Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

The industry standard for demonstrating superconductivity is a four point test on a test article large enough to remove all ambiguity. That's what everyone does. You do this, and the patent examiner won't have much to quibble over.

It does not prove superconduction Only that your equipment cannot measure zero voltage even if it is there. Since you can never measure zero voltage the only real proof is to prove that there cannot be a voltage unless you violate the laws electrodynamics and thermodynamics. Such proof is incontrovertible while four-point measurements an Meissner effect does not prove without reasonable doubt the the voltage is zero. They are just indications that you might have superconduction and these indications are not always valid. You can levitate a live frog in a magnetic field and I can assure you that the frog is not a superconductor.

[johanfprins]

Well, I wish you well in your endeavours but, for what it is worth, it sounds like you are being too limiting in your trust of others.

Thanks for your good wishes. I have learned the hard way that you should not trust "others".

To be simple about it, your reply suggests to me that you do not have a specific application in mind.

You see my point? "Others" jump to conclusions which fit what they want to believe.

You can either patent the manufacturing process for this superconducting substance or you can patent an application for it.

That is exactly what I am doing.

If you have to work with a company to work out how to manufacture your material then you should do that under an NDA.

This is what I am trying to do. I am looking for a company who can defend my patents since I cannot. I have not yet found such a company since the "experts" in the field of superconduction are advising the companies against it since they know that if I am right (and I am) all their models on superconduction fall flat on their faces. Not just their models but much simpler physics which you can find in high school text books.

Find the right company to work with, get an NDA in place, and then get them to file the patent, with you as inventor.

As I have said I have tried to find such a company for 7 years now. If you can find one I will be happy. And you will deserve a reward!

But it sounds like you need help either to manufacture the material, or to put it to use in some application, and therefore you don't have anything yet to patent, until someone helps you fulfill one of those two outcomes.

Jumping to conclusions again! You see why I cannot trust "others" before they say what they are willing to do if I can prove to them I am correct. I do not mind sharing the spoils provided such a company is strong enough to protect the IP.

The rest of what you wrote is basically a repeat of what you already have written above. It is based on presuppositions and I find id patronizing and insulting.

[johanfprins]

Again, you are leaving us to read between the lines, but I infer from this that you think if you have a material that can be measured as 'virtually zero resistance' but that some may still claim you have not achieved superconductivity.

Jumping to conclusions again. Before talking about zero resistivity please define to me what it is. It has NEVER been defined in the scientific literature. I do not prove virtual stuff or do virtual physics like the people in quantum field physics. In fact I am the first physicist EVER to have proved that a current can be transported while there REALLY is no electric field.

If you might excuse my presumptiveness, I therefore presume that you feel a need to embed the claim of superconductivity in your patent.

You see how patronizing you are. Show me any patent ever that really proved that the material claimed transfers a current while the electric-field is REALLY zero. Such a patent does not exist.

If the material is actually superconducting, people will discover that for themselves later on. You don't have to presume people are too stupid and won't figure that out, once the material becomes available.

Again jumping to conclusions. Where have I EVER presumed that another persons would not be able to come to the same invention?

If you really really insist on claiming superconductivity then you are after glory rather than a patent, and your books should serve that function. And if so then you should stop trying to use the patent system for your glorification and not criticise examiners for shortsightedness.

Again presumptious, patronizing and insulting.

I've now given you a basis on which you could prosecute a successful patent application,

My my what an oracle you are! You do not even know what I have and how I have proved superconduction, but you think you can advise me. Maybe you mean well. but please spare me the barrage of "insights" which I already know about.

[johanfprins]

How's those book sales going Prins?

Very well indeed: And the feedback has so far been excellent.

[Betruger]

Aside any impoliteness of Chrismb's, his suggestions boil down to roughly the same thing as a few of us suggested earlier. Patent your product/formula as a "low" resistivity product that's not "revolutionary"- making sure the essential recipe is secure by patent, and let any company that surely would pick up on such useful performance (effective superconductivity) prove your formula in wide practice. No one then will have any credibility in claiming your theory or products are baseless. That done, up-ending the whole "physics church"'s corruption will be child's play.
You "only" would have to defer the satisfaction of sticking it to those corrupt scientists & acolytes for a little while.

[johanfprins]

Aside any impoliteness of Chrismb's, his suggestions boil down to roughly the same thing as a few of us suggested earlier. Patent your product/formula as a "low" resistivity product that's not "revolutionary"- making sure the essential recipe is secure by patent, and let any company that surely would pick up on such useful performance (effective superconductivity) prove your formula in wide practice. No one then will have any credibility in claiming your theory or products are baseless. That done, up-ending the whole "physics church"'s corruption will be child's play.
You "only" would have to defer the satisfaction of sticking it to those corrupt scientists & acolytes for a little while.

I fully understand what you are trying to say, but you do not have all the facts. AND PLEASE I am not an idiot who cannot reason out these for myself. There are other boundary conditions involved which I am not willing to discuss on an open forum, only with a financially strong company.

As far as my model of superconduction is concerned, I am already starting to win through my book. As one theoretical physicist wrote: I hope that the fleas of a thousand camels nest in the armpits of those who have opposed you.

[Betruger]

Alright then, best of luck Doc.

[chrismb]

If you really really insist on claiming superconductivity then you are after glory rather than a patent, and your books should serve that function. And if so then you should stop trying to use the patent system for your glorification and not criticise examiners for shortsightedness.

Again presumptious, patronizing and insulting.

Oh dear! Yet another example in history of a thin-skinned scientists who wanted all the recognition of genius and paradigm-shifting discovery, but didn't want the rough-and-tumble that inevitably goes with that game.

No insult was intended, so if you feel insulted then you need to do something about that if you are going to ever have a hope of dealing with businesses. Impolite? Maybe - I am trying to robustly put your situation in perspective, for your benefit. Omelets take broken eggs to make.

As I said, yesterday there were 2 people on the planet who were personally interested in your patent application, and today there is only 1. It is not a success for you to see that number go down.

And there is nothing wrong with being seen to be in it for the glory. What do scientists and engineers say they seek when they bash their heads against a problem for years? Money? Ha! My patents in ion and plasma handling might one day, I hope, will play a part if fusion energy. If my patents come to be recognised as covering an essential aspect then I am absolutely dead sure that within about 30 seconds of people realising that then there will be someone who takes steps to pull my patent from under my feet.

Well, I recognise that will be the reality and I am NOT going to spend my retirement days in poverty defending patents, like the vast majority of privateer inventors of the major gadgets of the 20th C, which is where you are headed right now. My patents give me a trump card that might have some value in the future, but their main value is future recognition and glory, and if you aren't doing it for that reason then I don't understand why you are seeking exploitation. And if I don't understand why you are seeking that, then no-one else is going to either.

So, you can get off your high horse, fella, and start showing some respect to the patent examiners and their processes. It's your ass on the line. No-one else is interested in your predicament, apart from you, and that is down to you and you alone.

[johanfprins]

Oh dear! Yet another example in history of a thin-skinned scientists who wanted all the recognition of genius and paradigm-shifting discovery, but didn't want the rough-and-tumble that inevitably goes with that game.

Again presumtious, patronizing and insulting

I am trying to robustly put your situation in perspective, for your benefit. Omelets take broken eggs to make.

Well thanks for trying to help me but you are not succeeding since you do not have all the facts. You believe that everything can always be done only in one manner. I can assure you that is not so.

As I said, yesterday there were 2 people on the planet who were personally interested in your patent application, and today there is only 1.

So I must jump around with pleasure when two anonymous people show interest? And YOU want to teach me? REALLY!!

It is not a success for you to see that number go down.

In this case I think it is a success!

Well, I recognise that will be the reality and I am NOT going to spend my retirement days in poverty defending patents, like the vast majority of privateer inventors of the major gadgets of the 20th C, which is where you are headed right now.

This is exactly what I want to avoid and exactly what will happen if I follow your advice!

My patents give me a trump card that might have some value in the future, but their main value is future recognition and glory, and if you aren't doing it for that reason then I don't understand why you are seeking exploitation.

My patents are not required for getting "glory": All it requires is from scientists to read my arguments and engage me in logic. And if this does not happen then it will be a waste of time to give my patents away to a bunch of charlatans.

So, you can get off your high horse, fella, and start showing some respect to the patent examiners and their processes.

Respect for what? There is no legal process in the world that is not corrupt.

It's your ass on the line. No-one else is interested in your predicament, apart from you, and that is down to you and you alone.

So why are you then so worried about my ass? You will note that I only responded to the discussions on PolyWell to set the record straight.

[chrismb]

So I must jump around with pleasure when two anonymous people show interest? And YOU want to teach me? REALLY!!

I've not tried to teach you anything. I have spent my time to give some comments from my experience of patenting that I thought I might share with you.

Funny as it may seem, there is altruistic behaviour amongst scientists and engineers. The reality is that I am disappointed that I bothered, but there again the point I have now learned from this is that you are not mined to trust anyone and therefore any help offered you would be frowned upon anyway.

I don't know what you need to get going on this. It sounds like there is no outcome that will satisfy you. Folks here sound like they've offered helpful suggestions (and, as mentioned above it looks like we've come to the same suggestion entirely independently) and that's not you want. The patent system can't give you what you want. If you go to talk with a business then it looks like you have 3 possible options. You can say to them;
1) I just want to benefit mankind [in which case they'll say, 'why don't you just make public all of the detailed information, and we'll make use of it if we can. We don't understand why you have come to us.]
2) I want to benefit mankind but I want to be recognised for this [but you've already said you don't want the glory, so that isn't an option]
3) I am a hard-nosed businessman with a great opportunity [which is evidently incorrect]

So unless there is another reason for entering a business negotiation that i have missed (Ican't see what other reasons there may be) you've got no options; you refuse to create NDA's with those who would seek to help you (and when you do, you don't give information out because of your distrust of those in the NDA!).

What are you actually after? What outcome do you want? Why don't you just publish all the damned details now, because you aren't gonna make money from it, and you aren't after the glory?!!

If this is the way you approach discussions with people who aren't trying to make a profit out of you, then I am not surprised you've got no-where with businesses whose explicit aim is to make profits out of you!! ....best o' luck, chap!

[GIThruster]

The industry standard for demonstrating superconductivity is a four point test on a test article large enough to remove all ambiguity. That's what everyone does. You do this, and the patent examiner won't have much to quibble over.

It does not prove superconduction Only that your equipment cannot measure zero voltage even if it is there. Since you can never measure zero voltage the only real proof is to prove that there cannot be a voltage unless you violate the laws electrodynamics and thermodynamics. Such proof is incontrovertible while four-point measurements an Meissner effect does not prove without reasonable doubt the the voltage is zero. They are just indications that you might have superconduction and these indications are not always valid. You can levitate a live frog in a magnetic field and I can assure you that the frog is not a superconductor.

Well lets not quibble, Johan. In science, there is no such thing as "proof". Science is never in the business of proving anything, it merely disproves the alternatives.

The industry standard is the 4 point test on a test article large enough to remove ambiguity. That's the test found in all SC studies published each year so that's the test you need to use. You don't need to use Meissner effect because, people might quibble about that, though if you can perform it, and if it does demonstrate, then why not claim on that too?

Concerning the notion of making something other than a claim for real superconductivity, I confess, this is a very practical approach and your lawyers are not necessarily the ones to ask about this. So I'll just share about this.

