Indiscrete Logic

[johnphantom]

“The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing.”

How To Compute Without Numeric Variables In A Non-Von Neumann Architecture

http://www.tinyurl.com/indiscretelogic

I would like to patent and put this in the public domain.

[Strange]

 

I would like to patent and put this in the public domain.

 

 

These appear to be mutually exclusive goals. Also, it is not clear that there is anything patentable here. Thirdly, you have blown your chance of obtaining a patent by publishing the information. The good news is that you have also prevented anyone else patenting the information (unless they have already done so).

[Endy0816]

This appears to be memory location addressing, possibly coupled with a finite state machine. Appears at least similar to some Assembly languages.

 

You may want to look up "race condition", likely source of the bugs.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Endy0816

[johnphantom]

Thanks for the replies. I am glad that I do not have to patent it, if you are right Strange, thanks for the heads up. I will look up race condition right now =)

 

Edit: yes race condition is a problem in this type of scripting that could easily get out of hand.

Edited August 27, 2014 by johnphantom

[Sensei]

Thirdly, you have blown your chance of obtaining a patent by publishing the information. The good news is that you have also prevented anyone else patenting the information (unless they have already done so).

 

This would basically disallow patenting anything that is new...

 

Suppose so, I have found something that disagree with currently known physics.

Patent office will reject it, because it can't work their opinion based on known physics.

So there is no way to patent it! And I can't publish paper to scientists community otherwise will lose patent ability.

Endless loop.

 

Rossi (or other Cold Fusion scientists) complained that patent office doesn't want to accept his device because office specialists claim it can't work.

If it really can't work, he will just waste money on patent, and nobody will be able to utilize it, including himself.

But at least he will be able to show device internals to public without risking losing patent ability.

 

I like early (f.e. XIX century) patent office approach: inventor had to include working device to get patent for it..

Then there is no risk it's fraud.

[Strange]

 

This would basically disallow patenting anything that is new.

 

The point is you can only patent things that are novel, and that you have invented. If something is published, then the patent office have no way of knowing that you invented it. Even if you claim to be the one who published it - to keep things simple, they have a blanket ban on patenting anything previously published (i.e. not novel). This can be (as I pointed out above) be useful if you want to ensure no one else can patent something: just make the information public (the best way of doing this is to file a patent application as that guarantees the patent office will see it if someone tries to patent it in future; but it isn't free).

 

As for technology that defies known physics, there is nothing in principle stopping that. I believe the USPTO introduced a specific ban on perpetual motion machines to avoid wasting time (there is "beyond known physics" and then there is just plain stupid).

 

There is a requirement that there should be a working model, but I have never seen that enforced. (And it could be tricky to test as, for example, Rossi claims to have working device but no one else has been able to confirm it.)

 

Part of Rossi's problem might be that he wants to file a patent without fully disclosing how it works. You can't do that. It might also be because (if it does work) he doesn't rally understand how it works. And you can't file a patent on that basis because it must provide enough information for someone else to reproduce the results.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Strange

[Sensei]

Theory behind device shouldn't be needed to patent any device.

Nobody knew about electrons and photons nor magnetics and electrics, but early XIX century electromagnets worked (made in 1824)..

 

So IMHO inventor filling a patent obligation is to describe "how to build device", not "how it works" (and theory behind it).

 

In bart's discussion about LENR, I have provided my vision how and why Rossi device might work (with decay energies (in MeV) calculated using my application, analyzed different isotopes): it's spending energy for making free neutrons, and they are absorbed by nucleus (releasing a bit of decay energy), then newly produced isotopes are also unstable, and decay again releasing even more energy (this time significant more, than spend). And we have overall result - energy on output (as heat) is higher than energy on input..

 

There was not a bit of speculation in it.

 

Wlad's showed discussion with Rossi, where he appeared to be pretty mainstream physicists, judging his comments.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

Theory behind device shouldn't be needed to patent any device.

So IMHO inventor filling a patent obligation is to describe "how to build device", not "how it works" (and theory behind it).

 

True. Although it may be difficult to write the "how to build it" if you don't really understand how it works! (If you have only got it working by trial and error, for example.) Having skimmed (very briefly) some of Rossi's patent applications, I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that he was trying to "fudge" some of the details of how it worked (and therefore how to build one) either because he didn't want to give anything away, or perhaps because he was confused about how it works.

[johnphantom]

Thanks guys, for the input regarding patenting. I am happy that by simply publishing a paper evidently I have prevented anyone from owning it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by johnphantom