Is a Space Drive Without Explosions Possible?

[JO 753]

I have an idea for a space drive system that does not use explosions or even combustion.

It doesn't require any new physics, but its something that may not be possible to build. However, it seems far more practical than any of the systems I've seen so far.

I can think of how to make it, I just don't know if there is something wrong with the physics I'm basing it on. I'm just a lowly product developer. What I need are some of you eggheads to look at it.

Please email if youre interested in discussing it, since I don't want to make the idea available to anybody. (XINKR@aol.com)

 

[Danger]

This looks like a job for ASTRONUC!

Sorry for yelling; I got excited.

 

[FredGarvin]

It doesn't require any new physics, but its something that may not be possible to build. However, it seems far more practical than any of the systems I've seen so far.

If you can't build it, then it's not really practical, is it? I would say to not worry about being secretive. Post some of the ideas you have. You'll get a much better response.

 

[brewnog]

Yeah, everyone here is too busy with their own stuff to go around trying to steal other peoples' ideas. However, you'll find it a lot more constructive if your idea is discussed as a group.

 

[skeptic]

Why not patent it first, and then discuss it? Contrary to popular belief, one can get anything past the patent office. Perpetual motion, anti-gravity, faster-than-light communication, objects that are bigger inside than they are outside? No problem. Just pay the fee.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, everyone here is too busy with their own stuff to go around trying to steal other peoples' ideas. However, you'll find it a lot more constructive if your idea is discussed as a group.

Though if you're really serious about the security problem, email an engineering professor at the nearest university and offer him a few hundred dollars for a quick once-over of your idea. Write a little contract that says he has no rights to the information you show him.

However, I suspect that your idea has a flaw that you don't see.

 

[russ_watters]

Why not patent it first, and then discuss it? Contrary to popular belief, one can get anything past the patent office. Perpetual motion, anti-gravity, faster-than-light communication, objects that are bigger inside than they are outside? No problem. Just pay the fee.

Legally, that's not right, but practically - yeah, the USPTO is overworked, understaffed, and underfunded and a lot of crackpottery falls through the cracks.

 

[BenGoodchild]

Do you need to register to be protected?

Copyright itself does not depend on official procedures. A created work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it exists. According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, literary and artistic works are protected without any formalities in the countries party to that Convention. Thus, WIPO does not offer any kind of copyright registration system.

However, many countries have a national copyright office and some national laws allow for registration of works for the purposes of, for example, identifying and distinguishing titles of works. In certain countries, registration can also serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to disputes relating to copyright.”

How are copyright and related rights protected on the Internet?

Two treaties were concluded in 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. One, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), deals with protection for authors of literary and artistic works, such as writings and computer programs; original databases; musical works; audiovisual works; works of fine art and photographs. The other, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), protects certain “related rights” (that is, rights related to copyright): in the WPPT, these are rights of performers and producers of phonograms.

The purpose of the two treaties is to update and supplement the major existing WIPO treaties on copyright and related rights, primarily in order to respond to developments in technology and in the marketplace. Since the Berne and Rome Conventions were adopted or lastly revised more than a quarter century ago, new types of works, new markets, and new methods of use and dissemination have evolved. Among other things, both the WCT and the WPPT address the challenges posed by today’s digital technologies, in particular the dissemination of protected material over digital networks such as the Internet. For this reason, they have sometimes been referred to as the “Internet treaties.”

Both treaties require countries to provide a framework of basic rights, allowing creators to control and/or be compensated for the various ways in which their creations are used and enjoyed by others. Most importantly, the treaties ensure that the owners of those rights will continue to be adequately and effectively protected when their works are disseminated through new technologies and communications systems such as the Internet. The treaties thus clarify that existing rights continue to apply in the digital environment. They also create new online rights. To maintain a fair balance of interests between the owners of rights and the general public, the treaties further clarify that countries have reasonable flexibility in establishing exceptions or limitations to rights in the digital environment. Countries may, in appropriate circumstances, grant exceptions for uses deemed to be in the public interest, such as for non-profit educational and research purposes.

