Reactionless drive split from How to patent an idea or invention?

[MarkPM]

Hello All,

I have an innovation that I’d like to patent. I believe I have conceptualised a reaction-less propulsion system that would run on electricity alone.

My innovation is only in the hypothetical stage as I have no way of creating a working model. I am looking for an entrepreneur/developer to take my innovation from the hypothetical stage through to the patent stage. I would want to retain 100% ownership of the patent giving exclusive usage rights to the developer for only 1% of the gross revenue as royalty.

I’m new to this forum and I apologise if this post is inappropriate for this section, I mean no disrespect to the forum. Please refer me to correct section if applicable.

If anyone is interested in perusing this with me and willing to enter in to a confidentiality agreement to understand the concept, please do not hesitate to contact me.

[Curious layman]

37 minutes ago, MarkPM said:

Hello All,

I have an innovation that I’d like to patent. I believe I have conceptualised a reaction-less propulsion system that would run on electricity alone.

How does it work? 

Try dragons den/shark tank.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Curious layman

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, MarkPM said:

I believe I have conceptualised a reaction-less propulsion system that would run on electricity alone.

It would be very interesting to be able to create such a device. Unfortunately the laws of physics prevents such a device from created, so even more interesting than a propulsion device would be to look at the new physics required. Maybe you could post the new physical concepts in speculations section of the forum without revealing too many details about the specific construction of the device? 

 

News article about the impossibility of reaction-less  propulsion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/23/the-emdrive-nasas-impossible-space-engine-really-is-impossible/#4328b053a009
A more detailed paper analyzing why EM Drive does not work: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters (contains link to full paper)

 

[Curious layman]

46 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

News article about the impossibility of reaction-less  propulsion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/23/the-emdrive-nasas-impossible-space-engine-really-is-impossible/#4328b053a009

Made me depressed reading this, the Chinese claim to have successfully tested one in space, must be talking out of their ass.

they claim- input power of 2.5kw, their 2.45GHz em drive produces 720 mN of thrust.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Curious layman

[MarkPM]

I cant reveal much at all because the principal is quite simple.

I understand that for every action there’s an opposite and equal reaction but all i can say is that if my hypothesis is correct then this law doesn’t apply.

Its quite possible that my hypothesis is flawed in some way that I cant see, but I’m in the difficult position. If I’m right I’d need to protect my rights to the innovation but the only way i can find out if I’m right is to run it past someone who’d be able to determine if my hypothesis is sound.

If I were to post it in an open forum it becomes public knowledge 

[Ghideon]

19 minutes ago, MarkPM said:

I cant reveal much at all because the principal is quite simple.

I understand that for every action there’s an opposite and equal reaction but all i can say is that if my hypothesis is correct then this law doesn’t apply.

Its quite possible that my hypothesis is flawed in some way that I cant see, but I’m in the difficult position. If I’m right I’d need to protect my rights to the innovation but the only way i can find out if I’m right is to run it past someone who’d be able to determine if my hypothesis is sound.

If I were to post it in an open forum it becomes public knowledge 

Ok! Then, with the information you have provided, I can safely assume that the hypothesis is incorrect and that Newton's and Einstein's laws (and others) still apply. Since you are not prepared to share anything useful I'm not spending any more time on discussion this.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The first conundrum here is that anyone with the ability to help you won't, because reactionless drives violate Newton's third law of motion.

The second is that if you aren't willing to discuss your idea, then it's not a topic for this site.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Most of these reactionless drives are the equivalent to raising yourself up into the air by tugging on your own bootstraps.

It all works out very nicely until you recognize all the forces at work at all times.

Keep track of the centre of mass and energy of your complete system. If you think you have found a point where it can change it's position in it's own frame of reference, even temporarily, look there and you will find an error. If you can't find a point like that...you already know by definition that it does not work.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MarkPM said:

I cant reveal much at all because the principal is quite simple.

So simple that you can't believe somebody who studies this professionally didn't figure it out? 

2 hours ago, MarkPM said:

I understand that for every action there’s an opposite and equal reaction but all i can say is that if my hypothesis is correct then this law doesn’t apply.

If there was a simple way to violate physical laws, wouldn't we see SOME examples? 

2 hours ago, MarkPM said:

Its quite possible that my hypothesis is flawed in some way that I cant see, but I’m in the difficult position. If I’m right I’d need to protect my rights to the innovation but the only way i can find out if I’m right is to run it past someone who’d be able to determine if my hypothesis is sound.

If I were to post it in an open forum it becomes public knowledge 

Be realistic, it's MOST PROBABLE that your hypothesis is flawed. Most ideas are wrong, and you can't avoid that. Especially from folks who don't have a deep background in the sciences (which I assume about you because you're here trying to overthrow Newton instead of working with him).

I would suggest you scan our Speculations section for similar titles. It's possible somebody else made the same discovery you did, and then came here to do what you're doing. Hopefully something will resonate with you, because this current approach isn't going to help in a meaningful way.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, MarkPM said:

I have an innovation that I’d like to patent. I believe I have conceptualised a reaction-less propulsion system that would run on electricity alone.

Note that you cannot patent an idea or a concept. You can only patent a "machine" (in the most general sense) or "thing" that does something using that concept.

The patent need to explain how the thing works in sufficient detail to allow someone else to build it. The best way of doing this is to build a version yourself.

You would also need to provide that level of detail (and probably a working model) to convince an entrepreneur to invest. You would also need to be able to provide that level of detail to a developer who is going to help you.

Note that if a developer worked with you and had to provide significant technical/innovative input to make the thing work, then they would have to be listed as an inventor on the patent.

10 hours ago, MarkPM said:

My innovation is only in the hypothetical stage as I have no way of creating a working model.

Why not? Lack of money? Lack of practical skills? Lack of theoretical knowledge?

Quote

I am looking for an entrepreneur/developer to take my innovation from the hypothetical stage through to the patent stage. I would want to retain 100% ownership of the patent giving exclusive usage rights to the developer for only 1% of the gross revenue as royalty.

Don't wish to be unkind, but as someone who has worked in engineering and startups for most of my working life, this sounds like "I want someone else to do all the hard work, while I keep all the money".

An entrepreneur is going to want a significant share of ownership if they are going to put money in. The same for someone providing either theoretical or engineering help. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Don't wish to be unkind, but as someone who has worked in engineering and startups for most of my working life, this sounds like "I want someone else to do all the hard work, while I keep all the money".

"Mr. Springsteen, I have an idea for a song about going through life with the lights off. I can't tell you any more, but if you'll just write the song and the lyrics and give me 100% ownership, I'll give you 1% of the royalties and the right to play it whenever you want. Make it really catchy, OK?"

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Mr. Springsteen, I have an idea for a song about going through life with the lights off. I can't tell you any more, but if you'll just write the song and the lyrics and give me 100% ownership, I'll give you 1% of the royalties and the right to play it whenever you want. Make it really catchy, OK?"

Asimov used to talk about someone approached him and said they had a great idea for a story; if Asimov would write it, they could split the money 50:50. Asimov said, "tell you what, you write the story and keep all the money."

Ideas are easy. Execution is hard.

[MarkPM]

The problem with science is scientists, emotion creeps in and blurs true observation, thank you for all your emotive responses, mocking me is less productive than what I’m doing.

Yes the thought crossed my mind if it’s so simple why hasn’t anyone thought of it; it’s hard finding flawed theories on the internet people tend not to post them as much.

Yes I don’t have a deep background in physics but I have studied physics at university level but definitely no expert.

And yes I want someone to do all the hard work I make no secret about that mainly because things are a lot harder when you don’t know how to go about securing such an idea.

The reality probably is that the idea is flawed, but if it’s not, I’d like some credit for thinking of it. Therefore, I’m just looking for someone to enter a confidentiality agreement to hear my idea in case it’s valid. There’s no point airing out in public as that would defeat the exclusivity would it not?

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by MarkPM

[Strange]

8 hours ago, MarkPM said:

 it’s hard finding flawed theories on the internet people tend not to post them as much.

Science forums like this are full of people posting flawed theories!

9 hours ago, MarkPM said:

The reality probably is that the idea is flawed, but if it’s not, I’d like some credit for thinking of it. Therefore, I’m just looking for someone to enter a confidentiality agreement to hear my idea in case it’s valid. There’s no point airing out in public as that would defeat the exclusivity would it not?

You are in a classic Catch 22: no one is going to enter a confidentiality agreement without knowing if it is worth it; you can't convince them it is worth it without a confidentiality agreement.

If you were just interested in credit, rather than the vast wealth that would accrue from the invention (  ) then I would suggest just publicising the idea. If someone else turns it into a successful product, you will still be known as the person who came up with it.

9 hours ago, MarkPM said:

The problem with science is scientists, emotion creeps in and blurs true observation, thank you for all your emotive responses, mocking me is less productive than what I’m doing.

I don't see any mocking. People have pointed out the most basic physical principles that would prevent a reaction less drive from working. (And also pointed out that it it is unreasonable to expect someone else to do all the work for no significant return.)

[swansont]

10 hours ago, MarkPM said:

The problem with science is scientists, emotion creeps in and blurs true observation, thank you for all your emotive responses, mocking me is less productive than what I’m doing.

It's the opposite, I think. People who do not have an emotional investment in the idea tell you that it's flawed (which is not mocking you). The emotional attachment usually lies with the proponent, since they have invested time and effort in the idea, making it harder to accept criticism.

[MarkPM]

I don’t want to turn this into a tit for tat discussion about the emotional subjectiveness that pollutes science. I accept we are all human and being human myself, Id just like to point out that if there has been no mockery here and the emotional risk is all mine then Bruce Springsteen must be an amazing physicist? I can do sarcasm too but that’s not science!

I don enjoy the banter but I’d like to stick to the issue at hand, my theory is most likely flawed, i accept the odds, can we put our egos aside and point me in the right direction? It’s clear that this isn’t the place developers come to look for ideas to invest in. Is there a place people that people can connect with potential investors that would suit my situation? 

I’d just like to add here that starlight was invented by a hair dresser, if that innovation was genuinely revolutionary then that idea died with that man for much the same issue I’m facing here.

[Ghideon]

12 hours ago, MarkPM said:

The problem with science is scientists, emotion creeps in and blurs true observation, thank you for all your emotive responses, mocking me is less productive than what I’m doing.

I did show some honest interest in your idea, unfortunately you were not open for further discussion.

1 hour ago, MarkPM said:

I don enjoy the banter but I’d like to stick to the issue at hand, my theory is most likely flawed, i accept the odds, can we put our egos aside and point me in the right direction? It’s clear that this isn’t the place developers come to look for ideas to invest in. Is there a place people that people can connect with potential investors that would suit my situation? 

Since there are so many impossible/less likely/not so good ideas around it takes some effort to gain interest. By proposing something very unlikely it's unlikely that someone will show interest unless unlikely good evidence is provided.

12 hours ago, MarkPM said:

And yes I want someone to do all the hard work I make no secret about that mainly because things are a lot harder when you don’t know how to go about securing such an idea.

The issue is not that it is very hard to secure the idea, it is hard to prove Newton wrong. How about this: Prove Newton wrong and I'll secure the funding for the project. You can keep 100% of the license for the propulsion if I may have a share in the Nobel prize in physics?
Another suggestion; by asking (sneaky/intelligent) questions about physics related to the invention you could learn by your self about issues. 

12 hours ago, MarkPM said:

it’s hard finding flawed theories on the internet people tend not to post them as much.

And yet it is hard to keep up even with the very few that ends up here in this forum. It is a good thing that you have ideas and want to put them to use. The issue is that you have selected an area that is so extremely hard. My educated guess is that it is much easier to build a copy of the LHC (=possible) than a truly working reaction-less propulsion device (=not possible), at least it looks that way to anyone trained in science. But on the other hand, most individuals practicing science would prefer to be part of, or be around when, great discoveries were made. It would be much more fun to be wrong about this and be around when new physics emerge. 

 

1 hour ago, MarkPM said:

I’d just like to add here that starlight was invented by a hair dresser,

Many inventions are made by laymen, that's nothing unique. Fewer laymen discover new physics at Nobel prize level expanding Newtons or Einsteins models.

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Ghideon
spelling

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MarkPM said:

It’s clear that this isn’t the place developers come to look for ideas to invest in.  

You're right, it isn't.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, MarkPM said:

The problem with science is scientists, emotion creeps in and blurs true observation, thank you for all your emotive responses, mocking me is less productive than what I’m doing.

The emotions weren't used to analyze what little you could tell us. For that, we used passionless physical laws which have a long history of being right. 

I apologize if our analogies weren't appreciated. Sometimes, when people aren't learning one way, it's good to mix it up and try something different.

What else were we supposed to use to make a "true observation" except what you presented? 

[Strange]

5 hours ago, MarkPM said:

my theory is most likely flawed, i accept the odds, can we put our egos aside and point me in the right direction?

It has been pointed out that a reactionless would violate Newton's laws (which have been shown to be correct by extensive testing).

We can't do much more than that as we have no idea what you are thinking.

(The Springsteen reference was not mocking you or the science, but the idea that you should get all the credit when you want someone else to do all the hard work: spend many years studying physics or engineering, give up a paid career to work on your project, and then potentially getting nothing in return).

[Ghideon]

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

by asking (sneaky/intelligent) questions

I forgot to add a reference; there was a thread about a similar case recently. The author provided drawings and answered lots of questions so the analysis was quite detailed; might help as a starting point: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119309-idea-for-a-rocket-engine

 

There is also a new* question connected to the principle of action/reaction in space: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119459-can-you-move-in-space

 

 

 

*) (What are the odds  )