Lawrenceville plasma physics June update

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:32 pm

Makes sense, different type of patents have different features.

So, what we need here is an EE specialized in X-Ray capture to tell us if this system is feasible or not. Too bad I don't know anyone with these requisites to ask to.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:23 am

Actually, I know one person who haunts these forums who is an ivy league PhD EE and quite capable of telling off the top of his head if this scheme should work. He's a busy guy but I imagine he'll happen by sometime soon.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:37 am

GIThruster wrote: In most instances like the x-ray converter, one is instead applying for a utility patent, which is much broader in scope. It is not patenting a specific single application as it would come to market but rather, the general notion of an x-ray converter based upon the principle of photoelectric effect and general geometry of layers.

You really should stick to making statements on things you know about. That might not be very much, though, it is difficult to tell.

A patent has to be demonstrated to have a particular need - that is a requirement. It may not be the only use for it, but at least one MUST be shown. This is called its 'utility'.

Another requirement is that yout patent teaches how to fully and completely make the thing so that anyone else can make it. This is called 'enablement'.

93143 · Post by **93143** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:13 am

I probably should have noted that the few inches of lead requirement is to attenuate bremsstrahlung in the 200+ keV range by 10+ orders of magnitude, so as to render the reactor safe to work next to long-term. At 250 keV, Compton scattering accounts for about an eighth of the total stopping power, with PE taking care of the rest, and about 90% of the power comes out in the first three millimetres...

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:14 am

Chris, lets not waste any more time with you telling me what I don't know about while you're speaking in total ignorance?

http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms ... -types.htm

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:29 am

Why are you posting a random link to a random IPR firm?

Skipjack and I appear to share the same experience, I have patented in UK and US. Why are you so contradictory on something that others has more experience of?

How many patents have you pursued? Why do you insist on puffing up your chest to make yourself look big?

Do I recall you saying you got thrown off some other forum?

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:37 pm

Since x-rays were being discussed:

A small crystal distortion can dramatically translate the path of an x-ray beam, an effect that could be useful in the development of x-ray optics.

viewtopic.php?t=2331

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:02 pm

I feel as I ought to answer this one issue above because it goes to a working knowledge of how IP law works:

chrismb wrote:Another requirement is that yout patent teaches how to fully and completely make the thing so that anyone else can make it. This is called 'enablement'.

No. The requirement you're speaking of necessitates enough detail for someone "skilled in the art" to make use of it, not "anyone" as you suggest. There's a world of difference here and this is precisely the issue. You claimed the patent should not have been granted. I claimed it should. The difference in our opinions apparently comes from your misunderstanding of this issue. Especially when the design of an item requires a knowledge of a highly specialized skill, what you're saying is in error. Often those "skilled in the art" have highly specialized knowledge--in this instance, that normally found in an accomplished graduate level EE.

I'm not going to answer the personal attacks above. I suggest we drop the issue.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:21 pm

Often those "skilled in the art" have knowledge of trade secrets.

That is nitpicking and probably a grey zone. Back when this was written "skilled in the art" meant "skilled in the trade".
So to give an example: If there was a patent for a new kind of ball bearings, then any skilled machine smith would have been able to do it.
It does not require you to know any trade secrets.
Another example: There was this guy on the news recently, who had invented a new type of gear box. His patent is precise. Any skilled craftsman would be able to replicate it. There are no trade secrets required for it.
Simillarily, I think that the Tri Alpha patent should be written in a way, that someone like Rick Nebel and his team would be able to go and replicate the design. Unless you want to say that Rick Nebel and his engineers are not "skilled in the art"?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Thanks, Skip. As you were posting I was editing my response because I realized I had overstated my case. You are in general correct. However, the role of trade secret is a real issue. No patent writer puts more detail in the application than necessary. I'm sure the reasons are obvious.

We weren't talking here about TriAlpha. We were talking about Lerner's X-Ray converter. I would be surprised if Nebel didn't understand the physics to know how the converter might work, but that is not so far as I know his specialty. That specialty is in advanced EE.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Yeah, sorry, I got confused. We have two different threads with the same drift into patent law. Maybe we should take the topic and make a separate thread in general?
These threads have very different topics, I think.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:35 pm

I'll follow your lead. The subject always interests me.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:40 am

Alright, there is a new Patent Law Thread in General now.
Please for the sake of the original threads integrity, lets move the (quite interesting) discussion over to there:
viewtopic.php?t=2333

Thanks guys!

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:24 pm

There is a new, small update on the Focus Fusion Website. While it does not contain any real news, it does explain (or attempt to explain, depending on your point of view) how LPP is planning to go from 1/12 of a joule of fusion energy to 33000 Joules of fusion energy.

How Will We Get There From Here?

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/a ... from_here/

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:32 pm

I take my hat off to them for their persistence, determination and openness, but I rather, regretfully, think that graph looks like it is a gentle asyptote to ~0.1J or so! It is a feat of optimism to extrapolate the graph in that way, but, hey, cheers to the guys that say 'let's have a go!'.