The treaties also require countries to provide not only the rights themselves, but also two types of technological adjuncts to the rights. These are intended to ensure that rightholders can effectively use technology to protect their rights and to license their works online. The first, known as the “anti-circumvention” provision, tackles the problem of “hacking”: it requires countries to provide adequate legal protection and effective remedies against the circumvention of technological measures (such as encryption) used by rightholders to protect their rights. The second type of technological adjuncts safeguards the reliability and integrity of the online marketplace by requiring countries to prohibit the deliberate alteration or deletion of electronic “rights management information”: that is, information which accompanies any protected material, and which identifies the work, its creators, performer, or owner, and the terms and conditions for its use.

The WCT entered into force on March 6, 2002. For the WPPT, the date of entry into force was May 20, 2002. A number of countries have implemented the provisions of the two treaties in their national legislation. The Collection of Laws for Electronic Access (CLEA) database of WIPO can be consulted to search copyright laws of a wide range of countries.

this is quoted from http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#rights

As i read it - you post it here and then its yours.

To be sure I know that a few engineers do the following:

Make a copy of the information, take a photo of each page of the document on top of a different page of the days newspaper, have several people sign to verify the date of the photographs.
Copy this document and put it in a safe, on your hard drive, give it to a solicitor and then you have full proof of the date you produced the work!

(however check with a lawyer to make sure your fine first - some access I believe on lin - and indeed google! and if your making something big you can't keep it to yourself forever!)

Intellectual copyright is a very good thing!

- Ben

 

[chroot]

Ben,

That's all well and good, but you're missing the important part -- copyright laws protect the words on the page themselves, not any inventions described therein. You need a design patent to protect an invention, and patents are not automatic.

- Warren

 

[BenGoodchild]

Warren as always you are correct, however what I would say is that the inventor will never make any money anyway for the following reasons.

1) A patent is only enforcable in the country in which it is taken out - so if it is made in the US, someone in Russia can make it legally.
2) If the invention is viable the military will get the patent in what ever way they must.
3) If it is so obvious then some one is likely to have invented it before.

There are many more reasons that my hands are too tired to type - however in my mind it is highly unlikely he will make a lot of money out of something like this unless he sells it to a company or governments etc by keeping it quiet - and then works on commision.

If he claims intellectual copyright at least he gets the fame and glory which is what is really all about - that is if someone hasn't already done it and it is living in an Air Force hanger somewhere!

-Ben

 

[chroot]

1) A patent is only enforcable in the country in which it is taken out - so if it is made in the US, someone in Russia can make it legally.

However, they cannot sell the product in the US, thus protecting the inventor's right to profits made in the US. Many companies also file patents simultaneously in a variety of countries.

2) If the invention is viable the military will get the patent in what ever way they must.

While this is true, the military has not once, in the history of the US, exercised this privelege.

3) If it is so obvious then some one is likely to have invented it before.

Who said anything about obvious inventions? Many inventions are not obvious, at least in my line of work, but are still worth a boatload of cash.

There are many more reasons that my hands are too tired to type - however in my mind it is highly unlikely he will make a lot of money out of something like this unless he sells it to a company or governments etc by keeping it quiet - and then works on commision.

Neither you nor I have any idea what kind of invention the original poster is describing, so I have no idea why you're arguing about its potential value.

If he claims intellectual copyright at least he gets the fame and glory which is what is really all about - that is if someone hasn't already done it and it is living in an Air Force hanger somewhere!

My company files approximately one patent every day in the US; most, if not all of them are worth a tremendous amount of money. Your "fame and glory," on the other hand, seem much harder to obtain.

- Warren

 

[BenGoodchild]

I have an idea for a space drive system that does not use explosions or even combustion.

Neither you nor I have any idea what kind of invention the original poster is describing, so I have no idea why you're arguing about its potential value

Okay- I admit there are no real facts given but let's presume this effectively means no emissions travel. Such implications for an increasing enviromentally conscious world might well be big.

However, they cannot sell the product in the US, thus protecting the inventor's right to profits made in the US. Many companies also file patents simultaneously in a variety of countries.

