A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An anti-gravity space vehicle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 05, 03:13 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

AvWeb reported today that a patent has been issued for an anti-gravity space
ship. At first I thought it was a joke, but a little Googling came up with
this: (Sorry for the bizarre formatting):
**************************************************
USPTO issues anti-gravity patent
US 6,960,975 titled "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary
vacuum state," has a first claim

A space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state is
claimed comprising: a hollow superconductive shield, an inner shield, the
inner shield disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield, said inner
shield comprising an upper shell and a lower shell, a support structure, the
support structure disposed between said hollow superconductive shield and
said inner shield concentrically to said hollow superconductive shield, said
support structure comprised of an upper rotating element and a lower
rotating element, upper means for generating an electromagnetic field, the
upper means for generating an electromagnetic field disposed between said
hollow superconductive shield and said upper shell, affixed to said upper
rotating element at an electromagnetic field-penetrable distance to said
hollow superconductive shield, lower means for generating an electromagnetic
field, the lower means for generating an electromagnetic field disposed
between said hollow superconductive shield and said lower shell, affixed to
said lower rotating element at an electromagnetic field-penetrable distance
to said hollow superconductive shield, electric motors, the electric motors
disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield along the central axis of
said hollow superconductive shield, a power source, the power source
disposed inside said hollow superconductive shield, said power source
electrically connected with said upper means for generating an
electromagnetic field, said lower means for generating an electromagnetic
field, and said electric motors,
life-support equipment, the life-support equipment disposed inside said
inner shield, a flux modulation controller, the flux modulation controller
disposed inside said inner shield, said flux modulation controller in
communication with said upper means for generating an electromagnetic field,
said lower means for generating an electromagnetic field, said power source,
and said electric motors, and a crew, the crew disposed inside said inner
shield accessibly to said life-support and said flux modulation controller.

The patent derives from a continuation application: This is a continuation
of application Ser. No. 10/633,778 filed on Aug. 4, 2003, now abandoned.

The journal Nature and Robert Park have criticized the patent. Park notes it
effectively is a patent on a perpetual motion machine. More specifically,
Park writes: It uses a Podkletnov rotating superconducting gravity shield to
"change the curvature of space-time." Of course, he does not mention the
forbidden words "perpetual motion." The patent office rejects patent
applications that use those words under the 1985 ruling in Newman v Quigg.
These days you have to call it "zero-point energy." Ironically, the patent
was issued shortly after arbitration required the Patent Office to reinstate
Tom Valone, who lost his job in the fallout from the 1999 Conference on Free
Energy.

***from National Geographic --

Robert Park, a consultant with the American Physical Society in Washington,
D.C., warns that such dubious patents aren't limited to the antigravity
concept.

"I might hear a complaint about a particular patent, and then I look into
it," he explained. "More often than not it's a screwball patent. It's an old
problem, but it has gotten worse in the last few years. The workload of the
patent office has gone up enormously."

Some people might consider patents on unworkable products to be relatively
harmless. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland at College
Park, disagrees.
[LBE note: I have discussed some of the issues with the position of Bob Park
and David Voss in Intellectual Property Today. Many of the physicists who
complain about cold fusion publications were virtually silent about the
publication of fraudulent work by Jan-Hendrik Schon.]

"The problem, of course, it that this deceives a lot of investors," he said.
"You can't go out and find investors for a new invention until you can come
up with a patent to show that if you put all this money into a concept,
somebody else can't steal the idea. [Query: if the idea were truly
fraudulent, who would want to steal it, and who could possibly infringe
patent claims on something that does not exist?]

"[Approving these kind of patents can] make it easier for scam artists to
con people if they can get patents for screwball ideas."

But despite their best efforts, mistakes are inevitable and patents may be
granted to unworkable ideas. Some 5,000 examiners must currently handle a
load of 350,000 applications per year.

****************************************
Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #2  
Old November 14th 05, 03:59 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:13:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
OX0ef.332265$084.204428@attbi_s22::

AvWeb reported today that a patent has been issued for an anti-gravity space
ship.


Thanks for the report.

The full text of patent number 6,960,975 is available he
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...5&RS=6,960,975


****************************************
Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...


Ironically, the "invention" seems to have been granted to one of your
neighbors:

Boris Volfson
5707 W. Maple Grove Rd., Apt. 3046
Huntington, IN 46750

Maybe it something in the water. :-)
  #3  
Old November 14th 05, 04:27 PM
Wiz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

Actually, Jay is in Iowa, and the "inventor" is in Indiana, so they're
not really neighbors, but I suppose they could be depending on how much
this invention warps space-time around itself...

  #4  
Old November 14th 05, 04:36 PM
Stefan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Just when you think it can't get more bizarre...


Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the
so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create" such
a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in school!

Stefan
  #5  
Old November 14th 05, 04:44 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the
so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create"
such
a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in
school!

Dr. Sagan, you MUST stop masquerading online as this Stefan fellow...

  #6  
Old November 14th 05, 05:26 PM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

Larry Dighera wrote:

Ironically, the "invention" seems to have been granted to one of your
neighbors:


You have a peculiar idea of what constitutes a neighbor. Jay lives about 435
miles away from that guy.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.
  #7  
Old November 14th 05, 08:05 PM
Darkwing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?


"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Actually, Jay is in Iowa, and the "inventor" is in Indiana, so they're
not really neighbors, but I suppose they could be depending on how much
this invention warps space-time around itself...


I'm in the neighborhood and haven't came up with any spacetime warping
machines, guess I need to quit drinking bottled water.

------------------------------------
DW


  #8  
Old November 14th 05, 08:06 PM
Darkwing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?


wrote in message
ups.com...
Bizarre? How can you *know* that such a vehicle cannot exist? Can the

so-called scientists prove it? What, if HE just decided to "create"
such
a vehicle? I think, this should be taught as a possibility in
school!

Dr. Sagan, you MUST stop masquerading online as this Stefan fellow...



I don't think you have to worry about Carl Sagan posting anything on Usenet
or anywhere for that matter....

----------------------------------
DW


  #9  
Old November 14th 05, 08:19 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

I don't think you have to worry about Carl Sagan posting anything on Usenet
or anywhere for that matter...

You're right DW, maybe Stephen Hawking would have been more apropos?

  #10  
Old November 14th 05, 10:00 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default An anti-gravity space vehicle?

Its actually quite easy to patent anything you want. I'm required to
produce 1 patent per year in my work in RND. Some years I've not had
too many good ideas. However, a good attorney can make just about
any patent happen. I'd say it has MUCH more to do with the quality of
the attorney than the quality of the invension. Also, remember that
once you see the patent on-line, its been in the system for about 5
years (so it may be old).
The true test of the patent is not whether the attorney is able to get
it past the examiner, but whether it holds up in court if challenged.
If this guy really did patent a 2x4 (as the saying goes) then it up be
up to the courts to test it if, indeed, he tries to exercise his patent
to prevent someone else from doing something. I'm probaly a bit
negative but in my opinion, today, patents are really used as amo in IP
lawsuites. It's a game of which company can throw more patents at the
wall. I've consulted on both sides of such lawsuits and always find its
much more a game of trying to find a way to get rid of competitors than
actually protecting true IP, although not always.
BTW: If the patent holder loses in court just once, the patent is null
and void for everyone. Its a risk not all patent holders are actually
willing to take.
-Robert

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airplane / space vehicle display models wanted Aleta Jackson General Aviation 0 May 19th 04 02:17 AM
Hubble plug to be pulled John Carrier Military Aviation 33 March 19th 04 05:19 AM
Rules on what can be in a hangar Brett Justus Owning 13 February 27th 04 06:35 PM
OT (sorta): Bush Will Announce New Space Missions Dav1936531 Military Aviation 0 January 9th 04 11:34 AM
Strategic Command Missions Rely on Space Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 30th 03 09:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.