mach thrusters

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Postby BenTC » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:19 pm

GIThruster wrote:In order to do research on a patented or pending IP

Actually...
"Patent Pending" phrase has no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... atpend.htm
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Postby paulmarch » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:35 pm

chrismb wrote:Paul,

The report I found above contains no data and states it is a 'Progress Report', and therefore isn't a 'Proof of Principle Report'.

A final report would properly contain the traditional sorts of data displays. But this is not a final report. Rather, it is a progress report.


Data would also be expected in a proof of principle report (as well as a final report), so if you could identify the correct link you were referring to, then I would be obliged.


Chris:

I wish Woodward worked that way, but his idea of a final proof of prinicple report really isn't one, however if you pull down the following pdf files from the same page on NSF.com you will have a sample of the latest M-E rotary test data available. You also might like to take a look at the jpg files appended to that same page.

M-E Rotary_2010_Woodward ED.pdf
MARK III-Array-1_Static_Electrostriction_Loading_Test.pdf

Lastly, you mentioned in your last post that the U.S. 6,347,766 Woodward & Mahood patent expired in 22 March 2006. Could you point out where you saw this information? I'd be shocked to find out that Woodward's University, CSUF, would have let that happen since they paid for it in the first place.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

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

Postby chrismb » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:57 pm

...from the USPTO Electronic Business Center portal:

Image

ltgbrown
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Postby ltgbrown » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:20 pm

The the top entry on the transaction history tab is "03-22-2006 Patent Expired."
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Postby paulmarch » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:17 am

chrismb wrote:...from the USPTO Electronic Business Center portal:

Chris:

Thanks much for the follow up patent information. I talked with Woodward and it appears that CSUF dropped the ball on their agreement with Jim W to maintain his patents over time. Not sure what will happen next...
Paul March

Friendswood, TX

Giorgio
Posts: 2691
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:37 am

Lack of practical results is normally the reason for dropping patents.
This shouldn't come as a surprise as everyone has budget issues in this period and cutting unproductive expenses is just one of the ways to fix it.

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

Postby chrismb » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:33 pm

paulmarch wrote:Chris: Thanks much for the follow up patent information.
No worried. I was looking it up anyway as I am interested in it, even if I am very skeptical, so thanks for the further links.

(Unlike some commentators here, I trust that you and I both know from experience that it is on our heads to fight for our own projects, and we can't afford to take skepticism personally because progressive science is a rough-and-tumble process at the best of times. Besides, the skeptic's view often contains keys to progress.)

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Postby paulmarch » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:32 am

chrismb wrote:
paulmarch wrote:Chris: Thanks much for the follow up patent information.
No worried. I was looking it up anyway as I am interested in it, even if I am very skeptical, so thanks for the further links.

(Unlike some commentators here, I trust that you and I both know from experience that it is on our heads to fight for our own projects, and we can't afford to take skepticism personally because progressive science is a rough-and-tumble process at the best of times. Besides, the skeptic's view often contains keys to progress.)


Chris:

Agreed, for we are responsible for making a new paradigm work or not. I think we can make the M-E work, but as you said, the skeptics need to keep us on our toes and can provide insights that only come from outside critical analysis. In other words the fat lady has yet to sing on the outcome of the reality of M-E. So we let the university fix their patent screw up while Woodward and I continue to find ways forward. Good luck with your own endeavors in the meantime.
Paul March

Friendswood, TX

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:46 pm

Theory blip on NSF from Paul March:
All:

When conversing with Jim Woodward and a friend of his last night, Dr. Woodward made the following observation worth noting about the Mach-Effect (M-E) and GRT in general.


"The real problem in understanding Mach effects, I suspect, can be traced to a fundamental definition that almost no one (other than those who have had to worry through stuff like this) really appreciates. It is a distinction that, to my knowledge, is only addressed at any length in simple terms by Taylor and Wheeler in Spacetime Physics (pp 208-209). It is the difference between invariants, conserved quantities, and "constants". Almost everyone sloppily refers to the speed of light as a "constant". But as all familiar with the details of GRT know, this is wrong. The speed of light is actually a "locally measured invariant".

Why does this matter? Because for inertial reaction forces to be independent of location and epoch, phi/c^2 must be a constant. And since c is a "locally measured invariant", so too must phi be one. Locally measured invariants, as measured by different observers, can vary from place to place and time to time, but locally measured they cannot. This means that time-dependent terms in dynamical equations can have non-zero values, whereas were c a "constant" they might not. This distinction is the one that leads to Mach effects from the timelike part of the four momentum when differentiated to get the four force and so on.

