is this UFO propulsion stuff legit? Patent assignee is US Navy and inventor from....

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Squidly-Diddly, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:24 AM.

  1. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,584
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    Northrop Grumman, according to US Patent Office website. None of this forum's "propulsion" sections seemed to fit (doesn't seem like "Hybrid" covers plasma/anti-grav engines), and I guess if its a Navy project its boat related.

    Is this legit, or does US Patent office have some quirk that allows kooks to "assign" their kook ideas to US military unilaterally for the lutz?

    And if its EM movement of particles powered by a fusion engine, why only move easily through air, space, water? Why not move through solid dirt as well?

    Asking for a friend.

    >Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device
    US20170313446A1 - Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device - Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170313446A1/
    Application #15141270 (Active)

    Which uses
    >Piezoelectricity-induced High Temperature Superconductor
    US20190348597A1 - Piezoelectricity-induced High Temperature Superconductor - Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190348597A1
    Application #15678672 (Rejected)
    Application #16519136 (Pending)

    In this
    >Electromagnetic field generator and method to generate an electromagnetic field
    US10135366B2 - Electromagnetic field generator and method to generate an electromagnetic field - Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/
    Application #14807943 (Active)

    To make this
    >High frequency gravitational wave generator
    US10322827B2 - High frequency gravitational wave generator - Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/
    Application #15431823 (Active)

    All powered by this
    >Plasma Compression Fusion Device
    US20190295733A1 - Plasma Compression Fusion Device - Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190295733A1/
    Application #15928703 (Pending)

    >"This hybrid craft would move with great ease through the air/space/water mediums, by being enclosed in a Vacuum/plasma bubble/sheath, due to the coupled effects of EM field-induced air/water particles repulsion and Vacuum energy polarization."
     
  2. Mr Efficiency
    Joined: Oct 2010
    Posts: 8,463
    Likes: 466, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 702
    Location: Australia

    Mr Efficiency Senior Member

    Does "active" = accepted ?
     
  3. fallguy
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 2,975
    Likes: 330, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: usa

    fallguy Senior Member

    How would it dissipate heat in a solid? Seems as though heat is produced. And then the force required to 'move' through a solid rock, for example, would be more than to move through water?

    I didn't read it as though the device was actually capable of moving through a solid. Did you?

    But the whole thing sounds a little too perfect. Controlling fusion has apocalyptic consequences and always the sticky bit. Uncontrolled fusion reactions are something. An ungoverned piston engine blows itself up; more or less. The sun eventually burns out; takes awhile.

    However, intriguing.
     
  4. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,840
    Likes: 171, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member

    How do you attach it to the boat?

    [​IMG]
     
    fallguy likes this.
  5. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,584
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    I think that is "the boat", or more precisely the flying submarine spaceship. Real question is do you need to turn off the Plasma Force Field (squiggly line around the whole thing) for crew to exit or to deploy weapons made of matter and I'm guessing "yes". However, given the craft itself moves through matter by EM movement of particles, with basically limitless fusion power, maybe it would act as a giant Gouging Electrode and serve as the weapon itself. CarbonElite Pointed Gouging Electrodes - KP3800 - 1/8, 3/16, 1/4, 5/16, 3/8, 1/2, 5/32 https://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/Equipment/welding-gear/Pages/product.aspx?product=Products_Equipment_WeldingGear-ApparelTools-ArcGougingCarbons-PointedGougingElectrodes(LincolnElectric)

    Another question is "can light, gravity or any other means of communication/location reference even pass through the Force Field envelope?" Maybe you need to turn it off to even see outside, then turn it back on and use pure dead reckoning to move to next location, similar to a submarine taking glimpses through its periscope, but more so.
     
  6. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 94
    Likes: 21, Points: 8
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Junior Member

    It would act as its own radar receptor, I should think. As one gravity field encounters another gravity field, energy distortion could be measured and translated to get an idea of distance, direction, mass and composition. Sort of the way an expensive metal detector tells you what's underground and how deep.

    -Will (Dragonfly)
     
  7. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,584
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    makes sense, shouldn't be hard to feed into a navigation program with simple digital scale inputs, then calibrate.

