Inventor John St. Clair and bizzare patents

[Area201]

What do we make of this? The alleged "patent" for a TR-3B looking triangular craft went viral half a year ago, but if you examine the other patents by the same inventor, going by name John St. Clair, we are left shaking our heads.

The maths involved in some of these, does it make any sense to anyone? I'm not a maths person so I'm not getting it at all. But some of the concepts are not only intriguing, also I think would be real inventions at some point and are used by more advanced beings in the cosmos now even or in the past. Others are just insane concepts.

Why would the black ops allow for a real Tr-3d patent to be published and made public if it's so classfied? is this part of the "managing magic" soft disclosure to acclimate the public to such technology? 

From further research I've discovered at least one of these proposed patents was bought out by someone - the teleportation patent, so this John St Clair did make this a profitable venture despite apparently not showing a working prototype for the proposed inventions. He used to talk on some social media years back/maybe Twitter platform or similar. Not much to go after that.

Triangular spacecraft
Remote viewing amplifier
Full body teleportation system
Walking through walls training system
Magnetic vortex wormhole generator
Hyperspace torque generator
Rotor inductance propulsion system
Rotating electrostatic propulsion system
Hyperspace energy generator
Electric dipole moment propulsion system
Bobbin electromagnetic field propulsion vehicle
Photon spacecraft

Somewhat normal one 
Internet cellular phone prepaid service

Edited December 27, 2017 by Area201

[travelnjones]

you should check out the Japanese Guy Dr. NakaMats

[stereologist]

These appear to be filled out applications of some type. They do not appear to be issued patents. It looks like a hoax.

[stereologist]

I just did a quick search on patents and there are none for John St Clair. This is an internet hoax.

[Area201]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

I just did a quick search on patents and there are none for John St Clair. This is an internet hoax.

Could be. Why/how are they referenced on Google patents archive you think? 

[stereologist]

Just now, Area201 said:

Could be. Why/how are they referenced on Google patents archive you think? 

I went to the US patent office website and did some searches. I could not find patents submitted by or assigned to John St Clair. I don't look in other places. Maybe Google is just listing applications rather than patents issued. Anyone can apply event for odd ideas that can't pass muster.

[ChrLzs]

Because:

Quote

Google Patents is a search engine from Google that indexes more than 87 million patents and patent applications with full text from 17 patent offices..

A patent is simply an idea someone wants to register with a view to claiming rights to it as the first who thought it up..  It doesn't mean the idea has any real merit or works, or even that it is necessarily the registrant's own work.  While patents should be 'new, useful and non-obvious', the Patent officers will only apply a very cursory check on whether those seem to apply, before allowing it to be registered.  It's then up to people to complain, and patent lawyers to sort out.

 

[stereologist]

Patents are rejected on the basis of the utility requirement. Perpetual motion machines for example are impossible and are routinely rejected by the patent office. Patents are unlikely to  have been issued to any of the St Clair applications because they would fail the utility requirement.

The follow is from https://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

• The invention must be statutory
• The invention must be new
• The invention must be useful
• The invention must be non-obvious

From http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/

Quote

In the utility scenario an examiner would reject a claim and then it would be up to the applicant to produce sufficient proof that the invention does actually work.

These inventions sound impossible. It would be rejected by the patent office and the applicant, St Clair, could demonstrate that it works and received a patent by demonstrating the utility of the invention.

For an interesting read on the case of a perpetual motion machine scan down the page to the paragraph beginning with

Quote

The best case to discuss whenever the issue of perpetual motion machines comes up is Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (1989). In that case Mr. Newman claimed a device that increases the availability of usable electrical energy.

 

[badeskov]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Patents are rejected on the basis of the utility requirement. Perpetual motion machines for example are impossible and are routinely rejected by the patent office. Patents are unlikely to  have been issued to any of the St Clair applications because they would fail the utility requirement.

The follow is from https://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

• The invention must be statutory
• The invention must be new
• The invention must be useful
• The invention must be non-obvious

From http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/

These inventions sound impossible. It would be rejected by the patent office and the applicant, St Clair, could demonstrate that it works and received a patent by demonstrating the utility of the invention.

For an interesting read on the case of a perpetual motion machine scan down the page to the paragraph beginning with

 

I did a cursory look-through and when examining the status none had been issued. In fact, I didn't find any that had gone past the application state and had been processed (I am guessing due to not paying the fees associated with said process).

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Aliciaowens]

Patents have a lot of benefits, the most important of which is that they allow you to earn solely from the manufacture, use, or sale of your innovation. The safeguards include reverse engineering, which means that even if someone figures out how your invention works, they won't be able to replicate it legally. Another advantage is that a patent can assist firms in obtaining funding from investors. Investors regard patented inventions as more secure than unpatented inventions, and are thus more willing to put money into them. Finally, a patent's protection is unaffected by your company's internal security. It covers every situation in which someone might try to copy your invention.

[the13bats]

I like Arthur c Clark,  inventor of the consat but he gave away the patent saying he didnt think he would live to see it built but when he did they paid him to supervise.

[astrobeing]

What's a "consat"?

[the13bats]

44 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

What's a "consat"?

A typo o for comsat or communication satellite and i realize he more floated the idea than invented it,  and i might have been misleading saying he gave away the patent i dont believe he even filled for one but was badgered about "giving it away" so had various crack wize replies.