I might add that even experienced general relativists can get this wrong (as at least one did in my experience, though when pointed out, he immediately acceded to the correct version).

As to the problem of explaining this to non-relativists, what you are asking for, I think, is the analog of the quantum vacuum model as a sea of virtual particles fliting into and out of existence (which, by the way, as an exclusive model is wrong). There is no equivalent, easily visualized model for Mach effects that I know of. Lots of people have tried to come up with one. In my judgement, none have succeeded. I wish it were otherwise, as getting non-relativists interested would be much easier if such a model existed. Sigh. . . ."


I notice P.March was let go from his position. Hopefully this won't also remove his involvement from investigating ME.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Postby paulmarch » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:35 am

Betruger wrote:Theory blip on NSF from Paul March:
All:

When conversing with Jim Woodward and a friend of his last night, Dr. Woodward made the following observation worth noting about the Mach-Effect (M-E) and GRT in general.


"The real problem in understanding Mach effects, I suspect, can be traced to a fundamental definition that almost no one (other than those who have had to worry through stuff like this) really appreciates. It is a distinction that, to my knowledge, is only addressed at any length in simple terms by Taylor and Wheeler in Spacetime Physics (pp 208-209). It is the difference between invariants, conserved quantities, and "constants". Almost everyone sloppily refers to the speed of light as a "constant". But as all familiar with the details of GRT know, this is wrong. The speed of light is actually a "locally measured invariant".

Why does this matter? Because for inertial reaction forces to be independent of location and epoch, phi/c^2 must be a constant. And since c is a "locally measured invariant", so too must phi be one. Locally measured invariants, as measured by different observers, can vary from place to place and time to time, but locally measured they cannot. This means that time-dependent terms in dynamical equations can have non-zero values, whereas were c a "constant" they might not. This distinction is the one that leads to Mach effects from the timelike part of the four momentum when differentiated to get the four force and so on.

I might add that even experienced general relativists can get this wrong (as at least one did in my experience, though when pointed out, he immediately acceded to the correct version).

As to the problem of explaining this to non-relativists, what you are asking for, I think, is the analog of the quantum vacuum model as a sea of virtual particles fliting into and out of existence (which, by the way, as an exclusive model is wrong). There is no equivalent, easily visualized model for Mach effects that I know of. Lots of people have tried to come up with one. In my judgement, none have succeeded. I wish it were otherwise, as getting non-relativists interested would be much easier if such a model existed. Sigh. . . ."


I notice P.March was let go from his position. Hopefully this won't also remove his involvement from investigating ME.


Betruger:

In fact, getting laid off from my NASA/JSC day job has been the best thing going for my M-E research. I finally have the time AND the energy needed to pursue the experiments I want to checkout, and started down that path last week after taking a couple of weeks off to sit back and watch the world go by. A most refreshing occupation, but alas, the pay sucks! I figure I've got approximately 6-to-8 months to see if I can push the M-E wagon to a level of performance that will interest investors. Then I'll have to see about the more mundane aspects of life like keeping food on the table and the utilities turned on.

Best,
Paul March

Friendswood, TX

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:24 am

I know what that's like. Not so bad to have something that holds your interest/passion in such a lull between job, and being free to go all out with it, all things considered.

Good luck..

AcesHigh
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Postby AcesHigh » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:05 pm

Paul, keep trying the lottery. Its almost impossible to win, but if you win, you can pursue ME Research for as long as you want without the worry of putting food on the table, and without needing investors (that I know you guys dont really want until you can prove beyond doubt to the scientific community that it works)

hell, I will also keep playin in the lotery. If I win it, I will extend your exclusive ME-research time for another 12 months :)

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:04 am

BenTC wrote:
GIThruster wrote:In order to do research on a patented or pending IP

Actually...
"Patent Pending" phrase has no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... atpend.htm


GIT,
Sorry but once GATT was signed and WIPO went into effect, all signatory nations patent laws started recognising the date that a patent was filed as the starting of the patent protection.

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

Postby GIThruster » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:43 pm

IntLibber wrote:GIT,
Sorry but once GATT was signed and WIPO went into effect, all signatory nations patent laws started recognising the date that a patent was filed as the starting of the patent protection.


Yes, that was my point. This change goes back before GATT, IIRC. Obviously, patents that are never granted do not afford protection while still pending. "Patent Pending" is really just a declaration to those whom might want to infringe based upon lack of filing.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests