Things you are NOT allowed to invent.

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman

Originally posted by EarthOccupant
In the last 100 years there was no significant inventions on engines? Saving fuels? I'm i to believe that with trillions of budget all around the world the took 100 years to invent a Toyota Hybrid ?


Fun fact, the Model-T Ford (1908) got 25 miles per gallon.
The current EPA average is 21 miles per gallon.

We have in fact gone backwards.


No, it did not. It got 13-21mpg, at a top speed of 45 mph. With a 20 hp engine.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightfury
Imagine what a different world we would be living in if the public were allowed access to such technologies. That's why I don't buy into the whole global warming thing. If government were so concerned about it, why suppress clean and more efficient technologies?


Which clean and more efficient technologies are being suppressed in a way that materially hurts curbs against global warming?

The most important technology is very well known: nuclear fission power plants. They are direct substitutes for the most intense greenhouse-emitting technologies, coal generation stations. And yet they aren't even being heavily built even though they ought to be, just because they cost more money than using polluting junk.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
From what I've read this only apears to be a watch list. It doesn't look to me that any of these technologies have been suppressed.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Well, I guess the trick of course, it not to patent your inventions that fall into this category.

If the inventions were of sufficient weight to adversely affect the whole of the economy, well, I guess the best thing an inventor could do would be to put out a few "how to" youtube videos and have such multilayered assault upon the tyrants trying to deny patent rights.

Ta-Da!

I tell you what- if I invent a solution for Cold Fusion, I'll put it on Youtube and have everyone trying it out.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
From what I've read this only apears to be a watch list. It doesn't look to me that any of these technologies have been suppressed.


I agree, it is a totally misleading title that in no way represents reality. For those who believe the title is true, well think about it. Look at the year that document is from. Now go through it all, can you honestly think not a single device in any of these lists has been allowed to be invented?

And another reason it is silly. The US can not prevent things around the world from being invented. It seemed rather obvious what this list was. There were just certain technological areas that the government and military were really interested in, especially for new inventions or improvements on existing tech.

It did not mean you would not be allowed to make it, or that it would be stolen. It would probably mean if you had a good invention, you may get a visit from DARPA or Lockheed wanting to buy your idea.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Bedlam,

How many patents do you currently hold?

The ones I currently have aren't enough to raise the wrath of a 181. However, there are two devices that I'm working on which could end up there. They aren't meant to be weapons or used for nefarious purposes, but it wouldn't take much for a smart person to figure out how to use it for that...

Your posts have given me some thoughts to mull over on how best to approach the patenting of these devices when and if I'm ready to do so... Of course, no one says you have to PATENT anything. My inventions are not really about making money. I have other reasons why I do what I do...

Anyway, Thanks for the food for thought! I gave you a star...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Bedlam,

How many patents do you currently hold?


Hm. Let's see - outside of 181's, I think I'm first inventor on maybe 16 and listed at the bottom of the inventors stack on another 30 or so. I'm about to pop off a couple of patents "bareback" on consumer goods that I can't freakin' believe don't exist. I went to buy [x] a couple of weeks back and thought it would have been something you could just pick up at Best Buy for a couple hundred bucks but apparently it's never been done. Which is a jaw dropper. I'm not sure if that's because there's a patent that the holder isn't developing as a product which is barring development or if it's so obvious that no one's thought of it.

The other one I got the idea for from ATS (that's two), I have to get a ruling from FCC on whether a device that's not an active emitter is allowed to intentionally produce interference, it looks like a sort of blank area in the law. Depending on whether or not I can, it'll influence my claim list. I'm pretty sure you can't have a claim that's intentionally unlawful and I'm sure I'll be challenged on it.



The ones I currently have aren't enough to raise the wrath of a 181. However, there are two devices that I'm working on which could end up there. They aren't meant to be weapons or used for nefarious purposes, but it wouldn't take much for a smart person to figure out how to use it for that...


Clever wording of the claims might end up helping there. Just make sure you don't discuss the thing with your buddies, if you want to keep them happy with you later, should you actually GET a 181.

On the other hand, there's some things you just can't hide easily no matter how weaselly you word them.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
I went to buy [x] a couple of weeks back and thought it would have been something you could just pick up at Best Buy for a couple hundred bucks but apparently it's never been done.


