Rislove: WHY IS THE USPTO PATENTING PSEUDOSCIENCE?
Daniel C. Rislove has a law review article (2006 Wis. L. Rev. 1275) which notes of patenting inoperable inventions: The problem can be linked both to the
procedural hurdles imposed on the USPTO by current case law and to institutional
problems with the patenting process that make inoperability rejections
the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, Rislove cites Newman v. Quigg: The case of Newman v. Quigg illustrates the restraint of courts in directly applying scientific principles as a matter of law. n79 The invention in Newman involved a machine, which inventor Joseph Newman claimed to have "an energy output greater than the energy input" apparently caused by "gyroscopic type energy particles." n80
Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
footnote 80: The Newman case became a cause celebre among
conspiracy theorists after Newman appeared on the CBS Evening News [Dan Rather] on January 11, 1984. Robert L. Park, Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud 5 (2000). His patent rejection eventually attracted the attention of several members
of Congress, who held hearings to determine whether or not to force the
USPTO to grant Newman a patent. Id. at 102-05. Unfortunately, Newman withered
under the questioning of Senator John Glenn of Ohio, thus preventing further
congressional attention to his case. Id. at 105-06.
Rislove does not mention the hydrino. Rislove does mention cold fusion: In re Swartz n233 and In re Dash. n234
procedural hurdles imposed on the USPTO by current case law and to institutional
problems with the patenting process that make inoperability rejections
the exception rather than the rule.
Yes, Rislove cites Newman v. Quigg: The case of Newman v. Quigg illustrates the restraint of courts in directly applying scientific principles as a matter of law. n79 The invention in Newman involved a machine, which inventor Joseph Newman claimed to have "an energy output greater than the energy input" apparently caused by "gyroscopic type energy particles." n80
Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
footnote 80: The Newman case became a cause celebre among
conspiracy theorists after Newman appeared on the CBS Evening News [Dan Rather] on January 11, 1984. Robert L. Park, Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud 5 (2000). His patent rejection eventually attracted the attention of several members
of Congress, who held hearings to determine whether or not to force the
USPTO to grant Newman a patent. Id. at 102-05. Unfortunately, Newman withered
under the questioning of Senator John Glenn of Ohio, thus preventing further
congressional attention to his case. Id. at 105-06.
Rislove does not mention the hydrino. Rislove does mention cold fusion: In re Swartz n233 and In re Dash. n234
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:51 PM
1 Comments:
I was granted U.S. Patent 3890161 DIODE ARRAY in 1975, (filed 1973) which is now public property, (after 1992) for a chip that typically consists of billions of nanometer scale diodes in consistent alignment parallel or, for higher voltage, parallel series to rectify and aggregate nanowatt level internal radio frequency thermal noise (also known as Johnson noise) within electronic components (not involving antennas) into D.C. electricity. Many diodes will produce useful D.C. power for a matched impedance electrical load and overwhelm the load's own thermal noise (a baseless academic concern).
I began this revolutionary physics quest 40 years ago after free time reading of Isaac Asimov on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT), one of the most strongly believed Science Laws. Dr. Asimov's wonderful writing led me to believe that 2LoT could be circumvented with nanotechnology.
I do not want patents denied because they do not adhere to the second law of thermodynamics.
Less power is needed to sort the random power than is supplied by the random thermal power. The power needed to alter the width of the depletion region at the junction, which determines the conductivity of a diode, is deducted from the thermal noise leaving net rectified power as intermittent electrical power of one polarity. This means that a variant of Maxwell's demon, Smoluchowski's trapdoor, applied to electrons, will work.
The electrons do not have to supply “information energy” to move within a diode. A macroscopically uniform temperature is microscopically non uniform so nanometer scale devices have an endless supply of moving electrons with nanometer scale negative entropy. The manufactured order of the diode and the array will passively impose order on the electrons rectifying and aggregating them resulting in a summation of the microscale negative entropy to ay desired level. Inefficiently rectified intermittant currents can be aggregated to any higher power level proportional to the number of diodes.
The electrons move uphill into the buss voltage within the source diode so they lose momentum so they become colder. The loss of thermal energy is equal to the gain of electrical energy released from the buss when electricity is drawn off. Diode arrays can easily withstand open circuit or short circuit conditions. In these cases no electrical output or refrigeration is produced.
The concept was partially tested in 1993 where more power than ~2 nanowatts, the power a single diode can deliver to a matched impedance load, 1 /2 kTB watts where 1 / 2 accounts for rectification, k=Boltzmann's constant, 1.38 x 10^-23; T=temperature in Kelvins, ~300 and B=Bandwidth, ~1 THz, the upper frequency limit of thermal noise, was measured from a chip consisting of ~5,600 2.3 um dia Au dot anodes surrounded by SiO2 on a n type GaAs substrate. The chip produced ~50 nanowatts as ~50 millivolts across 50 K ohms, substrate positive, under professional test conditions including a uniform temperature bath of stirred pure inert oil, showing feasibility. Tests for nanowatt power level refrigeration were not conducted. Unfortunately the documentation of this test is limited to a single page of test results.
A more practical diode array form is to nanofabricate short vertical general ~2 nm dia. carbon nanotube anodes spaced ~ 30nm in staggered rows on an n type InSb (a high performance semiconductor) substrate producing arrays of 10^11 diodes / cm^2 at 50% efficiency this means a power density of ~100 watts / cm2.
I want this to be commercialized without fussy licensing restrictions on the diode array or its applications so all humanity can be involved in its synergistic development. NonDisclosure Agreements and noncompete requirements are not in this spirit. I would like very soft patents that did little beyond acknowledge the creative originality of inventors. Society should not be enmeshed in a burdensome license tangle. Diode array applications become unpatentable if they are widely published instead of being patented promptly and they are developed by skilled craftsmen rather than overwhelming creativity.
First, a prototype development group with great team strength needs to emerge. Later, many application development groups should emerge. Micro angel capitalization is the cleanest form of financing. A smooth, free, open, and fair market should support useful applications using commodity chips made by commodity equipment. The technical details would diffuse to the educational system where the next generation of application developers would learn about the craft efficiently. The first developers would recover their specific research and development costs with a modest positioning premium on their price. Positioning is an effect that arises in consumers because of a need to reduce the number of alternatives when getting through life assisted by their purchases.
Profiteers may try to sell diode array based products at exorbitant prices. The response is to aggressively bring in more reasonable suppliers. The Federation will readily do this. It may become illegal, as a sign of social compassion, to deprive a debtor of basic appliances that are very important to basic survival yet have little commercial value. Poor people may be assisted in obtaining diode array powered appliances with peer secured micro loans. These appliances would be highly likely to support great productivity gains in many uses.
Aloha,
Charles M. Brown
808-828-0297
4264 Ala Muku Pl. C-3
Kilauea Kauai Hawaii
96754
Post a Comment
<< Home