Anti-Gravity Device Patented 416
October_30th writes "According to the United States Patent Office website, Boris Volfson has recently patented a "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state", which is essentially an anti-gravity propulsion device." The validity of this patent remains to be seen, but the general consensus of the physics community seems to be that it is complete malarky.
Re:rather than power a craft by ANTI-GRAVITY (Score:2, Informative)
Vacuum does exhibit an observable pressure. (Score:3, Informative)
I do remember the Casimir Effect, however. This is a measurable phenomenon which is believed to be caused by vacuum fluctuations, the same mechanism responsible for Hawking Radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re:huh? (Score:3, Informative)
First action allowance... (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, this guy had the case made special on the grounds it dealt with superconductivity, one of the areas for which you can get your case advanced in the queue.The original application was filed in 2003, but was refiled as a continuation in 2005 without ever having even been docketed to an examiner, for reasons I couldn't discern from the publicly available papers [uspto.gov]
But, most importantly, the application was issued on the first action; no rejections under 35 USC 101 (lack of utility for not working), 112, first paragraph (not adequately disclosed), or 102 or 103 (prior art). Just straight out the door with a minor Examiner's Amendment to correct some formal claim language. There's a bunch of prior art of record, cited by the applicant, including some papers from respected scientific journals (such as Physical Review). The only hint of any consideration of the art, other than the cited prior art, is the examiner's reasons for allowance, the substance of which reads "None of the prior art of record taught or dislosed the claimed superconducting shield and electromagnetic field generating means structure."
And, with payment of the issue fee, it issued.
Re:In Context... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In Context... (Score:2, Informative)
This is just more proof that the USPTO's system for patent examination is flawed. That, and this patent examiner should be fired for being a total idiot because he could have saved himself some time by issuing a final rejection instead of allowing it.
Re:If this were true... (Score:3, Informative)
A rapidly spinning superconductor does indeed cause an obect over it to levitate somewhat, and for the purpose of this argument we can assume that these are indeed gravitonic effects. Doesn't really matter
The biggest problem comes as your vehicle rises, the spinning disk would have to be lifted, and I assume you would use magnetics in the vehicle to lift the disk. Those magnetic forces would then pull down on the remainder of the vehicle's structure (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) eliminating the levitative forces. Trying to get this working would be like trying to grab yourself by the shirt collar and lift yourself off the ground.
This is not to say that there isn't usable tech provided by the phenomenon. A roadway of these could possibly be made that would allow vehicles to travel over them. Or more likely, a launch pad could be made which would reduce the amount of fuel that has to be loaded onto a rocket or aircraft to initially fight off gravity and launch. For these applications it's just a question of whether spinning the superconductors would be more energy efficient than just using traditional thrust.
Re:Patent Nonsense--Everyone's Rights are Eroded (Score:3, Informative)
From MPEP 2111.01(III)
III. APPLICANT MAY BE OWN LEXICOGRAPHER
An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992))