Have you done a patent search on it? Don't take *anything* as gospel that comes from the hacks at Best Buy. My husband and I recently went there looking for a piece of equipment that is audio/PC related. The idiots (at least 3 of them, one of which was a manager of the computer tech dept) at Best Buy tried convincing both of that no such product existed. We bought it off the internet a few days later from an online store.





The other one I got the idea for from ATS (that's two), I have to get a ruling from FCC on whether a device that's not an active emitter is allowed to intentionally produce interference, it looks like a sort of blank area in the law. Depending on whether or not I can, it'll influence my claim list. I'm pretty sure you can't have a claim that's intentionally unlawful and I'm sure I'll be challenged on it.


I have to admit, this one has me a bit curious. My background is engineering and physics, specifically in wired and wireless communications....although this isn't exactly the area where I do my research/inventions.





The ones I currently have aren't enough to raise the wrath of a 181. However, there are two devices that I'm working on which could end up there. They aren't meant to be weapons or used for nefarious purposes, but it wouldn't take much for a smart person to figure out how to use it for that...


Clever wording of the claims might end up helping there. Just make sure you don't discuss the thing with your buddies, if you want to keep them happy with you later, should you actually GET a 181.

On the other hand, there's some things you just can't hide easily no matter how weaselly you word them.


Good to know if I ever decide to patent them. Like I said before, money isn't my motivator. I may not patent them at all, just to avoid the powers that be being all over me and up in my business. Why invite trouble, ya know?



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthOccupant
Hi all,

I came across a post in another forum about the "patent" watch list, made by the US government.
of course there are a lot of stuff witch would be wise to keep out of the public because they are dangerous, there are also a few dubious items on that list.

At the end anything that can help you, can help a soldier.. but that would mean a total stop to development of human beneficial knowledge (what seems to happen already the last 100 years)

Note that the list is from 1971 acquired trough the FOI act, notice that already at that time they did not wanted energy saving equipment along the public...

To name a view:


"Fuel Conservation Technology" and

"Alternative Fuels".

as being subject to Suppression... also

"Pollution Reduction Technology" and

"Apparatus for Increasing Efficiency" and

"Hydrogen Enrichment Technologies".

Photo-voltaic panels "in excess of 20% efficient" !!


Original post: Original post

PDF with list

edit on 15-11-2010 by EarthOccupant because: (no reason given)


Your THREAD made me sooooo angry. Thanks though, you played your part.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Have you done a patent search on it? Don't take *anything* as gospel that comes from the hacks at Best Buy.


Well, I went to BB first, then when I didn't see it and my question drew blank stares and the usual unhelpful suggestions, I went touring the net. No one had it. I did find one blog somewhere where a commenter said "I can't find [x], who makes one?" but other than that, nothing. So I asked my colleagues - is [x] a particularly stupid thing to want? and invariably it was "You can't get that?" It's not a ground breaking idea - the bits and pieces exist at BB, just not in a usable form for what I want to do, and I can't believe that it's that outlandish.

Being me, the first thing I did was to sit down with my Xilinx tool and see what sort of part would be required to house the function, and it's not bad at all. Hell, you could afford to DO it in a FPLA if you wanted to do it that way. I came up with maybe four alternate design approaches, none were so expensive you couldn't do it. So next is a patent search, and I'll likely start on that one today.




I have to admit, this one has me a bit curious. My background is engineering and physics, specifically in wired and wireless communications....although this isn't exactly the area where I do my research/inventions.


Um, for instance, if you have a radar reflector that's intentionally changing its reflectivity in order to present a confusing target. It's not an emitter, it's a reflector of someone else's emissions. But can I make an intentionally nasty reflector? You're not supposed to cause intentionally disruptive emissions, although I do that all the time on ECM designs. This doesn't actually emit though. Think of it as a sort of ECM, only one that deals in boogering up reflections. That's a good metaphor, although it's not exactly what I'm doing.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pryde87
I have just took time to read this and Im sorry to say its a load of rubbish. The document has been misunderstood.
I work in the defence industry and see this kind of thing all the time. It is not a list of things that you are not allowed to invent. It is a list of things that the government wants you to invent. It is their shopping list. They distribute these lists to defence companies and if we can supply them with a product on that list then we let them know.

The list just states what the government would like and then the defence companies go out and try and fulfil their wishes. The government is not forbidding the invention of those products, they are actively encouraging it.


maybe in the UK but I guarentee if you tried to patent an aerosol defensive system in this day and age you'd be shot down. And this from the country that used to invent missiles in peoples garages.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I would like to officially debunk this thread with a close relative and his name. Lee Marcum. Please good him and his project that went into the water early November off the coast of Florida. It is a prototype I helped construct with other family members that uses waves to create electricity and is 100% green. The vision is put hundreds of larger models off the coast to provide endless free clean power. Now if a government didn't want this technology to exist why would his company have employees who's salary is entirely paid in tax dollars, federal grants, NASA involvement and so on. The truth of the matter is, other countries are drooling to get this technology and it would be utterly stupid for the United States to turn away or discourage such projects.

He furthermore has plans that I am under strict non-disclosure agreements over. His plans involve feul, energy and transportation. He is a man of many masks and has written books on various CT topics.
edit on 2010/12/19 by sbctinfantry because: Poor Spelling Error



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
What i don't understand is why a old and proven technology for making alternative fuel is not being used for making fuel across the US from trash, sewage, AG waste and other waste.
This would eliminate the need for landfills and the pollution from them

I am talking about the Fischer–Tropsch process (or Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis)
The process has been around since the 1920s and can make fuel for about $60 dollars a barrel.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.fischer-tropsch.org...

This process could be used to make butanol.
butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline.
And it burns with less less CO2 output then gasoline plus it needs no additives like the ethanol they put in gasoline to reduce emissions because it is a alcohol.
butanol made by this process does not require farmland or fertilizer
Ethanol production consumes large quantities of natural gas via fertilizer for corn and then distillation of the ethanol.
butanol could be added to gasoline in ever expanding amounts as production ramped up till it became 100% butanol.
en.wikipedia.org...
Butanol solves the safety problems associated with the infrastructure of the hydrogen supply. Reformed butanol has four more hydrogen atoms than ethanol, resulting in a higher energy output and is used as a fuel cell fuel.
these same plants can also be used to produce syn-diesel that has no sulfur content and many of the other chemicals at much lower levels.
the Germans used it during WW2 to make fuel to run german aircraft from coal.

The patents on the Fischer–Tropsch process have long since expired so why are the plants not being built across the US to replace landfills.

Who is stopping the building of these fuel plants.
edit on 19-12-2010 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
The patents on the Fischer–Tropsch process have long since expired so why are the plants not being built across the US to replace landfills.

Who is stopping the building of these fuel plants.
edit on 19-12-2010 by ANNED because: (no reason given)


If I had to guess, I would most certainly say the reason is that you are bringing it up here instead of anywhere else where it would be relevant.

I could make the same argument about Lee Marcum's technology, except that he went to the right people, got funding and is now preparing to travel to many countries around the globe all expenses paid to introduce the technology that has been made official and works. The project was a success.

The real question is why is these largely the most important news snippets on it thus far?:

www.wfsu.org...

For more information, please visit the following links and follow Lee Marcum.
sebaicmet.com...
sebaicmet.com...
www.cleanandgreeninc.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Maybe you cant invent these because if they eventually replaced oil driven energies, this would take trillions from the US budget.

You cant interfere with a trillion dollars +.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Die Glocke Proactinium breeder.

All information about this plasma accelerator device also known as the Nazi Bell invented by Dr Walter Dallenbach and Dr Rolf Wideroe for prof Werner Heisenberg in 1943 have been cesored.

Notwithstanding that Wideroe and Dallenbach both published patents during 1943 on behalf of their employer Brown Boverie und Cie.

The reason is that this device bred Proactinium 233 which after 27 days, beta decayed into pure bomb grade Uranium 233.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sharpy777
Maybe you cant invent these because if they eventually replaced oil driven energies, this would take trillions from the US budget.

You cant interfere with a trillion dollars +.


I respectfully disagree with your assessment, sharpy.

First, there are many industries that use by-products from oil - from food products to lubricants to cosmetics. The array is endless... These would continue, regardless of whether oil is used for energy or not.

Second, opportunity is always in flux. If a renewable alternate energy source were to replace oil, it would simply open up a whole new virgin avenue of products and services which would replace whatever is outdated or no longer viable. This has been the evolution of Capitalism, ingenuity, and innovation for millenia.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sharpy777
Maybe you cant invent these because if they eventually replaced oil driven energies, this would take trillions from the US budget.

You cant interfere with a trillion dollars +.


Nonsense, that would keep money around instead of going overseas. There is never any evidence of this supposed persecution that people can not invent something, but people want to believe it anyways






top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join