, I ask that you don't post in any threads I start.

Hehe
Unlike Polywell my "beam thing" at least provides to scattered particles returning in right direction capability.
And starting thread everybody has right to express opinion. Or I do not understand the forum's rules correctly?
Or you have more rights than me?

Regarding fusion related patents, I understand that my opinion is less interesting for you. As you are a "big expert" in magnetic (and not only) confinement. But legal validity of patents does not allow to secure intellectual property in fields, in which long term R&D is required for commercialization.

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:35 pm

So what? Are you saying that I am not ALLOWED to ask you not to post in my threads?

Go see a psychiatrist, will you. It will help us all.

I am loading up some files for a real discussion, so please do not foul this thread with your contaminantions.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:06 pm

chrismb wrote:So what? Are you saying that I am not ALLOWED to ask you not to post in my threads?

Go see a psychiatrist, will you. It will help us all.

I am loading up some files for a real discussion, so please do not foul this thread with your contaminantions.

Yes, you allowed to ask and I allowed to post.
And only moderator has a right to bun. Understand?

For real discussing of any magnetic confinement concept it is required that people ("all us" :) ) should at least know at basic level how magnet field work.
I see and your recent posts proved that personally you don't know.
What are you going to discuss?
My psychical condition?
Here again I am compelled to afflict you that unlike you I at least not so excited emotionally.

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:19 pm

Well, you certainly don't know. Your blithering nonsense that you can generate so much magnetic field that it recovers ions in your idiotic scheme. Claims. All you have are claims and half an understanding of relativisitic electric fields. Please, I'm asking, I can't insist on it - P!SS OFF!

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:13 pm

chrismb wrote:Well, you certainly don't know. Your blithering nonsense that you can generate so much magnetic field that it recovers ions in your idiotic scheme. Claims. All you have are claims and half an understanding of relativisitic electric fields. Please, I'm asking, I can't insist on it - P!SS OFF!

Regardless my confinement scheme is idiotic or not, that allows to particles to move in right direction.
If you are not understand that, so you do not also understand how conventional pinch works.
Your claims about interaction of two charges moving parallelly shoed that you have nothing to do with discussing issue.
So, my kind advice: P!SS OFF yourself. As you wish.
All you have are claims and half an understanding of relativisitic electric fields.

And where are magnetic? And what is magnetic? :)

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:38 pm



Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests