7 ms·

This relies on the existence of the graviton, which at this point is is not actually known to exist. Some would even argue that there is no reason for it to exi

by ksaj 6y ago

This relies on the existence of the graviton, which at this point is is not actually known to exist. Some would even argue that there is no reason for it to exist. There are a few competing theories of gravity that don't jive at all with what's discussed in pseudo-factual language in the patent. It doesn't help that his only source cited seems to be his own, albeit peer reviewed, paper. I hope that paper at least cites someone other than himself. So all this talk about gravitons being EM and photon carriers is a whole lot of guestimating. It doesn't seem to connect in any way with LIGO's expectations and results. It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich.

new_guy 6y ago
> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich. It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd. Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.
- ubertoop 6y ago
  Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy. Why? And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy
- ksaj 6y ago
  There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits. Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell. He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.
  - pontifier 6y ago
    This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.
      - pontifier 6y ago
        My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com http://www.DDproFusion.com
  - dantheman 6y ago
    If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.
ubertoop 6y ago
The patent is really only half of the story here. The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers? On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1] The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe. The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations. The big questions here are 1) Why does the Navy own these patents 2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing 3) Are they even real science? [1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to-disclose-ufo-information https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...
- colechristensen 6y ago
  Publishing nonsense is a good way to spread disinformation to your adversaries and waste their resources, likewise to “explain” things you want to keep secret which have vaguely similar properties. But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexpected quality progress.
  - dawnerd 6y ago
    Really it's only public because they want it to be seen. Secret research doesn't just end up in a patent database. I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      > I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar. My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-) (The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)
voldacar 6y ago
If we posit that the graviton does exist and suspend all disbelief, is the rest of the patent logically sound? If the theoretical basis of this device is correct, would it actually do what it claims to?
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  Gravity is the result of the bending of spacetime, but what about the monopole[1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY
  - ksaj 6y ago
    This is where "begs the question" comes into play. You have to prove gravity is the result of bending space time - something that does not yet have proof, and has a few counter theories to compete with - in order to bother thinking about monopoles in this context. It's worth keeping in mind that magnetism != gravitation as well.
- ksaj 6y ago
  It's a pitched idea they are researching. If it is even close to what ends up being provable, and subsequently doable, then they also have some patented ideas of how to use what they've been researching. Even if they are a ways off the mark, they can prove prior art with the patent. And of course with each new discovery, they'll file a new patent until they have something that works. So, yes. The patent protects their research, as is the purpose of obtaining a patent.

by ksaj 6y ago

new_guy 6y ago

> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich. It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd. Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.

ubertoop 6y ago
Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy. Why? And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy
ksaj 6y ago
There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits. Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell. He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.
- pontifier 6y ago
  This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.
    - pontifier 6y ago
      My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com http://www.DDproFusion.com
- dantheman 6y ago
  If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.

ubertoop 6y ago

The patent is really only half of the story here. The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers? On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1] The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe. The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations. The big questions here are 1) Why does the Navy own these patents 2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing 3) Are they even real science? [1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to-disclose-ufo-information https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...

colechristensen 6y ago
Publishing nonsense is a good way to spread disinformation to your adversaries and waste their resources, likewise to “explain” things you want to keep secret which have vaguely similar properties. But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexpected quality progress.
- dawnerd 6y ago
  Really it's only public because they want it to be seen. Secret research doesn't just end up in a patent database. I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar. My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-) (The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)

voldacar 6y ago

If we posit that the graviton does exist and suspend all disbelief, is the rest of the patent logically sound? If the theoretical basis of this device is correct, would it actually do what it claims to?

kordlessagain 6y ago
Gravity is the result of the bending of spacetime, but what about the monopole[1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY
- ksaj 6y ago
  This is where "begs the question" comes into play. You have to prove gravity is the result of bending space time - something that does not yet have proof, and has a few counter theories to compete with - in order to bother thinking about monopoles in this context. It's worth keeping in mind that magnetism != gravitation as well.
ksaj 6y ago
It's a pitched idea they are researching. If it is even close to what ends up being provable, and subsequently doable, then they also have some patented ideas of how to use what they've been researching. Even if they are a ways off the mark, they can prove prior art with the patent. And of course with each new discovery, they'll file a new patent until they have something that works. So, yes. The patent protects their research, as is the purpose of obtaining a patent.