Mark Golds at Room Temperature Superconductors has raised over $40 million over the years for his energy generation and ultraconductor patents. The RTS for which the company is named is not a superconductor. Rather, though RTS is the name of his company, as soon as you look into the details you find this lesser claim that Chris is wisely proposing. They claim they have an "ultraconductor".

Now from a practical standpoint, whether you're conducting 100,000X better than copper, or actually superconducting, only seldom makes a difference. It will certainly make difference if you're building coils for a Poly, but in most applications, the difference is one without a distinction.

So, IMHO, if you continue to have these patent problems, you should consider this alternative approach. We'd all be happy to see a diamond "mega-conductor" or "giga-conductor" or "hyper-conductor" that operates at room temperature.

Final thought, I'm sure I speak for most of us here at Poly to say, it's usually very enlightening to read your posts, especially when you're writing on the subject of theory. Conversely, it's disappointing when you respond to the baiting of certain parties, especially when you're harsh in return. You've quoted the Bible some in your posts, so, consider these words carefully--"never answer a fool according to his folly". It's not worth your time to write, nor ours to read, on the anal distractions that come from some here in this forum. You have our permission to ignore those who have no interest other than play the troll.

[johanfprins]

The industry standard for demonstrating superconductivity is a four point test on a test article large enough to remove all ambiguity. That's what everyone does. You do this, and the patent examiner won't have much to quibble over.

You are of course totally correct and I have 4 point information but am not willing to discuss it at this stage. So please forgive me. The point that I want to make is that I have even better proof for SC than 4 point measurements.

Concerning the notion of making something other than a claim for real superconductivity, I confess, this is a very practical approach and your lawyers are not necessarily the ones to ask about this. So I'll just share about this.

I can assure you that my lawyers are on the ball. All the possibilities you have raised on this forum have been considered in detail already.

Mark Golds at Room Temperature Superconductors has raised over $40 million over the years for his energy generation and ultraconductor patents. The RTS for which the company is named is not a superconductor. Rather, though RTS is the name of his company, as soon as you look into the details you find this lesser claim that Chris is wisely proposing. They claim they have an "ultraconductor".

I know Mark Goldes' history and approach very well. All I am wondering about is what happened to that $40 million dollars.

So, IMHO, if you continue to have these patent problems, you should consider this alternative approach. We'd all be happy to see a diamond "mega-conductor" or "giga-conductor" or "hyper-conductor" that operates at room temperature.

As I have said all these issues have been considered: All options are open.

Final thought, I'm sure I speak for most of us here at Poly to say, it's usually very enlightening to read your posts, especially when you're writing on the subject of theory.

Thank you and I also appreciate it when real physics is being debated as is now happening on the QED-QG thread. This is my life. The patent issue I would have dropped long ago if I could pay back those people who invested in me: Although they do not expect it, I will feel like a charlatan if I do not. Not that the patents are unimportant but because our legal systems worldwide is lopsided and do not protect the individual. All democratic countries in the world claim that "everybody is equal before the law". We all know that Donald Trump will be"more equal" than the beggar in front of Trump Towers in New York.

Conversely, it's disappointing when you respond to the baiting of certain parties, especially when you're harsh in return. You've quoted the Bible some in your posts, so, consider these words carefully--"never answer a fool according to his folly". It's not worth your time to write, nor ours to read, on the anal distractions that come from some here in this forum. You have our permission to ignore those who have no interest other than play the troll.

Thanks.

[MSimon]

AND PLEASE I am not an idiot who cannot reason

I have one up on you. I am an idiot who can reason. But I'm slow.

[johanfprins]

AND PLEASE I am not an idiot who cannot reason

I have one up on you. I am an idiot who can reason. But I'm slow.

Hi! welcome back: This is probably what I should also have said!

[chrismb]

I would still like to better understand your motivations for wanting to talk to businesses. What do you say to them, to explain your motivations for wanting to talk with them? Are you in it mainly for the recognition, for the money, or to benefit mankind? Where's the beef?