Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
qxcontinuum

Us Navy anti gravity advanced aircraft Patent

72 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dejarma
18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It really depends on the nature of the 'stuff' and if the owner/designer thinks they can make a buck with licensing it, or simply wish to protect their rights.

In most countries all patents are public (after the patent is granted) - I believe it's only the US Office of Patents that allows 'classified' ones.  Note also that the details of how particular aspects of the patent are implemented do not have to be explained in extensive detail, but if they are not.. well, another inventor might be able to squeeze past the patent.  It often gets messy and the only people who make money are the patent lawyers..

I'm still confused:blush::

the inventor in question here would be employed by the US NAVY which is funded by the US public.

This inventor wouldn't earn money, personally, from it, would he/she?

Anyways, who would they sell the product to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

I'm a little confused here guys- I know nothing about patents so maybe someone can clue me in on a few things:

maybe I'm wrong to assume but I'm assuming the authorities would want to keep this tech quite, for many reasons.

Would the Navy need to patent it? If so why?

Or maybe the whole thing is dis-information to keep the Chinese on their toes because going by what I've read, the Chinese have <apparently> been looking into this tech as well....

According to the link I posted the patent lawyer says that this might be to avoid paying another country such as the Chinese fees to build something if this device ever works.

Even if no payments are made it might lead to litigation by a foreign country and possibly in a court outside of the US.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

I have seen explanations of how this works elsewhere.

They pulse a strong electro-magnetic field around the craft repelling air and water to create a vacuum. As a result it can fly through the air or water with no resistance and therefore could in principle reach any velocity in them.

Additionally that same pulsing electro-magnetic field is supposed to interfere with how momentum works eliminating g-forces effects.

Obviously wrong. The object still meets air regardless of what the outer surface is. The air or water is pushed aside even if the outer layer is not matter.

Hyperloops work by operating in a vacuum. They don't have the problem of air resistance.

And E-M pulsing or not does not change gravity. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

OK peeps, forget patents & tech talk for a minute:

am I the only one in here questioning why the US NAVY would make this tech public?

This is where I'm confused because again == am I wrong to assume tech like this would be kept from the public!?!

I don't get it, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
30 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

OK peeps, forget patents & tech talk for a minute:

am I the only one in here questioning why the US NAVY would make this tech public?

This is where I'm confused because again == am I wrong to assume tech like this would be kept from the public!?!

I don't get it, do you?

It's a bit like the Staring at Goats stuff.  Sometimes gullible / knowledge-challenged / just plain crazy people in power see stuff and think maybe there's something to this and they stake a claim via patent.  In at least one of the cases above, the person who applied for the patent may or may not work for the Navy, but has assigned the patent to them.  That way, the Navy can later pretty much disown it and blame the owner, or on the very slight chance that something comes of it, they take the money and maybe make a small donation to the inventor...  The latter almost never happens.  These are mostly complete wastes of time, but you never know...... except in the case of the EM Drive, we do know.  It's bull****.  That hasn't yet been acknowledged by NASA, but it will be eventually.

If it was real tech and not so speculative, then yes, they'd probably classify it.  But frankly, this sort of stuff is just a meaningless joke.

To answer your other question, if it turned out to be a real, valuable propulsion system, they'd sell it to currently friendly powers, eg Russia.  :D :D

To Rabid Mongoose......  Just NO.  Step away from the topic.  That stuff you are posting is worthless (and utterly wrong) word salad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
20 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It's a bit like the Staring at Goats stuff.  Sometimes gullible / knowledge-challenged / just plain crazy people in power see stuff and think maybe there's something to this and they stake a claim via patent.  In at least one of the cases above, the person who applied for the patent may or may not work for the Navy, but has assigned the patent to them.  That way, the Navy can later pretty much disown it and blame the owner, or on the very slight chance that something comes of it, they take the money and maybe make a small donation to the inventor...  The latter almost never happens.  These are mostly complete wastes of time, but you never know...... except in the case of the EM Drive, we do know.  It's bull****.  That hasn't yet been acknowledged by NASA, but it will be eventually.

If it was real tech and not so speculative, then yes, they'd probably classify it.  But frankly, this sort of stuff is just a meaningless joke.

To answer your other question, if it turned out to be a real, valuable propulsion system, they'd sell it to currently friendly powers, eg Russia.  :D :D

 

I'm trying to determine here whether or not this article is telling us facts, or nothing more than BS created by the person who wrote the article....

Again I may be wrong to assume but I'm assuming correspondence between the inventor/designer & the patent office would be private & confidential..

If I sent my invention schematics/designs to be patented only to see all my data plastered all over the internet; would I have the right to be a little annoyed?

Would there be a law against this? Just out of interest

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

I'm trying to determine here whether or not this article is telling us facts, or nothing more than BS created by the person who wrote the article....

I did check the patent and it does seem to exist.  Not sure if the guy works for the Navy, possibly he's just someone who subcontracts, also not sure if it is really 'assigned' to the navy.

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

Again I may be wrong to assume but I'm assuming correspondence between the inventor/designer & the patent office would be private & confidential..

Correct, up until it is patented (unless, in the US only, it is given classified status).  Once patented, anyone can look it up and bleat about it, again, if it's not classified.

 

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

If I sent my invention schematics/designs to be patented only to see all my data plastered all over the internet; would I have the right to be a little annoyed?

