Boeing "fusion engine" patent?

[KerikBalm]

And then he'd have to teach everyone how to make it if he wanted a patent, and then the other cavement would give him a portion of their food when they cooked it with fire.

Doesn't sound so bad, does it?

[micr0wave]

He would of course not teach anyone how-to, he'd rather beat everyone to death who accidentially made a fire himself. Granted, isn't the best analogy, maybe wheels, something with round shapes would have worked better.

When patents are actually used as economic weapon it doesn't sound as a good concept to me.

[micha]

This is why I am for a use it or lose it patent system. Patents are meant to improve innovation and should not be allowed to be used to withhold new developments from the market.

Absolutely 100% behind this, something I've been arguing for years. Especially bad in software and design patents. Come on, rounded-corners, really? Or 1-click? Those are standard -engineering- solutions to a problem, not new ideas.

As regards Boeings' engine concept, I'd have no problems with this being developed and then using it. I don't know enough to know if it's feasible, but I do know that it will have an incredibly hard time to fly. First it has to get past the rabit anti-nuclear and "green" lobbies, then it has to beat the oil companies.

[lajoswinkler]

If the blanket is getting that hot to power those lasers, it is creating an incredible amount (read: dangerous) of fission products, and neutron flux is enormous and requires seriously thick and heavy shielding.

I call BS. This looks like something ACME sells.

[KerikBalm]

He would of course not teach anyone how-to,

Then he wouldn't have a patent.

Inventors have two choices to protect their invention:

* Keep it a trade secret - and then its yours indefinitely, as long as no one lese comes up with it. If something happens, there is no documentation, and it is lost to humanity (damascus steel as a possible example?)

* Patent it - The government agrees to grant you exclusive rights to use it for 20 years *IF* you publically disclose how to make use of your invention.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html

"The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention."

In this case, everyone knows what you are doing and how you are doing it, its documented for posterity, and as soon as that patent expires, everyone knows what you are doing, and is free to copy.

There is a trade off, and a benefit to society. Patent databases represent a compilation of pretty much the entire technical know-how of the human race.

There are still substantial trade secrets... DOW chemical has many things they don't patent, they just keep secret and hide from the public.

No-one knows, except those that work for them and sign non-disclosure agreements.

Absolutely 100% behind this, something I've been arguing for years. Especially bad in software and design patents. Come on, rounded-corners, really? Or 1-click? Those are standard -engineering- solutions to a problem, not new ideas.

This is the problem... its not the concept of patents, its the issuing of patents for obvious and trivial things.

Stuff that anyone could easily come up with.

New ideas, and new designs based on extensive R&D by all means should be made available to humanity, and those that invented them do deserve some form of compensation to encourage them to make their inventions public.

What is needed is an overhaul on what sort of patents get granted. They need to be more stringent in many cases.

Yet I've seen many that are new, useful, and non-obvious, that have a really hard time getting past the examiner...

But with many examiners.... I'm sure there are some bad ones, that result in bad patents.

There's probably also some influence when the examiner sees "who" is applying for the patent.

They may tear Joe Blow's application a new one... but then when they see apple applying for a patent - they may back off... apple has the resources to appeal rejections to superiors, etc etc...

[benzman]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that when Robert Stevenson was working on his early steam engine designs he patented the crankshaft! That stymied all other designers and is why some early steam engines used weird looking sun and planet gear wheels instead of crankshafts.

[Brotoro]

Good for him. Very clever idea, the crankshaft.

[PakledHostage]

Funny story; an Australian managed to get a patent on THE WHEEL. It was only after he started suing everybody that they reformed the system.

No, an Australian patent lawyer named John Keogh managed to get a patent on the wheel back in 2001 using that countries (at the time) new "Innovation Patent" provisions. He did it to show the flaws in the system, recognizing full well that his patent would not withstand a legal challenge.

[Camacha]

So what happens when the little guy has a good idea, patents it, and then goes looking for investors?

The investors can just deny him, and then he loses his patent because he doesn't "use it"

Why would investors deny him if he has a viable business? Banks are not competitors. He can either put the patent to good use, or leave it alone so someone else can run with it. If you are not capable of monetizing your idea it is poor entrepreneurship, if it is a good idea society should not suffer sluggish development because of your lack of will or skills.

Boeing is not a patent troll.

If the device is viable, then they are protecting their R&D. If it still needs more than 20 years of R&D, or its not feasible at all - then they've simply wasted their money protecting a worthless idea.

Every large company is a patent troll. Whole companies are bought simply because of the patents they hold, not because of their actual intrinsic value or capabilities. Competitors are acutely aware of their competitor's patent portfolio and try to balance them out with their own. This means new companies have huge trouble gaining a foothold, even if their product and business is sound.

Boeing would be able to stop them making commercial use of it for the duration of their patent.

This is different in different jurisdictions. In some countries you can prohibit commercial exploitation, in some you can limit people's use of the technology much further.

[funk]

ehem... and this is really patented? Basically it is just an already invented inertial confinement fusion, like the H-Bomb combined with a nuclear fission reaction of U238???!?!?!?!?! Besides the discussion above my post, there might be some issues with getting the H-Bomb device working properly.

Perhaps they are using U238 because of its natural decay to fake that the device is working. U235 for example would be more fissiparous. Another thing is, that the neutron of the laser-fusion which should heat up the membrane will loose energy, which means the velocity at the nozzle will be inferior and contradicts high Isp.