On that first section - if I couldn't buy Ipods in Britain due to a patent, i'd buy one in france and import it!Onthe second part of that quote - the important word is companies - to forumlate a patent, including the claims et cetera is not an easy job for one man with no experience now is it - and also the idea of a company is very apt as you will well know nay invention made whilst being directed to do so by the company becomes the businesses property! (I know as I know the guy who made the silicon diodes on top of streets lghts and also a relative of the guy who invented cats eyes for road safety)

My company files approximately one patent every day in the US; most, if not all of them are worth a tremendous amount of money. Your "fame and glory," on the other hand, seem much harder to obtain.

Your company must be big then! But let's remember, things are only worth as much as people will pay.


-Ben

 

[JO 753]

I am not concerned about the idea being stolen. I don't think it has much chance of being a profitable product for my little company. The problem is that it has weapons potential.

If you look at the NASA advanced concepts site, you will see that the conventional physics drive systems are all next to impossible. I don't know if this one is any better, but until someone can show me why its not horrendously dangerous, no details here.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you look at the NASA advanced concepts site, you will see that the conventional physics drive systems are all next to impossible. I don't know if this one is any better, but until someone can show me why its not horrendously dangerous, no details here.

"Getting to the moon is next to impossible" - 1960

 

[BenGoodchild]

I am not concerned about the idea being stolen. I don't think it has much chance of being a profitable product for my little company. The problem is that it has weapons potential.

Two points

1. Did you develop the invention in company time or under company orders/request?

2. If military potential then Chroot - don't you reckon the military might want a piece of the pie?!

-Ben

 

[chroot]

to forumlate a patent, including the claims et cetera is not an easy job for one man with no experience now is it

No, it's not. That's why God invented patent lawyers. If an invention has any real marketable value at all, the few hours spent with a patent lawyer will be time well spent. If the invention is worthless, then why bother patenting it?

and also the idea of a company is very apt as you will well know nay invention made whilst being directed to do so by the company becomes the businesses property!

How is this relevant to anything? You seem to have no real argument, and are now just bringing up random garbage. First, you tell the original poster his invention will be protected by a copyright (false), next you tell me there's no value in a patent anyway (false), and now you're telling me how businesses deal with their patents (wholly irrelevant). Do you have anything to add to this discussion at all?

- Warren

 

[brewnog]

Ben, I think you're missing the point.

If the OP wanted to protect his invention, copyright would not help him at all, except to prevent duplication of his own original drawings and literature. The invention itself would remain unprotected as Chroot has explained. Your point about iPods is a bit vague; anyone filing a patent would consider issuing one in any country where they wanted to protect a market. A patent would allow the inventor to license the production of his invention to anyone he wished, but you know that already. But why do you say that there is no money to be made following the filing of a patent? Copyright certainly isn't going to help, unless you're writing a book (or song!) about your invention. But yes, individuals are strongly advised to think hard about a number of issues before filing a patent. Large companies are generally less inclined to do so.


Anyway, back to the OP. We can all understand your reluctance to share your idea for whatever reason, but if you do want to get it looked over, I'd follow russ' advice and email an academic. If not, just PM any of us, we're not going to sell you out!

 

[chroot]

2. If military potential then Chroot - don't you reckon the military might want a piece of the pie?!

As I've said, the US military has not once exercised its right to usurp a civilian patent. Under ordinary circumstances, the military negotiates with the inventor an agreeable sum of money for the patent rights.

- Warren

 

[BenGoodchild]

Okay let me clarify

I was saying intellectual copyright protects his IDEAS.

A patent is not useles of course it isn't it is a worthwhile thing to pursue I was merely pointing out the expense ($2000-10000 to prepare papers and file at US patent office on average with a lawyer) and potential pitfalls to consider when using patents. Also I was trying to highlight this point put so well across @ http://public.resource.org/patents/

[Quote="Patent Website]Since Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327, was decided in [243 U.S. 502, 511] 1829, this court has consistently held that the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents, but is 'to promote the progress of science and the useful arts' ( Constitution, art. 1, 8),-an object and purpose authoritatively expressed by Mr. Justice Story, in that decision, saying:


* 'While one great object [of our patent laws] was, by holding out a reasonable reward to inventors and giving them an exclusive right to their inventions for a limited period, to stimulate the efforts of genius, the main object was 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts." [/quote]

This also encompasses my view that things should be done ofr scientific benefit - as shown under your own constitution!

It is relevant how companies deal with patents as he may have developed it under the guidance of a company of which he isn't the owner in which case the patent may not be his.
Or, he may have only a partial stake in the business and so the patent is not necassarily all his, and my takign a patent in only his name - he may be breaking (more than likely) federal law may not be in his interests - I obviously refer to fraud or theft or whatever they would charge him with!

Your point about US military is ludicrous! Take project Manhattan - they bought in all of the best physicists to work for them and develop what they wanted - this is echoed throughout time - with Blechley Park etc.

I would put it to you that you are nieve and perhaps do not use history to form your judgements, oh and aggressive!

-Ben

I would like to point out that in many countries a promise made in conversation (voice converstion) is legally binding. 0 just thouht you may want to know as I believ the US may be one of these countries.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd be happy to take a look at it.

But be aware, most advanced propulsion/energy system concepts will most likely have dual use status - useful as a propulsive source or as a weapon. Energy is energy, and high energy density, can be used constructively or destructively - it all depends on the disposition of the energy.

As for patents - these days, one must patent in the markets that are most viable - US, EU, Japan, and a few others.

You have my word and agreement not to disclose any details which you disclose.

 

[brewnog]

I was saying intellectual copyright protects his IDEAS.

No it doesn't. It protects the physical expression of ideas. It protects the article or drawing, NOT the ideas expressed therein.

 

[BenGoodchild]

I'm sorry but no - JK Rowling for example - one cannot use the IDEA of Harry Potter without being in breach of intellectual copyright laws - there was a big fuss about it earlier on this year.

and may it not be said I do nt have proof

# [patent-trademark-unfair competition-copyright-trade secret-moral rights]. Creative ideas and expressions of the human mind that have commercial value and receive the legal protection of a property right. The major legal mechanisms for protecting intellectual property rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Intellectual property rights enable owners to select who may access and use their property and to protect it from unauthorized use.
usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/glossary.htm[/URL]

# As defined by Article 2, section (viii), of the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, done at Stockholm, July 14, 1967, "intellectual property" shall include the rights relating to: literary, artistic and scientific works, performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts, [B][COLOR=Red]inventions[/COLOR] in all fields of human endeavor, scientific discoveries, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations[/B], protection against unfair competition, and all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.
[url]stellar-one.com/copyright_references/copyright_and_related_topics_glossary.htm[/url]

All formatting is for effect.


-Ben

 

[chroot]

I was saying intellectual copyright protects his IDEAS.

Copyrights do not protect ideas.

A patent is not useles of course it isn't it is a worthwhile thing to pursue I was merely pointing out the expense ($2000-10000 to prepare papers and file at US patent office on average with a lawyer) and potential pitfalls to consider when using patents. Also I was trying to highlight this point put so well across @ http://public.resource.org/patents/

This is also inane. You can grant yourself patent protection by simply using the words "patent pending," and starting the filing process. You don't have to have completed the filing, or have been granted a patent, to be protected under US patent law.

This also encompasses my view that things should be done ofr scientific benefit - as shown under your own constitution!

Oh, so we should just develop new inventions out of the goodness of our blessed little hearts, and not mind the tycoons who steal those ideas and become rich instead of us? That's just ridiculous, Ben.

It is relevant how companies deal with patents as he may have developed it under the guidance of a company of which he isn't the owner in which case the patent may not be his.
Or, he may have only a partial stake in the business and so the patent is not necassarily all his, and my takign a patent in only his name - he may be breaking (more than likely) federal law may not be in his interests - I obviously refer to fraud or theft or whatever they would charge him with!

I honestly think you're both delusional and ignorant.

Your point about US military is ludicrous! Take project Manhattan - they bought in all of the best physicists to work for them and develop what they wanted - this is echoed throughout time - with Blechley Park etc.

What on Earth does any of that have to do with patents?! Besides, the scientists at Los Alamos were not slave labor, they were there voluntarily!

It's a fact, Ben: the US military has never appropriated a civilian patent in the history of the United States, despite its privilege to do so.

I would put it to you that you are nieve and perhaps do not use history to form your judgements, oh and aggressive!

Please learn how to spell the word "naïve" before attempting to use it to insult me. It has become readily apparent in this thread and others that you generally have no idea what you're talking about, but seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I'm sorry but no - JK Rowling for example - one cannot use the IDEA of Harry Potter without being in breach of intellectual copyright laws - there was a big fuss about it earlier on this year.

Harry Potter is a fictional character in a work of literature, and even the words "Harry Potter" themselves are copyrighted, both implicitly and explicitly.

This has nothing at all to do with a design for a product or process! If I copyright the words "to make a light bulb, put a tungsten filament in an evacuated flask," it does not prevent anyone from going out and making the light bulb, it only prevents them from legally using those words.

If you do not understand the distinction, you really need to step out of this conversation. You have muddled it hopelessly.

- Warren

 

[brewnog]

Sorry, Ben, you're hopelessly wrong. I don't mean to be rude, and I'm sorry to the OP for dragging this out.

Those references are discussing general IP, not copyright in particular. Notice how the first paragraph goes on to distinguish between the different realms of IP. Copyright will NOT protect an invention which has merely been written or drawn about. A patent will. A patent protects an invention, copyright protects the physical expression of ideas, and not anything described therin. The Harry Potter issue was a copyright infringement, and had nothing to do with an invention. Please read your own references, particularly the following. (Note the lack of "industrial design" appearing under the copyright umbrella.)

Works covered by copyright include: literary, dramatic, choreographic and musical works; databases; photographs and other graphic images; and motion pictures, sound recordings, and other audiovisual works.

Anyway, this has got off topic. If you want to discuss this further with someone who has just taken a course in industrial IP, please feel free to message me. Again, my apologies to the OP.

 

[maverickmathematics]

Hi,

Nice to see Ben is being as helpful and as well accepted as ever! Well OP - if you want to get verification of your idea use a zero knowledge proof. It is the best way in my eyes as it protects your 'secrets'. I'm sure our lawyer can verify me on this.

Regards,

M

 

[JO 753]

I don't mind the digression & agression. Its interesting to see your spirited opinions on patents.

I don't have much confidence in the patent system myself. This comes from working in R&D for 20 years at many companies. If giant multinational conglomerates can't effectively protect their IP, what chance does the individual have? The only thing a patent seems to garantee for the inventor is the rite to go to court. The patent systems real purpose is to provide lawyers with steady income.

A big flaw in the distinction between an invention & art, patents & copyrights is becoming more obvious with the increased capabilities of CAD systems. Is a virtual model still only art? If you think so, then why can't a real model be considered a sculpture?

To answer some comments: I am the president and sole owner of the company. This idea is not related to any of my customers projects. It could be total balderdash resulting from insufficient knowledge.

Whats a zero knowledge proof, maverick?

 

[maverickmathematics]

Hi - my definition would most likely be wrong so here you go from a website that I now like! http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Zero-knowledge_proof

A zero-knowledge proof is an interactive method for one party to prove to another that a (usually mathematical) statement is true, without revealing anything other than the verity of the statement.

It is common practice to label the two parties in a zero-knowledge proof as Peggy (the prover of the statement) and Victor (the verifier of the statement). Sometimes P and V are known instead as Pat and Vanna.

A zero-knowledge proof must satisfy three properties:

1. Completeness: if the statement is true, the honest verifier (that is, one following the protocol properly) will be convinced of this fact by an honest prover.
2. Soundness: if the statement is false, no cheating prover can convince the honest verifier that it is true, except with some small probability.
3. Zero-knowledgeness: if the statement is true, no cheating verifier learns anything other than this fact. This is formalized by showing that every cheating verifier has some simulator that, given only the statement to be proven (and no access to the prover), can produce a transcript that "looks like" an interaction between the honest prover and the cheating verifier.

