Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#21

Post by bra4you »

cbanek wrote: post #15

I'd really love some world changing breakthrough technology now. I really would. But I don't really understand this stuff (not that I'm qualified). I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine, so the fact that it is a patent, doesn't seem to require that it be real. I can't help but think back to the 80's SDI "Star Wars" programs. We said that we could do a lot of things that we couldn't, and that made…

"I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine"

No, you can't because it violates fundamental principles of scientific laws.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#22

Post by akiselev »

bra4you wrote: post #20
smhinsey wrote: post #13

I would love to be wrong because this tech is very interesting, but I feel like I have developed a pretty good bullshit detector in my time online and quotes such as "VES being the Fifth State of Matter (Fifth Essence - Quintessence)" stick out to me as being discrediting.

Honestly, I have lost track of state of matters. How many are there? 3? s,l,g? Plasma? Bode Einstein Condensate? I vaguely remember at least three more.

There are over a dozen more exotic states of matter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#23

Post by cbanek »

bra4you wrote: post #21
cbanek wrote: post #15

I'd really love some world changing breakthrough technology now. I really would. But I don't really understand this stuff (not that I'm qualified). I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine, so the fact that it is a patent, doesn't seem to require that it be real. I can't help but think back to the 80's SDI "Star Wars" programs. We said that we could do a lot of things that we couldn't, and that made…

"I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine" No, you can't because it violates fundamental principles of scientific laws.

Not only can you, but many people have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#24

Post by cmroanirgo »

cbanek wrote: post #15

I'd really love some world changing breakthrough technology now. I really would. But I don't really understand this stuff (not that I'm qualified). I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine, so the fact that it is a patent, doesn't seem to require that it be real. I can't help but think back to the 80's SDI "Star Wars" programs. We said that we could do a lot of things that we couldn't, and that made…

It seems that these devices are real:

> Despite the patents sounding extremely far-fetched, official documents show that the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise personally attested to the reality of these inventions and their importance to national security and peer-state competition in appeals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Of course, the article immediately follows with:

> Meanwhile, the scientists and physicists we have talked to on and off the record have made it clear that they find the claims largely absurd and not grounded in scientific fact. At the same time, there is, in fact, many decades of government research into similar technologies that are very much alike in concept to some of Pais's work.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#25

Post by keyle »

You don't patent these things without expecting questions... Either they're really close to produce something that the public could replicate - hence the patenting, or they're miles away from anything realistic but patenting like crazy to remain 'relevant'.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#26

Post by catalogia »

cbanek wrote: post #23
bra4you wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine" No, you can't because it violates fundamental principles of scientific laws.

Not only can you, but many people have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents

From that what that link says, it sounds like you could but now cannot patent perpetual motion devices, since those applications are now rejected in America and UK. Perhaps you can patent them elsewhere though.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#27

Post by mrnobody_67 »

This quote from another article on the source website is interesting:

“Craft Using An Inertial Mass Reduction Device.” While all are pretty outlandish-sounding, the latter is the one that the Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise personally vouched for in a letter to the USPTO, claiming the Chinese are already developing similar capabilities.

...

"That being said, the unorthodox circumstances surrounding the approval of this patent have us wondering why the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise, Dr. James Sheehy, personally vouched for the legitimacy of this beyond-revolutionary aerospace technology in the Navy’s appeal to the USPTO. Sheehy assured the patent examiner in charge of this application that the aircraft propulsion method described in the patent is indeed possible or will be soon based on experiments and tests NAWCAD has already conducted. "

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#28

Post by jbay808 »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #24
cbanek wrote: post #15

I'd really love some world changing breakthrough technology now. I really would. But I don't really understand this stuff (not that I'm qualified). I guess you can actually patent a perpetual motion machine, so the fact that it is a patent, doesn't seem to require that it be real. I can't help but think back to the 80's SDI "Star Wars" programs. We said that we could do a lot of things that we couldn't, and that made…

It seems that these devices are real: > Despite the patents sounding extremely far-fetched, official documents show that the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise personally attested to the reality of these inventions and their importance to national security and peer-state competition in appeals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Of course, the article immediately fo…

I don't get it. The point of patents is public disclosure -- if you want to keep something secret, you don't patent it. A patent isn't going to prevent a foreign government from copying a technology in their own country. It instead helps them, because a patent is supposed to document the technology in sufficient detail to replicate it. It would just prevent them from competing to sell them in the US.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#29

Post by trhway »

mrnobody_67 wrote: post #27

This quote from another article on the source website is interesting: “Craft Using An Inertial Mass Reduction Device.” While all are pretty outlandish-sounding, the latter is the one that the Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise personally vouched for in a letter to the USPTO, claiming the Chinese are already developing similar capabilities. ... "That being said, the unorthodox circumstances surro…

> the aircraft propulsion method described in the patent is indeed possible

from that patent - they describe there spinning the 2m diameter disk at 30000rpm (ie. 3km/s edge speed):

"... we obtain an energy flux value of 10e33 W/m2. This exceptionally high power intensity induces a pair production avalanche, thereby ensuring complete polarization of the local vacuum state."

i believe it - 10e33 W/m2 can do a lot (it is total power output of a million of Suns concentrated into 1m2), and such EM field would interact strongly not only with the Earth magnetic field, it will do it with just sheer vacuum as well (that is the point of their patent is that vacuum isn't really a full vacuum according to QM).

So everything seems ok from the pure math EM/QM formula POV. There are i think only minor pesky practical details - like the material able to withstand 30000rpm 3km/s rotation while under the 10e33 W/m2 EM flux (the flux which would tear apart atoms and may be even protons/neutrons) and a compact energy source doing all that while fitting into the 2m diameter disk.

Re: The Inventor of the Navy's 'UFO Patents'

#30

Post by kipchak »

jbay808 wrote: post #28
cmroanirgo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that these devices are real: > Despite the patents sounding extremely far-fetched, official documents show that the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise personally attested to the reality of these inventions and their importance to national security and peer-state competition in appeals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Of course, the article immediately fo…

I don't get it. The point of patents is public disclosure -- if you want to keep something secret, you don't patent it. A patent isn't going to prevent a foreign government from copying a technology in their own country. It instead helps them, because a patent is supposed to document the technology in sufficient detail to replicate it. It would just prevent them from competing to sell them in the US.

A few potential explinations are deliberate misdirection intended for actual programs or towards foreign intelligence services, a filing or paperwork mistake, testing the waters for Mass disclosure, or infighting between the Navy releasing information and the Air Force or some other branch that owns the craft and has tested it on Navy latest and greatest assets.
Post reply on HN