Patent Issued for anti gravity Device

I thought I read that the patent office will no longer issue a patent for zero point or free energy devices without a "working prototype" but I guess that doesn't apply to gravity modification devices

How long can a patent stay alive with no prototype or other working machine?

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
How long can a patent stay alive with no prototype or other working machine?

I don't actually think the prototype or whatever matters. Most of the biotech patents I am familiar with have a lifetime of 17 years from the date of issue, irrespective of what's been done with information. Though I am not sure if that's universal or not.

this has to be fake, i know people from huntington, just a bunch of dumb hillbillies down there....

Hmm...

If this is based partly on Evgeny Podkletnov's work perhaps there is something there.

I've always felt NASA dig a big snowjob by running $600,000 worth of large scale experiments based on his work, and then claiming there was nothing to it.

www.space.com...

If there was actually nothing to it wouldn't a $6,000 set up in a controlled lab setting be more than enough to confirm this??

Otherwise isn't it just a big smokescreen to divert the public attention from his work?

Anyways clearly, like cold fusion, there is something to anti-gravity research - and either it is still somewhat difficult to replicate or it is purposely being obfuscated by the U.S. and/or othe Govt. agencies.

Either way a breakthrough - or a govt. leak - could be just around the corner.

This is a nice find It could open a lot of doors for things to come!
We are do for a tek jump about now. I have hopes that mankind can make it out to see the stars if we can keep the world in one pice.

Why did this guy just limit his claims to just a space vehicle??

has anyone done or could do a background check on the inventor of this product i tried to look him up online with no luck (google is not all its hyped up to be). But I am 100% positive that if we find out who the inventor is and his background and biographical information it will shed light on this patent.

I personally find the theory to make complete sense, and am looking forward to my personal spacecraft by 2013.

why don't you call him up and write him that you have an even better invetion with broader claims. it is so obvious that he wrote this patent himself. if you notice that there is no attorney listed.

This is not the first AG type device which has been patented, here's one of many other theoretical devices, which modify gravity:

www.stardrivedevice.com...


[edit on 13-11-2005 by rufi0o]

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
has anyone done or could do a background check on the inventor of this product i tried to look him up online with no luck (google is not all its hyped up to be). But I am 100% positive that if we find out who the inventor is and his background and biographical information it will shed light on this patent.

I personally find the theory to make complete sense, and am looking forward to my personal spacecraft by 2013.

Here's a link to Boris Volfson's(the patent holder) website: borisvolfson.com...

I saw a post from him in another forum(don't think i'm allowed to link to other forums though). Perhaps he would consider coming to ATS and making his case, could be very interesting imo. I believe he claims he'll have a working prototype in 17 years.

You can e-mail him at: [email protected]

lol 17 years? hhmmm sounds a bit dodgy to me.

by that time his patent would have expired. This is another example of the failure of the US patent system. The USPTO should examine prototypes like they did in the early 1900's those were to good old days.

Apparently there is a noob working for the US Patent Office or else this silly idea will have never been. How can a vacuum provide propulsion, it cannot exert anything? Where does it get it's energy from, why do the inventors want it only used for a spacecraft, why does the whole thing sound so stupid? Because it is stupid. What does spacetime curvature imbalance mean? Sounds like something who would hear about in a movie like 'complete protonic reversal'.

Like I said there must be noob working who thought 'oh my, I can't comprehend what this is saying, I guess I'll let it pass'. I mean where were these guys working out of, Joe's Garage?

Fake I can't imagine that anyone will take this seriously.

Originally posted by Rren
They don't really break any laws of physics so much as cheat them, no? "Modified Space/time" as it were. Also seems to be based on alot of string theory, nano-tech and quantum theory but he describes the 'craft' as though it's buildable with today's tech....is that true? You gotta wonder why he'd feel the need to patent his idea.

Mabye some "laws" of, current, physics is in dire need of 'breaking'?
Found this some time ago and it really opened the door for me. Seems our current theories are mostly broken anyways does'nt it?

Stellar

Originally posted by Frosty
Apparently there is a noob working for the US Patent Office or else this silly idea will have never been. How can a vacuum provide propulsion, it cannot exert anything?

Well what powers gravity? Where does permanent magnets get their energy from? How much of physics makes much sense once you start investigating?
A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For: The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Tom Beardens work is right at the bottem but feel free to read the entire page to broaden your, apparent, narrow horizens...... If that committee had the time it may, just may, be worth yours aswell....

Where does it get it's energy from, why do the inventors want it only used for a spacecraft, why does the whole thing sound so stupid? Because it is stupid. What does spacetime curvature imbalance mean? Sounds like something who would hear about in a movie like 'complete protonic reversal'.

I am currently reading Beardens "Energy from the vacuum: Theories and principles" and even thought it's slow going it's rather hard not to give credit where it's due and start asking why his work is never seriously addressed in main stream science. I have seen some papers trying to shoot it down but even with my rudimentary understanding i can see their angry and never read his work or understand much anything about it. In too many instances i can even refute their claims directly wich is quite a joke considering what little i know and how base it makes their attacks.

In response to your question; Spacetime curvature imbalence simply means gravity and would in this case mean that he can create gravity of an opposite charge ("anti-gravity") thus being able to negate some gravity.

Like I said there must be noob working who thought 'oh my, I can't comprehend what this is saying, I guess I'll let it pass'. I mean where were these guys working out of, Joe's Garage?

Fake

I can't imagine that anyone will take this seriously.

Then your imagination is what you should look at? What is science other than the investigation of the imaginery? Without an idea or purpose what could we discover?

