Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Possible Space Drive ?

  1. May 31, 2005 #1
    I have an idea for a space drive system that does not use explosions or even combustion.

    It doesnt require any new physics, but its something that may not be possible to build. However, it seems far more practical than any of the systems I've seen so far.

    I can think of how to make it, I just dont know if there is something wrong with the physics I'm basing it on. I'm just a lowly product developer. What I need are some of you eggheads to look at it.

    Please email if youre interested in discussing it, since I dont want to make the idea available to anybody. (XINKR@aol.com)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 1, 2005 #2

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This looks like a job for ASTRONUC!

    Sorry for yelling; I got excited.
     
  4. Jun 1, 2005 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If you can't build it, then it's not really practical, is it? I would say to not worry about being secretive. Post some of the ideas you have. You'll get a much better response.
     
  5. Jun 1, 2005 #4

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, everyone here is too busy with their own stuff to go around trying to steal other peoples' ideas. However, you'll find it a lot more constructive if your idea is discussed as a group.
     
  6. Jun 1, 2005 #5
    Why not patent it first, and then discuss it? Contrary to popular belief, one can get anything past the patent office. Perpetual motion, anti-gravity, faster-than-light communication, objects that are bigger inside than they are outside? No problem. Just pay the fee.
     
  7. Jun 1, 2005 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Though if you're really serious about the security problem, email an engineering professor at the nearest university and offer him a few hundred dollars for a quick once-over of your idea. Write a little contract that says he has no rights to the information you show him.

    However, I suspect that your idea has a flaw that you don't see.
     
  8. Jun 1, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Legally, that's not right, but practically - yeah, the USPTO is overworked, understaffed, and underfunded and a lot of crackpottery falls through the cracks.
     
  9. Jun 1, 2005 #8
    Do you need to register to be protected?

    Copyright itself does not depend on official procedures. A created work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it exists. According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, literary and artistic works are protected without any formalities in the countries party to that Convention. Thus, WIPO does not offer any kind of copyright registration system.

    However, many countries have a national copyright office and some national laws allow for registration of works for the purposes of, for example, identifying and distinguishing titles of works. In certain countries, registration can also serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to disputes relating to copyright.”

    How are copyright and related rights protected on the Internet?

    Two treaties were concluded in 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. One, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), deals with protection for authors of literary and artistic works, such as writings and computer programs; original databases; musical works; audiovisual works; works of fine art and photographs. The other, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), protects certain “related rights” (that is, rights related to copyright): in the WPPT, these are rights of performers and producers of phonograms.

    The purpose of the two treaties is to update and supplement the major existing WIPO treaties on copyright and related rights, primarily in order to respond to developments in technology and in the marketplace. Since the Berne and Rome Conventions were adopted or lastly revised more than a quarter century ago, new types of works, new markets, and new methods of use and dissemination have evolved. Among other things, both the WCT and the WPPT address the challenges posed by today’s digital technologies, in particular the dissemination of protected material over digital networks such as the Internet. For this reason, they have sometimes been referred to as the “Internet treaties.”

    Both treaties require countries to provide a framework of basic rights, allowing creators to control and/or be compensated for the various ways in which their creations are used and enjoyed by others. Most importantly, the treaties ensure that the owners of those rights will continue to be adequately and effectively protected when their works are disseminated through new technologies and communications systems such as the Internet. The treaties thus clarify that existing rights continue to apply in the digital environment. They also create new online rights. To maintain a fair balance of interests between the owners of rights and the general public, the treaties further clarify that countries have reasonable flexibility in establishing exceptions or limitations to rights in the digital environment. Countries may, in appropriate circumstances, grant exceptions for uses deemed to be in the public interest, such as for non-profit educational and research purposes.

    The treaties also require countries to provide not only the rights themselves, but also two types of technological adjuncts to the rights. These are intended to ensure that rightholders can effectively use technology to protect their rights and to license their works online. The first, known as the “anti-circumvention” provision, tackles the problem of “hacking”: it requires countries to provide adequate legal protection and effective remedies against the circumvention of technological measures (such as encryption) used by rightholders to protect their rights. The second type of technological adjuncts safeguards the reliability and integrity of the online marketplace by requiring countries to prohibit the deliberate alteration or deletion of electronic “rights management information”: that is, information which accompanies any protected material, and which identifies the work, its creators, performer, or owner, and the terms and conditions for its use.