A common use of a zero-knowledge proof is in authentication systems where one party wants to be able to prove its identity to a second party via some secret information (such as a password) but doesn't want the second party to learn anything about this secret.

Zero-knowledge proofs are not proofs in the mathematical sense of the term because there is some small probability (called the soundness error) that a cheating prover will be able to convince the verifier of a false statement. However, there are standard techniques to decrease the soundness error to any arbitrarily small value.


My definition is that you have somebody test your idea they say it is true and nothing else.

regards,

M

 

[plum]

This isn't the only person I've encountered online who thinks he has genuine ideas for new space drives. I'm not discrediting him (not without more info.), although I'd like to stress that I've done some research into this, and there seems to be more ideas among those who are less educated and brilliant than those who are, suggesting that we're farther away from this sort of technology than we might think. I'd strongly suggest doing extensive research into what's already been thought of, using actual scientific journals (not the internet).

 

[skeptic]

Take a look at Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Jan. 2003. This is a review, of space-drive possibilities, written by a supposed 'expert' in the field. Any physicist who reads this review will be astonished by the utter stupidity of some of the ideas which high-tech companies are apparently willing to consider. It seems that some of the above, 'less educated and brilliant', people are currently in charge of 'blue skies' research by these companies. Perhaps the OP should contact the author of the review (Professor J.E.Allen).

 

[plum]

Could you be more specific and straightforward skeptic? I'm never good when it comes to understanding sarcasm. Are you saying that physicists working in the private sector are making significant contributions in this field?

 

[JO 753]

Thanks for the description, maverick. This idea is too simple for that tho. Anybody hearing the basic concepts will be able to put 2 and 2 together.

I could easily fall into that category, Skeptic. That kinda cheers me up, since I've noticed that the majority of giant company head honchos are complete idiots, so maybe I'm qualified ! Maybe I could even be a godam phone company CEO! ( Probably have to get a labotomy first )

On the other hand, the history of technology is chock full of experts saying this or that is impossible, complete with irrefutable proof, only to have it become commonplace within a few decades.

People have a tendency to think more of why something will fail rather than how it can work when its not their idea.

 

[maverickmathematics]

With a Zero Knowledge Proof you do tell one person about your idea and they check it and then just tell people effectivly that you are right. They do not tell people what you are right about precisely, for example you show the leading engineer in America your owk under a Zero Knowledge Proof, he verifies it and then you to can go to a company and you can say 'i've invented a space drive' and he can say you are correct and your proof is accurate, without talking at all about the actual invention.

Regards,

M

 

[skeptic]

"Could you be more specific and straightforward skeptic? I'm never good when it comes to understanding sarcasm. Are you saying that physicists working in the private sector are making significant contributions in this field?"
I fail to see any sarcasm, and I do not see how I could have been more direct. The plain truth is that certain high-tech companies, such as BAE Systems, are giving (according to the review) serious consideration to certain space-drive ideas which, if shown to a high-school physics student, would make him lol. An example: one of the devices is the patented (sic) 'Cuthbert Drive'. This is simply a couple of oscillating arms which flail to-and-fro (there are dozens of similar patents in the literature) and are supposed to propel themselves in outer space. It appears that it is being taken seriously because it works on an air-table. The next step (I have been told) is to put it on a 'vomit-comet' for free-fall testing. Hands-up those who think that it will work? So, I am saying that 'high-tech' engineers (but, I hope, not physicsts) are wasting time and money on crackpot activities. It could be that they are being forced to do so by bean-counters who are following the Pascal's wager strategy: 'there is near-zero chance of its working, but the profits would be almost infinite, so the expected profit is finite'. (That is my version of the PW, so don't get sidetracked by attacking it on the basis that it is not pure Pascal.) There could be a more worldly reason: I have heard that some companies back projects which are sure to fail so that they can offset the costs for tax-avoidance purposes.

 

[extreme_machinations]

I Suppose This Is Why Einstien Worked In A Patent Office Before Becoming A Scientist ,he Had Everything Planned ,see?