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

Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#61

Post by newnewpdro »

Do any of these patents explain how they're converting the fusion-generated heat into giga/terawatts of electricity?

Am I expected to believe there's a turbine propelled by steam conventionally generating that much electricity powering the alleged tic-tac craft?

Or do the patents describe a purely direct thermoelectric conversion method capable of sustaining such power levels in such a small space at fusion temperatures?

From where I'm sitting, at this moment, this all seems like an elaborate disinformation campaign to both prop up morale of the domestic masses believing the USA has magic China doesn't, while trying to instill FUD in the enemy.

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#62

Post by willis936 »

bob1029 wrote: post #54
rolph wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have a look at nuclear isomers, the big direction is to create a device that may arbitrarily, [as in switchon/switch off] stimulate fusion and emit the yield in a unidirectional manner, multiple times before refueling. basically a high energy neutron flux beam weapon.

I do believe pulsed fusion energy is a much better approach to start with. We already have the ability to generate small amounts of pure fusion energy in highly-energetic laboratory experiments. If you could place a pulsed reactor in some thermal mediator (e.g. water), you could have a device that produces apparently continuous thermal energy. A single 1 megaton thermonuclear weapon can produce the equivalent of arou…

Ah. Good ole PACER.

There is a good reason that magnetic confinement devices are the cutting edge of fusion energy research; and no, it isn’t tribalism.

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#63

Post by istorical »

not_real_acct wrote: post #17
gfodor wrote: post #7

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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

> 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?

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#64

Post by krapp »

newnewpdro wrote: post #61

Do any of these patents explain how they're converting the fusion-generated heat into giga/terawatts of electricity? Am I expected to believe there's a turbine propelled by steam conventionally generating that much electricity powering the alleged tic-tac craft? Or do the patents describe a purely direct thermoelectric conversion method capable of sustaining such power levels in such a small space at fusion temperatu…

>From where I'm sitting, at this moment, this all seems like an elaborate disinformation campaign to both prop up morale of the domestic masses believing the USA has magic China doesn't, while trying to instill FUD in the enemy.

Maybe... I could actually buy that the military has some kind of top secret fusion technology, but this being a disinformation campaign doesn't make a lot of sense. This story doesn't really prop up domestic morale - the masses for the most part don't know about this, nor do they care (that notwithstanding the fraction who already believe the Area 51/UFO stuff anyway.) And I would expect China or any modern country to be capable of differentiating between a description of legitimate science and magical woo-woo nonsense.

My personal take on this is that there is legitimate, purely terrestrial but advanced technology at work here, but still nothing involving anti-gravity or anything ridiculous like that. I'm assuming people's pop-cultural bias towards UFO conspiracy theories are causing people to jump the gun.

But even then it's weird. It's weird any way you look at it, unless the whole thing is a hoax from top to bottom.

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#65

Post by nvrspyx »

rasz wrote: post #45
deepnotderp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just going off the titles, at least 1, 4 and 6 are possibly not bs. Laser augmented combustion is a thing, compression fusion like general fusion or first light fusion is a thing and if you use piezoelectricity to induce pressure, then at very high pressures some materials become superconductors near room temperature

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?

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#66

Post by Gustomaximus »

goodcanadian wrote: post #13

Once upon a time, you had to have a working example of an invention in order to be granted a patent . . .

Also wasn't there a rule if someone comes up with the same idea independently the patent was invalid?

We really need to rethink the patent system.

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#67

Post by bdowling »

pontifier wrote: post #58

As someone with a fusion startup, and a recently issued fusion patent I read the actual patent to see what I could learn. In my opinion, the patent does not describe anything useful. There are no descriptions of the shape of the magnetic field this device is intended to produce, and is about as useful as saying "Aim a bunch of magnets toward the center. It'll work, trust me."

This is an application, not a patent.

To your point, the examiner may object to the claims because the application fails the enablement requirement. Enablement means that the disclosure enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. Even if a patent does issue and you're sued for infringement, one of your arguments might be that the patent shouldn't have issued because it isn't enabling.

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#68

Post by [deleted] »

not_real_acct wrote: post #17
gfodor wrote: post #7

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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ

> 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...

[deleted]

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#69

Post by Nihilartikel »

As a critical lay-person, I think these patents are baloney. It rings like sci-fi physics charlatan keyword salad and puts forth no plausible verification or discussion of implementation. That's boring. What's interesting is what the Navy is playing at with this. Are they thumbing their nose at Russia's nuclear rocketry program, implying "we might, like, have UFOs or something.. I can't say". Is that really a geopolitical move that the USA is executing?

Re: Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

#70

Post by frickinLasers »

istorical wrote: post #63
not_real_acct wrote: post #17

Earlier 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?

The whole account was deleted, with all the author's replies in the thread gone too.
Post reply on HN