Wait, what, there are people with "fusion startups"? I was under the impression that nuclear fusion is not yet feasible.
Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
81–90 of 100 posts
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#82Wait, what, there are people with "fusion startups"? I was under the impression that nuclear fusion is not yet feasible.
Based on my limited understanding, fusion is possible. Just not fusion that generates more energy than it consumes.
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patenting potentially workable ideas using vague nonsense solutions in hopes on profiting if/when someone else makes them workable is pretty BS.
IANAL and I know next to nothing about patents, but is that possible if the patents are assigned to the US Navy? I mean, I'm sure it's possible , but is the Navy known for profit-driven patent trolling?
Could this be the weaponization of the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle [1]?
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#84Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be very interested to see what sort of jamming was used. What shape were those pulses? Incredibly interesting that whatever it was would know to jam radar.
Yeah. To me this is the biggest indicator that it is of terrestrial origin.
Yeah, some aliens can fly through galaxy, use methods of flying we don't know, but can't reason about usage of a radar beam?
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#86Love the idea that if an opposing power developed force fields + compact fusion reactors, that the last line of defence would be patent law.
I would read that if it was a novel. Picturing legal thriller blended with scifi. Maybe some military/political drama thrown in. Grisham/Clancy/Crichton
With energy bolts hammering at her heels on every step, our plucky lawyer dived through the doors of the high court. Slamming the injunction docs into the outstretched arms of a waiting clerk she yelled at the shimmering blue spheres on the other side of the window, "You've been served."
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Last week Rogan had Capt Fravor who was one of the alleged witnesses to the "tictac" video that the pentagon confirmed the legitimacy of 2 years ago. Worth watching if you're into this kind of thing. On Rogan's forum, I posted an explanation of how these Navy "UFOs" work. I've included a history of their progress and citations: https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...
Did your post get deleted? Anyone have a screengrab?
You can always try Removeddit. Just replace reddit in the URL with removeddit, like so:
https://removeddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Last week Rogan had Capt Fravor who was one of the alleged witnesses to the "tictac" video that the pentagon confirmed the legitimacy of 2 years ago. Worth watching if you're into this kind of thing. On Rogan's forum, I posted an explanation of how these Navy "UFOs" work. I've included a history of their progress and citations: https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/dfehjt/an_explana...
I'm not going to refute your post, as I can't think of anything more plausible. But, I will mention that flying a Navy aircraft dangerously close to other military aircraft -- especially between aircraft in formation is aside from being highly-dangerous, is highly-frowned upon, and highly unprofessional. I don't see US military flight crews taking this risk, even if they are piloting "black" aircraft. I don't see thi…
Tom Mahood - a UFO skeptic with an advanced degree in physics - gives a plausible argument that the Air Force has been testing particle beams designed to spoof radar for quite a long time at Groom Lake.
https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
"The way it works is like this. When directed toward the sky, a properly tuned proton beam, focused by magnetic lenses, would pass through the first few thousand meters of air with no apparent effect. If the energy levels are adjusted right, the beam itself wouldn’t be visible. Then, when the energy of the beam dropped to a critical value, it would dump its remaining energy in a very short distance, ionizing the oxygen and nitrogen atoms of the atmosphere, causing one damn fine glowing ball of plasma."
"Assuming a circular beam aperture, the plasma would also take on a circular shape. Viewed from the side, the plasma would have a lenticular cross-section, and possibly even a different color from the bottom to the top due to the energy gradient of the dying beam. Very much like a spectral distribution). In short, it would look just like a glowing saucer. The beam could quickly be moved laterally, giving the plasma the appearance of instantly moving across the sky, much as a searchlight can jump 'instantly' across the bottom of a cloud."
Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
3, as posted, is available off the shelf.
It goes by the trademarked name of "antenna". You can search in a store near you. #5 is the most exciting. We used to call it "pendulum", but some people complain that they can't insulate the non-amplified signal.
The first rule of reading patents is that you read the patent, not just the title. It's not just an antenna.