Yes.  Although it is up to you - you can certainly tell the world you have a patent application pending, but you risk someone else snaffling it, eg to some other countries patent office...  The patent office will not normally release any details about a pending patent, and yes, you'd probably be able to sue them if they did..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I did check the patent and it does seem to exist.  Not sure if the guy works for the Navy,

yeah of course, ChrLzs, exactly.. oh well there ya go- thanks;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
Posted (edited)

Just so everyone knows, certain government and military "patents" are classified, and are in no way open to the public, so there is no way this report is valid.

 

 

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
20 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

There was some ''thrust'' but it was so low that some outside interference was suspected to be the source, not the engine itself. Being so low it was hard to determine if the engine was generating any thrust at all.

It may well have been caused by a subcomponent of the engine retaining and then discharging energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

For heaven's sake - READ the dam report.  Let me repeat - first up, after they disconnected the chamber that was supposedly causing the thrust, ie the actual engine's 'drive' chamber, but left the electronics running, they found the tiny thrust component was still there AND WAS CONSISTENT with the amount of EMF thrust that would result from the electronics interacting with Earth's EMF.

NASA itself concluded that while this was the most likely explanation, that they didn't in fact have an explanation for the thrust.  I suggest you reread the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
2 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

NASA itself concluded that while this was the most likely explanation, that they didn't in fact have an explanation for the thrust.  I suggest you reread the report.

And I suggest you grow a set and address what I said instead of these ridiculous and childish handwaves where you cowardly edit out all the stuff you don't want to debate.

Thanks for wasting the forum's time, and welcome to my Ignore list.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Alchopwn
2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

And I suggest you grow a set and address what I said instead of these ridiculous and childish handwaves where you cowardly edit out all the stuff you don't want to debate.

Thanks for wasting the forum's time, and welcome to my Ignore list.

Nothing is proven.  Why are you making a fuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

why are folk discussing the tech side of this article when you don't even know if what you're reading is fact yet?

Work out if the article data is real first, surely?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 8/15/2019 at 1:25 AM, stereologist said:

The Em drive has been shown to not work. What part of that do you not understand?

There was a small amount of thrust that NASA couldn't account for.  Until it is accounted for, the test results aren't complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

NASA itself concluded that while this was the most likely explanation, that they didn't in fact have an explanation for the thrust.  I suggest you reread the report.

Why are you having a problem reading the report?

I guess if you want to pretend that the cause of the thrust is not known then go ahead and avoid the fact that the Em drive does not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Nothing is proven.  Why are you making a fuss?

In science nothing is proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

There was a small amount of thrust that NASA couldn't account for.  Until it is accounted for, the test results aren't complete.

False. The thrust was accounted for my the Em drive's EMF interacting with the Earth's EMF.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Let’s just make one thing very clear: one can apply for a classified patent, but one can never be awarded it as long as the topic is classified. 

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qxcontinuum
Posted (edited)
On 8/16/2019 at 2:35 AM, ChrLzs said:

It's a bit like the Staring at Goats stuff.  Sometimes gullible / knowledge-challenged / just plain crazy people in power see stuff and think maybe there's something to this and they stake a claim via patent.  In at least one of the cases above, the person who applied for the patent may or may not work for the Navy, but has assigned the patent to them.  That way, the Navy can later pretty much disown it and blame the owner, or on the very slight chance that something comes of it, they take the money and maybe make a small donation to the inventor...  The latter almost never happens.  These are mostly complete wastes of time, but you never know...... except in the case of the EM Drive, we do know.  It's bull****.  That hasn't yet been acknowledged by NASA, but it will be eventually.

If it was real tech and not so speculative, then yes, they'd probably classify it.  But frankly, this sort of stuff is just a meaningless joke.

To answer your other question, if it turned out to be a real, valuable propulsion system, they'd sell it to currently friendly powers, eg Russia.  :D :D

To Rabid Mongoose......  Just NO.  Step away from the topic.  That stuff you are posting is worthless (and utterly wrong) word salad.

I belive that officials like US Navy would claim patents for advanced technology only after some level of testing or after scientists would have studied everything in details. I dont think that theorized paper work could easily make it to this stage.

Some of you should note the shape of the vehicle: triangle. How many ufo sightings have reported similar objects.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

I belive that officials like US Navy would claim patents for advanced technology only after some level of testing or after scientists would have studied everything in details. I dont think that theorized paper work could easily make it to this stage.

Then, may I suggest that instead of just posting what you believe, you actually research this practice.  It is common.  It's called speculative patenting.  'Theorized paper work' does indeed easily make it to this stage.  The potential rewards are high, or at least can seem so to those with a distrust of science - it's a small investment for a potentially large return, and frankly, nobody cares much - it's just the trolls or the taxpayers money..

3 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

Some of you should note the shape of the vehicle: triangle. How many ufo sightings have reported similar objects.

:D Some of you should learn to think in 3D.  The triangle drawings are of cross sections... :rolleyes:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Then, may I suggest that instead of just posting what you believe, you actually research this practice.  It is common.  It's called speculative patenting.  'Theorized paper work' does indeed easily make it to this stage.  The potential rewards are high, or at least can seem so to those with a distrust of science - it's a small investment for a potentially large return, and frankly, nobody cares much - it's just the trolls or the taxpayers money..

:D Some of you should learn to think in 3D.  The triangle drawings are of cross sections... :rolleyes:  

Ahhh.... Pyramids!

:ph34r:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.