General Fusion gets an update.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

General Fusion gets an update.

Post by joedead »


Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Hmm, no real news there, just an updated website with more details.
Unless I missed it?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Seems like less details to me... none of the links work in my browser.

well, I'll give you some news then: their first patent failed. It was rejected, pretty much wholesale. If you put forward a patent claiming fusion, then you'd better be able to show it can do some fusion 'cos the patent examiners won't let such stuff through any more like that.

The have a new patent in progress, phrased in a way that now claims 'plasma compression' rather than fusion (which is what they should've done first off), but it mentions toroids and spheromaks, so it sounds like they've lost their way a bit on patent issues. And if there's no IPR protection, why would investors remain interested?

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Post by joedead »

I was referring to an updated website design.


Gotcha!


Seriously, thanks for the news Chrismb. I'd been searching for any new info about them and wasn't aware of the patent issue.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Personally I dont think that the patent should have been rejected, especially considering all the other crap that gets patents these days (algorithms, e.g.), especially in the US.
It is not like they claim to have invented some new physics or something either. It is rather conservative in their design. All the problems that they have are engineering problems, not physics problems. Plus, IIRC they did have a prototype (that only worked for a single pulse though) that worked.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Problem is, you have to prove 'utility' and if you say 'this can produce grid power' then you'd better be able to prove it, or at least give prima facie argument as to how it does that.

This is down to poor patenting. You should look to file patents that claim a key process on which the thing relies -which they now appear to have done. The other way someone might do this is to say 'my invention is a means to produce fusion reactions' and then go on to say that those reactions can produce isotope, or it can act as a 'model' for larger fusion reactions, or whatever. This is so easy to reduce the monumentalism of your claim to something the examiner can pass that if you give them half a chance to pass it then they probably will. In this case it looks to me like poor attorney advice and/or over-eagerness to make bullish claims.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

and if you say 'this can produce grid power' then you'd better be able to prove it
Yeah, but as I said, there were even more obnoxious things claimed in the US, way worse.
I honestly dont find their claim bullish. So far it is the most realistic thing that I have seen, at least on a physics level. Their biggest challenges are in engineering and those can be overcome, if not now, then when given enough time. You need high precision tooling and switches, that is all (which no doubt can be a lot and even to much for todays tech, but that does not make the thing unpatentable).

Post Reply