    The WCT entered into force on March 6, 2002. For the WPPT, the date of entry into force was May 20, 2002. A number of countries have implemented the provisions of the two treaties in their national legislation. The Collection of Laws for Electronic Access (CLEA) database of WIPO can be consulted to search copyright laws of a wide range of countries.

    this is quoted from http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#rights

    As i read it - you post it here and then its yours.

    To be sure I know that a few engineers do the following:

    Make a copy of the information, take a photo of each page of the document on top of a different page of the days newspaper, have several people sign to verify the date of the photographs.
    Copy this document and put it in a safe, on your hard drive, give it to a solicitor and then you have full proof of the date you produced the work!

    (however check with a lawyer to make sure your fine first - some access I believe on lin - and indeed google! and if your making something big you can't keep it to yourself forever!)

    Intellectual copyright is a very good thing!

    - Ben
     
  10. Jun 1, 2005 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ben,

    That's all well and good, but you're missing the important part -- copyright laws protect the words on the page themselves, not any inventions described therein. You need a design patent to protect an invention, and patents are not automatic.

    - Warren
     
  11. Jun 1, 2005 #10
    Warren as always you are correct, however what I would say is that the inventor will never make any money anyway for the following reasons.

    1) A patent is only enforcable in the country in which it is taken out - so if it is made in the US, someone in Russia can make it legally.
    2) If the invention is viable the military will get the patent in what ever way they must.
    3) If it is so obvious then some one is likely to have invented it before.

    There are many more reasons that my hands are too tired to type - however in my mind it is highly unlikely he will make a lot of money out of something like this unless he sells it to a company or governments etc by keeping it quiet - and then works on commision.

    If he claims intellectual copyright at least he gets the fame and glory which is what is really all about - that is if someone hasn't already done it and it is living in an Air Force hanger somewhere!

    -Ben
     
  12. Jun 1, 2005 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    However, they cannot sell the product in the US, thus protecting the inventor's right to profits made in the US. Many companies also file patents simultaneously in a variety of countries.
    While this is true, the military has not once, in the history of the US, exercised this privelege.
    Who said anything about obvious inventions? Many inventions are not obvious, at least in my line of work, but are still worth a boatload of cash.
    Neither you nor I have any idea what kind of invention the original poster is describing, so I have no idea why you're arguing about its potential value.
    My company files approximately one patent every day in the US; most, if not all of them are worth a tremendous amount of money. Your "fame and glory," on the other hand, seem much harder to obtain.

    - Warren
     
  13. Jun 1, 2005 #12
    Okay- I admit there are no real facts given but lets presume this effectively means no emissions travel. Such implications for an increasing enviromentally concious world might well be big.

    On that first section - if I couldn't buy Ipods in Britain due to a patent, i'd buy one in france and import it!!Onthe second part of that quote - the important word is companies - to forumlate a patent, including the claims et cetera is not an easy job for one man with no experience now is it - and also the idea of a company is very apt as you will well know nay invention made whilst being directed to do so by the company becomes the businesses property! (I know as I know the guy who made the silicon diodes on top of streets lghts and also a relative of the guy who invented cats eyes for road safety)


    Your company must be big then! But lets remember, things are only worth as much as people will pay.


    -Ben
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2005
  14. Jun 1, 2005 #13
    I am not concerned about the idea being stolen. I don't think it has much chance of being a profitable product for my little company. The problem is that it has weapons potential.

    If you look at the NASA advanced concepts site, you will see that the conventional physics drive systems are all next to impossible. I dont know if this one is any better, but until someone can show me why its not horrendously dangerous, no details here.
     
