Is a Space Drive Without Explosions Possible?

In summary: 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 WCT and the WPPT are not limited to copyright law, but also cover related rights, such as the right of producers of phonograms to be paid for their work, the right of performers to be remunerated for their work, and the right of broadcasters to be compensated for the broadcasting of works.
  • #36
3 Pages Of Reading About Patents Culminates Into Notin About The Mock Drive Technology .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Secret Science eh?

I have a feeling that your idea has been thought of by other's as well, and if not you must be much brighter than 99.999999999999% of the rest of us humble folks on this planet. I have also thought of many of these types of things myself. Another man is making the information available to all for free. You see the patent process is not what it used to be, and large corporations these days have more than sufficient funding to finance a small change in just about any patent discription, not to mention producing a refined technology much more advanced once the idea is out there. This comes from 35+ years of hands on experience in these matters and I had to learn the hard way many times over before recognizing these facts. Look up the "ISBP OS Project" and check out the links. I would think that most physicists worth their salt would be very excited about that particular technology being that the possible applications are so vast. However most of the so-called professional scientist's are more concerned about their peer's and what they will have to say than they are about learning anything from someone without any celebrity standing. Such is life!

Good Luck,

Bush Wacker
 
  • #38
The Ion Source Beam looks fascinating, but its nothing like my idea.

I figured my idea was so basic that it woud be on the web already, but I haven't seen it anywhere yet. This means its either totally stupid to anybody who has enuff physics knowledge or that just by chance nobody haz put these different elements together before.

I woud think that with millions of brite & enthusiastic physics students graduating every year that, usless or not, this woud have been thought of already, but look at the compound bow. Pulleys & bows have been in use for thousands of years, but when was the compound bow invented? Some time in the 1980'z ?

The patent process has always been a sham. Wilbur Wright spent 40 years in court trying to get paid for the airplane invention. Finally got a million$, but what good is a patent if you're an old man when it pays off? Spend a few years developing an idea and then your career consists of listening to idiot lawyers babbling nonsense. No thanks.
 
  • #39
The 'ISBP OS Project' looks like pure nonsense to me. Lockheed have patented a similar, but simpler, device which is supposed to project a 'magnetic beam'. I built one, and tested it with iron filings. There was just the short-range pattern which one would expect. The beam was just some sort of delusion.
 
  • #40
ISBP Pure Nonsense?

I have assembled the Lockheed Martin patented device also and you are correct, it is a complete joke. However, I have also assembled the ISBP device posted by James D. Fauble and it worked extremely well. The project is ongoing and they are currently in the process of placing a large order for these hard to find magnets which Mr. Fauble has spent a great deal of money out of his own pocket to have manufactured. The federal govt., had taken them off the market and this raises suspicions to me that Mr. Fauble is right about the various reasons for trying to hide this technology. It is always good to reserve doubt before seeing the evidence first hand, as that is the practice of scientific reasoning, however once you have seen it in your own hands, you tend to change your opinion. We shall see, we shall see!

Kindest Regards,

Bush-Wacker
 
  • #41
If anybody is interested and qualified in this, send an email. I'm deleting this forum from my favorites list due to a lack of results.
 
  • #42
plum said:
[...]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).

I thought `Imagination is more important than knowledge.´


JO 753: Have you seen the list of theories I've collected?: http://arctic.ithium.net/
 
Last edited:
  • #43
JO 753 said:
If anybody is interested and qualified in this, send an email. I'm deleting this forum from my favorites list due to a lack of results.


hmm... and we didn't even get to see what it was...
 
  • #44
I guess there's no place for his calibre of genius amongst us low-life rascals.
 
  • #45
JO 753 said:
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.

My guess is it was a doomsday machine with nozzles.
 
  • #46
JO 753 said:
If anybody is interested and qualified in this, send an email. I'm deleting this forum from my favorites list due to a lack of results.
I find it insane, to say the least, that someone would expect more help from a forum when he won't even tell us what the thing is. Techno-trolls are a strange bunch indeed.
 
  • #47
Yeah, I'd have expected him to have at least asked us a question before getting all mardy on us!

Ah well, there's just no helping some people.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top