    Will the Fusion reactor require any fancy permits, since its only using "heavy water" rather than highly regulated "Fissionable Materials"? I'm in CA, if that matters.
     
  8. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,661
    Likes: 281, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    It means enforceable...the USPTO really doesn't "accept" or pass scientific judgment, it only does due diligence to determine if the concept is new and unique.

    FWIW, it looks to me to be preemptive documentation from one or more government funded studies. This will ensure that contractors don't lock it up. Preemptive "prior work" documents are fairly common tactic in industrial development, look at the now ubiquitous ceramic turbocharger.
     
    Will Gilmore and Rumars like this.
  9. Mr Efficiency
    Joined: Oct 2010
    Posts: 8,463
    Likes: 466, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 702
    Location: Australia

    Mr Efficiency Senior Member

    Thanks, jehardiman, and until I read what you said about "pre-emptive" documentation, I was starting to think that science fiction was about to meet reality !
     
  10. Ike
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 2,351
    Likes: 238, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1669
    Location: Washington

    Ike Senior Member

    I read the initial description of the device, it sounds just like a cavity magnetron. Magnetrons are pretty common in radars and microwave ovens.
     
  11. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,584
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    There is also something known as "defensive patents". Maybe its going to be good Patent, maybe not, but its cheaper and smarter to go ahead and get questionable Patent just to preclude some sharp operator from horning in on your action with his own Patent invention, or "invented Patent" as the case may be.

    One thing the Patent Office supposedly does is reject Patents that VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, classic example being Patents for "perpetual motion machines". Also, Patent Office is suppose to reject any misleading claims, suggested application, etc. No funny stuff allowed. So I'm still wondering if this is legit including the main application being a craft for air, water and outer space.
     
  12. Ike
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 2,351
    Likes: 238, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1669
    Location: Washington

    Ike Senior Member

    Yes, but.... There are thousands of patents for things that don't really do what they were supposedly designed to do. Many things can be designed that don't violate the laws of physics (in this case quantum physics, which defies the laws of Newtonian physics) but don't do what they are purported to do. Frankly, if you put a crew inside this they would probably get fried like meat in a microwave oven. Anyway, they don't have to build one unless the military decides to give it a go. Then they have to prove it works.
     
  13. Ike
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Posts: 2,351
    Likes: 238, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1669
    Location: Washington

    Ike Senior Member

    Frankly, I'd like to hear what Dr. Leonard Susskind (the father of string theory) at Stanford University thinks of this idea.

    My wife and I took his on line lecture series on physics. The man is beyond brilliant.
     
  14. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 94
    Likes: 21, Points: 8
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Junior Member

    You wouldn't want the Patent Office to get too involved in judgments like this. After all, we don't REALLY know any of this stuff. We just believe we know it. How many examples throughout history have real advancements in our understanding of the Universe been rejected by highly respected mainstream scientists and authorities? The resistance to ideas that fly in the face of accepted theories, even supposed "laws" of physics can all be challenged and be met with dogmatic resistance. Sometimes hundreds of years can pass before a new, more enlightened, theory is finally accepted as the new truth.

    Just look at the evolution of sailboat design. When I was a kid, it was all about wetted surface and waterline length. Then catamarans came along followed by full sized planing hulls. Now we have sailboats that sail faster than the wind and their hull shapes are not optimal for wetted surface. Sails have gone from maximum square footage to best aspect ratios to improved foiling shape. The keel shapes have changed dramatically over the centuries.

    To treat a scientific "fact" as an infallible law, no matter how accepted it is, when putting forth judgment on the legitimacy of a new idea, is to blindly lead humanity into a maze and insist that there is no wall in front of us, and preventing is from turning around and trying another corridor.

    It seems reasonable to reject perpetual motion machine out of hand, but sailboats can sail faster than the wind that drives them. From one point of view, that is utterly impossible.

    -Will (dragonfly)
     

  15. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,661
    Likes: 281, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    I don't think the Patent Office has realistically done that since they stopped requiring models. Here is the actual statement from the USPTO General information concerning patents https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents#heading-4
    And the specific quote
    So the USPTO protects the engineer, not the physicist..... what's the difference?.... a physicist says "this is how the world works" and the engineer replies "that's nice, here is what we can do with it"...
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.