  15. Jun 1, 2005 #14

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "Getting to the moon is next to impossible" - 1960
     
  16. Jun 1, 2005 #15
    Two points

    1. Did you develop the invention in company time or under company orders/request?

    2. If military potential then Chroot - don't you reckon the military might want a piece of the pie?!

    -Ben
     
  17. Jun 1, 2005 #16

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, it's not. That's why God invented patent lawyers. If an invention has any real marketable value at all, the few hours spent with a patent lawyer will be time well spent. If the invention is worthless, then why bother patenting it?
    How is this relevant to anything? You seem to have no real argument, and are now just bringing up random garbage. First, you tell the original poster his invention will be protected by a copyright (false), next you tell me there's no value in a patent anyway (false), and now you're telling me how businesses deal with their patents (wholly irrelevant). Do you have anything to add to this discussion at all?

    - Warren
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2005
  18. Jun 1, 2005 #17

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ben, I think you're missing the point.

    If the OP wanted to protect his invention, copyright would not help him at all, except to prevent duplication of his own original drawings and literature. The invention itself would remain unprotected as Chroot has explained. Your point about iPods is a bit vague; anyone filing a patent would consider issuing one in any country where they wanted to protect a market. A patent would allow the inventor to license the production of his invention to anyone he wished, but you know that already. But why do you say that there is no money to be made following the filing of a patent? Copyright certainly isn't going to help, unless you're writing a book (or song!) about your invention. But yes, individuals are strongly advised to think hard about a number of issues before filing a patent. Large companies are generally less inclined to do so.


    Anyway, back to the OP. We can all understand your reluctance to share your idea for whatever reason, but if you do want to get it looked over, I'd follow russ' advice and email an academic. If not, just PM any of us, we're not going to sell you out!
     
  19. Jun 1, 2005 #18

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As I've said, the US military has not once exercised its right to usurp a civilian patent. Under ordinary circumstances, the military negotiates with the inventor an agreeable sum of money for the patent rights.

    - Warren
     
  20. Jun 1, 2005 #19
    Okay let me clarify

    I was saying intellectual copyright protects his IDEAS.

    A patent is not useles of course it isn't it is a worthwhile thing to pursue I was merely pointing out the expense ($2000-10000 to prepare papers and file at US patent office on average with a lawyer) and potential pitfalls to consider when using patents. Also I was trying to highlight this point put so well accross @ http://public.resource.org/patents/

    [Quote="Patent Website]Since Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 327, was decided in [243 U.S. 502, 511] 1829, this court has consistently held that the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents, but is 'to promote the progress of science and the useful arts' ( Constitution, art. 1, 8),-an object and purpose authoritatively expressed by Mr. Justice Story, in that decision, saying:


    * 'While one great object [of our patent laws] was, by holding out a reasonable reward to inventors and giving them an exclusive right to their inventions for a limited period, to stimulate the efforts of genius, the main object was 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts." [/quote]

    This also encompasses my view that things should be done ofr scientific benefit - as shown under your own constitution!

    It is relevant how companies deal with patents as he may have developed it under the guidance of a company of which he isn't the owner in which case the patent may not be his.
    Or, he may have only a partial stake in the business and so the patent is not necassarily all his, and my takign a patent in only his name - he may be breaking (more than likely) federal law may not be in his interests - I obviously refer to fraud or theft or whatever they would charge him with!!

    Your point about US military is ludicrous! Take project Manhattan - they bought in all of the best physicists to work for them and develop what they wanted - this is echoed throughout time - with Blechley Park etc.

    I would put it to you that you are nieve and perhaps do not use history to form your judgements, oh and aggressive!

    -Ben

    I would like to point out that in many countries a promise made in conversation (voice converstion) is legally binding. 0 just thouht you may want to know as I believ the US may be one of these countries.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2005
  21. Jun 1, 2005 #20

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd be happy to take a look at it.

    But be aware, most advanced propulsion/energy system concepts will most likely have dual use status - useful as a propulsive source or as a weapon. Energy is energy, and high energy density, can be used constructively or destructively - it all depends on the disposition of the energy.

    As for patents - these days, one must patent in the markets that are most viable - US, EU, Japan, and a few others.

    You have my word and agreement not to disclose any details which you disclose.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Possible Space Drive ?
  1. Counterbalanced drive (Replies: 2)

  2. Belt drives (Replies: 6)

  3. How to drive generator? (Replies: 13)

Loading...