I'm not sure if the patent is explained correctly...

[Camacha]

I'm not sure if the patent is explained correctly...

Note that patents are often worded intentionally vague, both to cover as many machines as possible, and to keep competitors from learning too much important stuff.

[KerikBalm]

Why would investors deny him if he has a viable business? Banks are not competitors. He can either put the patent to good use, or leave it alone so someone else can run with it. If you are not capable of monetizing your idea it is poor entrepreneurship, if it is a good idea society should not suffer sluggish development because of your lack of will or skills.

Right.... and poor people are poor because they are lazy or stupid...

Banks typically don't get involved in this sort of thing. They are typically not equiped to evaluate an idea on its technical merits, and take a risk funding it. They may look at income history, and give a small loan... but if you're some ordinary middle class person, and you need a 50 million loan to finalize your protottype and set up a factory... no way are they going to do it.

You'd need to attract the attention of a venture capitalist, and depending on what your idea is, even they may not be sufficiently knowledgable about the field to see if its worthy.

But a large corporation that would be a competitor, that routinely checks for new applications in their fields, would see the patent - and would either want to buy it for a fraction of its worth, or have it invalidated.

Every large company is a patent troll. Whole companies are bought simply because of the patents they hold, not because of their actual intrinsic value or capabilities. Competitors are acutely aware of their competitor's patent portfolio and try to balance them out with their own. This means new companies have huge trouble gaining a foothold, even if their product and business is sound.

Thats a bit too much of a sweeping generalization, no?

When people do simply take out a patent for something that is new and useful, and should be made available, and they do nothing with it... then the solution, I think, is to have the government go through the compulsory license process.

All the complaints about patents here are already addressed by current law.

Current laws already would prevent patenting obvious stuff.

Current laws already provide for forcing an invention to be made available to the public.

The problem is poor government execution of current laws, not more laws.

[ko1Stein]

It's an awesome plan (especially since it should also work in space), but I guess this will suffer from the same problems a regular fusion reactor suffers from:

1: It is difficult to continually refuel it, but shutting it down to insert more fuel is inefficient. (At least with Tokomak designs, but I guess it isn't too different with inertia-confined reactors like the engine basically is)

2: Regardless what material the engine is made of, the intense radiation will destroy it. At least the Uranium offers more protection than most materials due to its high density.

Also, as far as I understand it, the uranium is used as a power source. But when it's hit by the neutrons, shouldn't the (relatively) safe U-238 react to U-235 and get out of control?

[magnemoe]

Good for him. Very clever idea, the crankshaft.

However the crankshaft predates the steam engine with some thousands years. Water wheel powered saws used crankshafts.

One issue with steam engine crankshaft might be the sideways force you get on the piston. The first steam engines used low power and pretty large diameter pistons, this made them vulnerable to bending.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely 100% behind this, something I've been arguing for years. Especially bad in software and design patents. Come on, rounded-corners, really? Or 1-click? Those are standard -engineering- solutions to a problem, not new ideas.

As regards Boeings' engine concept, I'd have no problems with this being developed and then using it. I don't know enough to know if it's feasible, but I do know that it will have an incredibly hard time to fly. First it has to get past the rabit anti-nuclear and "green" lobbies, then it has to beat the oil companies.

Agree, here, way to stupid, also previous use should be applied way harder. In short anything in common use or used in an commercially sold product can not be patented / will void the patent.

You will keep your patent if the previous use was in in secret/ restricted knowledge use only, this would mostly affect stuff used in prototypes and secret military stuff.

To compensate make trademark protection stronger, as in making something with an design who main purpose is to confused with other products.

[magnemoe]

It looks like Boeing is doing what a lot of large companies do: blanketing and cornering any and every concept they can think of. A lot of companies patent many, many fairly unrealistic things. It is mostly to bolster the patent portfolio. Only a couple need to prove viable (or be similar to another technology, making the patent applicable) to make the investment worth while and it gives the company both a competitive edge, and a stick to beat the competition with in case they do anything even remotely resembling the patented technology.

It is also how smaller companies are left with little to no chance to break into a market, since patents are expensive and defending yourself against a huge conglomerate like Boeing is nearly impossible - even if you are right. I know of a guy that had a neat idea concerning roof tiles, only to find out anything and everything remotely roof tile related has been patented and is off the table.

This is why I am for a use it or lose it patent system. Patents are meant to improve innovation and should not be allowed to be used to withhold new developments from the market.

Problem with it is that this engine is not something who will be build the next 10 years, 20 is an very low probability and then the patent is expired.

Note that you can build prototypes even if method is patented so you could use 20 years building an laser pulsed fusion jet engine and start selling it in 2035.

Upsides: the depleted uranium neutron shield was smart, has been some work on pulsed fusion for space engines but most focus on z-pinch, using an magnet field to compress perhaps lasers to heat. You do not really need break even, the fusion gives an bonus over electrical engines like ion or vasimir.

Downsides is that pure laser fusion is harder, now trying to triger the pellet in an airstream would be even harder. Aircrafts also don't have the isp demands spacecrafts has either.

Unlike a spacecraft where its easy to put distance from engine and use an small shadow shield radiation is an issue, also radioactive fallout as in dust from engine

[smjjames]

Besides, the concept looks like it would make a decent rocket engine concept rather than a jet engine concept.