Liquid metal refrigerators using electromagnetics to send the fluid around instead of just pumping ammonia? Thats .. crazy. But also, What Szilard and Einstein patented: safer by far, no moving parts in the working refrigerant fluid.
Directed beam weapons: notoriously the 'kill a goat' test for the BRL and Navy tired of loony inventors, but actually the ground work of Radar and like activity according to Robert Buderi (yes, this is a gloss, but there are linkages. The forces people assumed RF beams were weapons, not detection systems)
Infra-Red for detection of the enemy. No more stupid than what they had, which is sound, giant sounding dishes to hear bombers. Turns out its harder to do IR than RF, but didn't stop Lord Cherwell obsessing about it, to the detriment of other science initiatives, but NOW IR is a stable of all kinds of things.
These UFO patents may contain ideas which make sense in limited fields, or huge fields, or no fields.
(obviously, if they are based on perpetual motion flawed physics it tends to no fields)
Conversely, if all he has are ideas I can't understand without any demos or examples, I have no problem doubting him. Perhaps he's right, but I won't be able to tell until I see the gizmos working. Because of that, I have no hesitation in defaulting to the view that he isn't credible, reliable, or right.
They can't have shoo'd him away for too long, the Navy started working on it in the 1940s and had one in use by 1953.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Mi...
I can't help but think back to the 80's SDI "Star Wars" programs. We said that we could do a lot of things that we couldn't, and that made the Russians crazy.
Now I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, but could it be possible this is a misinformation campaign?
It's interesting the "new IEEE paper" referenced in the paper only has the one author and no coauthors. I wonder who (if anyone) peer reviewed this paper? Also in the views, interestingly it's only had 40 views (not sure if this is paper views, or not, it says PDF and HTML views). Sadly I don't have access to read it!
Russia realized they couldn't afford to clone SDI, so they came up with an asymmetric tactic - MIRVs. A cat-and-mouse game on paper followed - the Soviets planned dummy warheads in MIRV payloads to confuse SDI, the Americans devised sensors to measure warhead density, etc.
AFAIK, Reagan really wanted SDI to work - if he'd been willing to compromise on it, we could have had denuclearization at the Rejkyavik summit. The myth that SDI was a misinformation campaign seems unsubstantiated by what I've read.
Of course SDI looked plausible like you said, and ultimately did materialize various ABM systems. This stuff is just insane gorp. Dr Pais has a history of this sort of thing; a quick look at his patent trail on google scholar nets nonsense like "laser augmented jet engines"[1] which are obvious nonsense.
> Despite the patents sounding extremely far-fetched, official documents show that the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise personally attested to the reality of these inventions and their importance to national security and peer-state competition in appeals with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Of course, the article immediately follows with:
> Meanwhile, the scientists and physicists we have talked to on and off the record have made it clear that they find the claims largely absurd and not grounded in scientific fact. At the same time, there is, in fact, many decades of government research into similar technologies that are very much alike in concept to some of Pais's work.
No, you can't because it violates fundamental principles of scientific laws.
The voting system here lets me question the sanity and competence of many readers here.
For those interested:
----------------
Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[25]
And, further, that: A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[26]
The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[27] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[27]----------------
Really, phases are more clearly defined, but more numerous, and change from one material to another.
And then you are left with the task of defining colloids, gels, aerosols...
His emails read like a word salad mix of high energy science and medieval alchemy... very similar to a lot of the "free energy" crackpots on youtube.
I think it's more likely a case of gross managerial incompetence where superiors were taken in by a crackpot making claims far outside of his and their ability to evaluate.
“Craft Using An Inertial Mass Reduction Device.” While all are pretty outlandish-sounding, the latter is the one that the Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise personally vouched for in a letter to the USPTO, claiming the Chinese are already developing similar capabilities.
...
"That being said, the unorthodox circumstances surrounding the approval of this patent have us wondering why the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise, Dr. James Sheehy, personally vouched for the legitimacy of this beyond-revolutionary aerospace technology in the Navy’s appeal to the USPTO. Sheehy assured the patent examiner in charge of this application that the aircraft propulsion method described in the patent is indeed possible or will be soon based on experiments and tests NAWCAD has already conducted. "
from that patent - they describe there spinning the 2m diameter disk at 30000rpm (ie. 3km/s edge speed):
"... we obtain an energy flux value of 10e33 W/m2. This exceptionally high power intensity induces a pair production avalanche, thereby ensuring complete polarization of the local vacuum state."
i believe it - 10e33 W/m2 can do a lot (it is total power output of a million of Suns concentrated into 1m2), and such EM field would interact strongly not only with the Earth magnetic field, it will do it with just sheer vacuum as well (that is the point of their patent is that vacuum isn't really a full vacuum according to QM).
So everything seems ok from the pure math EM/QM formula POV. There are i think only minor pesky practical details - like the material able to withstand 30000rpm 3km/s rotation while under the 10e33 W/m2 EM flux (the flux which would tear apart atoms and may be even protons/neutrons) and a compact energy source doing all that while fitting into the 2m diameter disk.
In any case, I think this is most likely due to incompetence. Whether a few of this guy's bosses are conspiracy theorists or not, they obviously aren't qualified to evaluate his work and see that he's a crackpot. It wouldn't be the first time, with things like MkUltra and that telepathy crap.
LOL
Worse / better yet, they'd massively disrupt the existing geopolitical power and wealth distribution.
edit: Typo and clarification