Talk-Polywell.org

mvanwink5 wrote:Also, it has been a while since I checked their website, and it looks like they updated it this month (2014).

Actually, October 14th 2013 posting date for an article dated October 11, 2013

mvanwink5 wrote:For some reason I had missed this, "THE 4TH IN HELION’S SERIES OF GROUNDBREAKING PROTOTYPES IS NOW OPERATIONAL." So, maybe something will be reported this year.

As near as I can (blurrily) make out, the pictured image seems to be of the center section containing the core. Without the plasma accelerator end pieces at the time the picture was taken but with some heavy-duty power feeds... crunch time?

mvanwink5 wrote:2014 may be a good news year for the dark horses.

We can only hope so.

mvanwink,
It would seem that if EMC2 gets navy money then there would be no need to patent.

If EMC2 does not get navy money, then for sure they must patent as no VC would go in without knowing there is Intellectual Protection.

Bussard made things hard in the aspect that he put so much in the wild regarding the technology. What is in the wild is not patentable.

I see only three options, of which one will surely surface this year (probably sooner than later I would think based on what we know from FPDS):

1.) Government money and press on.
2.) Patent and go for private money.
3.) It doesn't work, close up shop.

ladajo wrote: What is in the wild is not patentable.

Clearly you haven't been keeping up on software patents...

mvanwink5 wrote:
You don't suppose the Navy has burned too many high tech project bridges, that polywell is viewed as one to many to ask for? So keep it alive until the time is right to ask?

I don't think it's really the quantity of projects that one should be concerned about, but the relative capital investment in proportion to the expected marginal utility. And by that measure, the funding so far has been a drop in a bucket.

I think that if the Navy wants to keep this out of the hands of the Chinese and the Russians, they will want to avoid patents, as they would only make it easier to reproduce.
happyjack27, I honestly stopped worrying about patents once I realized how messed up and vague copyright laws have become. A patent lasts for 20 years, copyright lasts for 90 years after the death of the author and they want to make it unlimited (thanks Disney, Cher, Yoko and co). The interpretation has also become increasingly vague and. A mere likeness is now enough to claim violation and judges seem to always side with the plaintiff.

some examples of ridiculously un-patent-able things that have been patented. my favorite: the rectangle.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039282/ ... ected.html

http://ping.it/blog/start-ups-in-the-ma ... e-patents/

happyjack27 wrote:some examples of ridiculously un-patent-able things that have been patented. my favorite: the rectangle.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039282/ ... ected.html

http://ping.it/blog/start-ups-in-the-ma ... e-patents/

Fair point, but I am not sure the same rule set will apply for fusion submissions.

Fusion patents are extra difficult after cold fusion debacle, General Fusion got their patents by claims as a radiation source. Still, the patents were critical for their VC backing. My point of view is that VC is the smart way to go as those guys want progress to be fast, but prudent. The government thinks about politics, period. To my mind, this has become a race to the market and I think GF is on the verge despite that idiot "GoatGuy" failure to actually read their progress chart. First to net - will get the best negotiated deal with their VC when securing necessary funding. It is all about getting to market first. Utilities are desperate to deal with the need for new capacity and shore up aging plants. Industry is dying from Obama driving up the cost of electricity. Once capital is committed utilities will be stuck with recovering the cost.

Point is speed is vital and government bureaucrats have no concept of balancing speed and prudent risk.

Regarding things in the wild being unpatentable ...

Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State in the first Washington administration, was personally in charge of reviewing and issuing patents. Two other Cabinet Secretaries were supposed to help, but they just signed ... all knew that Jefferson was the Man for the Job.

Four applications for steam patents, with the principle application being propulsion of boats, came across his desk at once. Each claimed the exclusive right to use steam propulsion. The applications came from Fitch, Rumsey, Stevens, and Read. Jefferson knew very well that they had not invented steam engines, and probably knew from his time in France that a Frenchman had built an experimental steamboat there. In fact, Fulton probably knew this same thing. The patent law was inadequate to cover the situation.

Jefferson's solution ... each got a patent, all issued on the same day. None got exclusive use of the idea, all got kudos for their innovation. Fitch eventually committed suicide, Rumsey died before being successful at it but left us a wealth of inventions, Read continued to invent but we never hear about him, and Stevens did eventually build some good steamboats. But Stevens also pioneered in railroads in the US.

Steam was clearly "in the wild" by the late 18th century. So was it pointless to patent anything else?

Check the records of the Patent Office, and the explosion of patents in the mid-to-late 19th century.

If the idea "in the wild" is shown feasible, patents to enable the execution of the wild idea will take off. And the people who know and understand the technology will be in the best position to invent what it takes.

One has to wonder that in today's litigious culture that such an action would send said patents into a lawsuit quagmire while they duke out who has pre-emninence. I can see arguments along the lines of "mine was signed before yours, therefore you owe me royalty damages for $!!!!!"
Probably the guy with the deepest lawyer fund pockets would run the course and take it all...

Just sayin.

Interesting point though Tom.
I guess we will see how things play out. Hopefully it does not come to a patent war.
Of course I suppose there is something to patent. (fingers crossed)

mvanwink5 wrote:Industry is dying from Obama driving up the cost of electricity.

REALLY?!?!

50% of electric generation is fueled by coal and Obama is not renewing permits. That is obvious. As an example, aluminum smelters closed major plants powered by coal fired electric plants when those electric plants were shut down due to inability to renew permits. Look at what has happened to the Europeans with their green power lunacy and loss of competitiveness. It does not take a genius to put the picture together, but I won't elaborate further or argue the point. I take it from your response in caps that this is a hot button for you, but it isn't for me. Further, given I think fusion will be solved at least by GF, this year, this is a might have been issue anyway.

mvanwink5 wrote:50% of electric generation is fueled by coal and Obama is not renewing permits. That is obvious. As an example, aluminum smelters closed major plants powered by coal fired electric plants when those electric plants were shut down due to inability to renew permits. Look at what has happened to the Europeans with their green power lunacy and loss of competitiveness. It does not take a genius to put the picture together, but I won't elaborate further or argue the point. I take it from your response in caps that this is a hot button for you, but it isn't for me. Further, given I think fusion will be solved at least by GF, this year, this is a might have been issue anyway.

No, my response in caps is just that what you're suggesting ("Industry is dying from Obama driving up the cost of electricity.") is totally absurd. I apologize for any confusion.

Yes, whatever you want to think.

mvanwink5 wrote:Yes, whatever you want to think.

No, it's not whatever I want to think. We don't get a choice in whats true and reasonable and what isn't.