1) Haha...do I detect jealousy?
Um...no, why?
The patent was filed in July 1994 and the examiners had 2 &1/2 years to consult and consider the technology and principles involved, and granted the patent Dec 31, 1996.
Are you aware of the procedure for approving patents and how little depends on whether it the invention or product works vs. whether it is not infringement, illegal, dangerous, etc?
A popular, sensationalist type book was published in ~2005-2009 on using "zero-point energy" some time in the future. Recent articles I've read (some I stumbled on looking for sources for you or for concise material I could quote that explains things better than I can) have concerned the potential use of zero-point energy.
All you have is a guy whom you misquoted out of context and whose invention failed that you used misleadingly:
So I post the following
as quite typical of zpe description from which I get my understanding.
Because it exists in a vacuum, zero point radiation is homogeneous and isotropic as well as ubiquitous. In addition, since zero point radiation is also invariant with respect to Lorentz transformation, the zero point radiation spectrum has the characteristic that the intensity of the radiation at any frequency is proportional to the cube of that frequency. Consequently, the intensity of the radiation increases without limit as the frequency increases resulting in an infinite energy density for the radiation spectrum. With the introduction of the zero point radiation into the classical electron theory, a vacuum at a temperature of absolute zero is no longer considered empty of all electromagnetic fields. The special characteristics of the zero point radiation which are that it has a virtually infinite energy density and that it is ubiquitous (even present in outer space).
The typical description of zero-point energy for you comes from patents? Seriously? That's what you're going with?
Do just read patents as a hobby or is it the Einstein connection that motivates quote-mining patents?
Most academics confined to hack work teaching, regurgitating mostly obsolete orthodox scientific dogma that applied scientists know will be only be replaced by the latest scientific knowledge when all the present academic custodians of educational orthodoxy die off, get green with envy to see these applied scientists make history with breakthroughs like this.
Who do you think gets contracts from NASA, DARPA, the CIA, the NSA, private think-tanks, private militaries, and other government agencies and private companies dealing with proprietary and/or classified information about cutting edge technologies? MIT, Harvard, JHU's APL, etc. When DARPA initiated ARPAnet (the original internet) it was universities that made up most of the internet. The programming language (scripting, technically) that the entire world wide web is based upon? It was developed for academics to share information. Do you know who first produced the method to take MSU readings from satellites to construct a global temperature record? Two scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. They are still under contract with the NOAA to produce these records. The most abstract and probably least applied area in mathematics (i.e., arguably we're not even dealing with the sciences anymore) is number theory. Cryptography in its entirety is number theory.
Basically, the "breakthroughs" you imagine that applied scientists developed came mostly from the "educational orthodoxy" you disdain. The number of PhDs with government contracts who are not, will not, or haven't already held university appointments is tiny.
I posted the whole patent for you and about which you are responding
You misquoted part of it, ripped from context and asked me to interpret it. Then, you declare some sort of triumph because someobody was awarded proprietary status for junk that ended up nowhere and as nothing. Your (mis)quote-mining of
patents is supposed to make me think you have the faintest idea of physics, the sciences, or scientific research? What's next? How we should understand quantum physics because of Verizon Fios
Quantum?
,,,,and yet you ignore the actual full text
Actually I read the entire patent in two different forms and looked into the applicants background, just to be sure how seriously I should take the patent in its entirety versus your original misquote taken out-of-context.
How can posting of the whole text of the patent be in anyway misleading you?
I quoted your original question with the original quote above. It wasn't the full-text, but a (mis)quote-mined piece of a paragraph in a patent that you described as a "typical description" of zero-point energy.
3) You can't be that naive?
I'm not. I just know enough people with contracts requiring clearance (hell, my uncle works for JHU's APL and requires both clearance and special military grade encryption/protection systems (hardware and software) even for his phone. HCII conferences have military personnel every year. I've never done contract work for the government but have for research companies and think-tanks and companies in DC that I am not sure what they do and I don't want to know. Napalm was developed right near my lab.
