Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

IRI fwd - Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists' Ire

Expand Messages
  • David Crockett Williams
    Hal Puthoff cited (end) re Eye Witness Testimony of Advanced Electrogravitics and, first, Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists Ire: Brian Handwerk, for
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hal Puthoff cited (end) re Eye Witness Testimony of Advanced
      Electrogravitics
      and, first, Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists' Ire:
      Brian Handwerk, for National Geographic News
      <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/> , November 11, 2005
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1111_051111_junk_patent.html
      A perpetual-motion machine may defy the laws of physics, but an Indiana
      inventor recently succeeded in having one patented.
      On November 1, Boris Volfson of Huntington, Indiana, received U.S. Patent
      6,960,975 for his design of an antigravity space vehicle.*
      Volfson's craft is theoretically powered by a superconductor shield that
      changes the space-time continuum in such a way that it defies gravity. The
      design effectively creates a perpetual-motion machine, which physicists
      consider an impossible device.
      Journalist Philip Ball reported on the newly patented craft in the current
      issue of the science journal Nature.
      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.
      "The problem, of course, is 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.
      "[Approving these kind of patents can] make it easier for scam artists to
      con people if they can get patents for screwball ideas."
      Perpetual Quest
      Perpetual-motion machines have long held special appeal for
      inventors-particularly during the concept's heyday around the turn of the
      20th century.
      Patent applications on such devices became so numerous that by 1911 the
      patent office instituted a rule that perpetual-motion machine concepts had
      to be accompanied by a model that could run in the office for a period of
      one year.
      The model requirement has been discontinued, but the agency has remained
      skeptical of such applications.
      "The patent office used to say that they didn't patent perpetual-motion
      machines, but it turned out that there really was no such rule," Park said.
      A 1990 federal court ruling against inventor Joe Newman, who applied for a
      patent on a motor that he said could return more energy than it consumed,
      was interpreted as precluding patents for such devices.
      But the verdict has not fully stemmed the tide of applications.
      "The effect that [the court ruling] has had is that patent seekers no longer
      call them perpetual-motion machines," Park said. "Now it's called capturing
      zero-point energy."
      Zero-point energy is a real type of energy produced by the miniscule
      movements of molecules at rest. Harnessing this energy is theoretically
      possible, but the task seems, at least for the moment, practically
      impossible.
      Patent Review
      When asked about Volfson's machine, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
      (USPTO) spokesperson said the agency does not discuss specific patents. But
      the spokesperson explained that qualified patent examiners review each
      application according to rigid criteria.
      First the idea must be patentable by law, said Brigid Quinn of the USPTO,
      based in Alexandria, Virginia. "There is patent law that describes what is
      patentable subject matter-for example, the laws of nature aren't
      patentable."
      If an idea passes legal muster it must then meet several specific criteria.
      "Is it new?" Quinn asked. "Is it useful, which means does it work? Is it
      nonobvious? And is it described in such detail to enable someone skilled in
      that technology to make and use it based on the description that must
      accompany the application?"
      Patent office scientists and engineers, skilled in particular technologies,
      make their determinations based on these criteria and the current state of
      the science involved.
      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.
      Meanwhile, no amount of nay-saying will stop inventors from dreaming of a
      legitimate perpetual-motion breakthrough. Park believes that these hopefuls
      far outweigh any ill-meaning scammers.
      "The most curious aspect of this is that most of these people truly believe
      that they've made some new discovery that most people haven't thought of,"
      he said. "It doesn't often work out."
      RELATED
      * New Backpack Generates Its Own Electricity
      <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0908_050908_backpack.html>

      * Accidental Find to Signal "Lights Out" For Incandescent Bulbs?
      <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1101_051101_quantum_lightbu
      lb_2.html>
      * See Volfson's invention for yourself: Enter patent number 6,960,975
      at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

      Eye Witness Testimony of Advanced Electrogravitics

      Sincere gratitude is given to Mark McCandlish, who has suffered personal
      trauma for publicizing this work, offers us one of the most conclusive
      rendition of a covert, flat-bottomed saucer hovercraft seen by dozens of
      invited eye-witnesses, including a Congressman, at Norton Air Force Base in
      1988. When I spoke to Dr. Hal Puthoff about Mark's story, shortly after the
      famous Disclosure Event[33] at the National Press Club in 2001, he explained
      to me that he had already performed due diligence on it and checked on each
      individual to verify the details of the story. Hal told me that he believed
      the story was true. Since Dr. Puthoff used to work for the CIA for ten years
      as a director of Project Stargate, this was quite an endorsement.

      In analyzing the Electrogravitic Craft Demonstration unit (Norton AFB 1988)
      diagrammed in Fig. 8 (see Volume II), it can be compared to Campbell's and
      Serrano's patented design. A lot can be learned from studying the
      intricacies of this advanced design, including the use of a distributor cap
      style of pulse discharge and multiple symmetric, radial plates with
      dielectrics in between. (See footnote 26 for Mark's details.)

      [26]McCandlish, Mark, "Testimony of Mr. Mark McCandlish, December 2000,"
      Electrogravitics II, Integrity Research Institute, 2005, p. 131

      Progress in Electrogravitics and Electrokinetics for Aviation and Space
      Travel

      Presentation (excerpt below) by Thomas F. Valone, Integrity Research
      Institute, Washington DC 20005
      202-452-7674, iri@... at STAIF (Space Technologies Applications
      International Forum), Feb. 12- 16, 2006, Albuquerque, NM
      http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/staif/2006/index.html

      Abstract. An analysis of the 87-year old science of electrogravitics (or
      electrogravity) necessarily includes an analysis of electrokinetics.
      Electrogravitics is most commonly associated with the 1928 British patent
      #300,311 of T. Townsend Brown, the 1952 Special Inquiry File #24-185 of the
      Office of Naval Research into the "Electro-Gravity Device of Townsend Brown"
      and two widely circulated 1956 Aviation Studies Ltd. Reports on
      "Electrogravitics Systems" and "The Gravitics Situation." By definition,
      electrogravitics historically has had a purported relationship to gravity or
      the object's mass, as well as the applied voltage. It also was tested
      recently by the Honda Corporation which published experimental results and
      proposed theory of a correlation between electricity and gravity.
      Electrokinetics, on the other hand, is more commonly associated with many
      patents of T. Townsend Brown as well as Agnew Bahnson, starting with the
      1960 US patent #2,949,550 entitled, "Electrokinetic Apparatus."
      Electrokinetics, which often involves a capacitor and dielectric, has
      virtually no relationship that can be connected with mass or gravity. The
      Army Research Lab has recently issued a report on electrokinetics, analyzing
      the force on an asymmetric capacitor, while NASA has received three patents
      on the same design topic. To successfully describe and predict the reported
      motion toward the positive terminal of the capacitor, it is desirable to use
      the classical electrokinetic field and force equations for the specific
      geometry involved. This initial review also suggests directions for further
      confirming measurements.

      Keywords: electrogravitics, electrogravity, electrokinetics, gravity, high
      voltage electricity, asymmetric capacitor, gravitator, dielectrics

      Click on
      http://users.erols.com/iri/ElectrograviticsElectrokineticsValone.pdf to
      download a free copy of the complete paper (1.3 Meg pdf) with all
      illustrations and equations online, that is also a Sample Chapter of the new
      book, Electrogravitics II
      <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964107090/sr=8-1/qid=1139542081/ref=pd_bb
      s_1/104-0596475-8452744?%5Fencoding=UTF8> , by the same author.
      (Alternatively, you may right click to save target on your computer.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.