Stellar

[edit on 13-11-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by mattison0922
Apparently the USPTO has violated its rules and guidelines, patenting a device that defies the known laws of physics.
[edit on 9-11-2005 by mattison0922]

Actually Lee and Yang won the Nobel prize for physics in 1957 when they showed that the basis of this patents claim does not violate the known laws of physics; vague ( and sometimes just wrong) as they may be currently. www.almaz.com...

Broken symmetry: Fundamentally, a condition in wich the two parts of some configuration or shape, on opposite sides of some divisor or condition or boundary, are not similar but differ.

In vacuum energy physics this is very important because of the broken symmetry of opposite charges - any charge ( wich its associated clustering of vritual charges of the opposite sign) and any dipole or dipolarity represents an assymetry in its fierce energy exchange with the vacuum. This implies that something virtual becomes observable ; ie., part of the virtual EM enegy continuesly absorbed from the vacuum by the charge or by the dipole is changed into observable form and re-emitted as real , observable EM energy. The remainder is re-radiated as virtual EM energy.

Bearden : Energy from the vacuum : Concepts&Principles.

From 1957 it's been clear where observable energy really comes from and if thise was not so they would not have been given the Nobel prize less than a year after their discovery.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Well what powers gravity? Where does permanent magnets get their energy from? How much of physics makes much sense once you start investigating?
A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For: The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Tom Beardens work is right at the bottem but feel free to read the entire page to broaden your, apparent, narrow horizens...... If that committee had the time it may, just may, be worth yours aswell....

Gravity is the interaction between masses, so mass probably powers gravity.
Permanent magnets come from iron, cobalt and and nickel when they are placed in a magnetic field. Ferromagnetism.

So what about the US Senate, those guys are idiots.

I am currently reading Beardens "Energy from the vacuum: Theories and principles" and even thought it's slow going it's rather hard not to give credit where it's due and start asking why his work is never seriously addressed in main stream science. I have seen some papers trying to shoot it down but even with my rudimentary understanding i can see their angry and never read his work or understand much anything about it. In too many instances i can even refute their claims directly wich is quite a joke considering what little i know and how base it makes their attacks.

In response to your question; Spacetime curvature imbalence simply means gravity and would in this case mean that he can create gravity of an opposite charge ("anti-gravity") thus being able to negate some gravity.

Yeah, that's fairly poor choice of wording, I have never seen the phrase 'spacetime curvature imbalance' used in any science journal or textbook or book ever as a replacement for gravity. And spacetime curvature would be wrong, mass/energy interaction imbalance is a better choice of wording.

Then your imagination is what you should look at? What is science other than the investigation of the imaginery? Without an idea or purpose what could we discover?

Stellar

There is nothing imaginary about science, science is the investigation of fact not the investigation of fantasy. What you want is pseudo-science or alchemy.

Originally posted by Frosty
Apparently there is a noob working for the US Patent Office or else this silly idea will have never been.

They may just wont the money from all the patents what do they care if they work or not. The good ones are going to get used and bad ones are going on ebay.

Originally posted by Frosty
Gravity is the interaction between masses, so mass probably powers gravity.
Permanent magnets come from iron, cobalt and and nickel when they are placed in a magnetic field. Ferromagnetism.

So what about the US Senate, those guys are idiots.

Mass IS energy so basically what your saying is that energy 'interacting' with energy powers that interaction? I am not sure what that is supposed to mean so feel free to clarify what you had in mind if you were actually trying to propose a solution to something mainstream science can not explain.

Permanent magnets do not rely on outside influences to generate their fields.

Ferromagnetism

Ferromagnetism is a phenomenon by which a material can exhibit a spontaneous magnetization, and is one of the strongest forms of magnetism. It is responsible for most of the magnetic behavior encountered in everyday life and, along with ferrimagnetism, is the basis for all permanent magnets (as well as the metals that are noticeably attracted to them).

So basically we don't know but then give it a name that does not define in scientific terms what we are seeing.

Not that i am a huge fan of the US senate committee in question but that does not make the briefers any less qualified does it? I tried to show that these people can at least get some Senate members to listen to them. They are not cranks and you should probably read what they had to say.

The Briefing presenters and topics covered included the following:

Dr. Theodore Loder, Convener and overview of the issues and urgency
Dr. Steven Greer, Implications of the implementation of non-polluting free-energy devices
Mr. Thomas Valone, Present energy issues, energy devices and patent office issues
Dr. Paul LaViolette, Physics reassessment and anti-gravity research
Dr. Scott Chubb, Cold fusion, scientific responsibility
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold fusion, scientific response and patent office issues
Dr. Thomas Bearden, Physics reassessment, the world energy crisis, and “free energy device” technology

Yeah, that's fairly poor choice of wording, I have never seen the phrase 'spacetime curvature imbalance' used in any science journal or textbook or book ever as a replacement for gravity.

Well what does the fact that you have not heard of it mean or, for that matter, prove?

And spacetime curvature would be wrong, mass/energy interaction imbalance is a better choice of wording.

Mass IS energy and it curves spacetime as you surely know. Is that not the whole point of his claim?

There is nothing imaginary about science, science is the investigation of fact not the investigation of fantasy. What you want is pseudo-science or alchemy.

What i tried to suggest is that without an imagination wich leads to knew ideas no scientific progress could be possible. Observation is fine but it still takes IMAGINATION to interpret what it could possibly mean. Science is not the investigation of fact as investigation of fact would be redundant. Science is the investigation of the unknown BASED on "facts" ( as they may apply) for foundation. Please do not make assumptions about me and lets stick to the topic at hand. Play nice and stop worrying about my motives!

Stellar

[edit on 14-11-2005 by StellarX]