Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

Joe Fischer wrote:
> >"Crackpot" is the normal term used for someone outside the box.
>
> Whatever, as long as they spell the name right.

I hear you. :-D

> A patent is a disclosure of a physical construction
> or a method, published with a letter giving right to sue
> for a specified period of time those who use it without
> permission. Why would math be needed for drawings
> and a specification? In fact, dimensions are not even
> used, so it may be a rare patent that needs math.
>
> I think math is overrated by some people who
> do not understand it.

The proper word would be "underrated." Tell me, was the patent
accepted by the USPTO?

> >What did you do, stumble across something by
> >accident and write a story about it?
>
> Not hardly, I applied for a patent on a utility airfoil,
> and then tried to think of a good use for it.
>
> I had considerable interest in telescopes and was
> offering a booklet and materials for sale to make molds
> for "Large Plane Segmented SolarEnergy Concentrating
> Mirrors".
> I used my knowledge of optics, and applied it to
> radar and active infra-red.

Your knowledge of optics? What is that, ...proper cleaning methods?
How do you have knowledge of optics and not know simple algebra? You
need trigonometry to calculate your distances from your angles.
Trigonometry, while not difficult, is more difficult that algebra. You
need to know the trigonometric laws. If you are advanced in age, you
would also need to know how to use logarithm tables. Even with today's
fancy calculators you need to understand the laws of sine, cosine, and
tangent.

> >My father is a retired high ranking military official. I respect your
> >reasons for not talking further about your patent.
>
> I have no reason not to talk about it, in fact I should
> be active trying to promote the sale of it. I am not restricted
> in any way from talking about it, I have never been privy to
> any government project, and they have never disclosed
> anything to me, they just prevented me from marketing
> my invention until 1995.
>
> Anybody can read it, it is "Electronic Avoidance
> Configurations". "Fischer".
> I applied for it in December 1978, and Lockheed
> applied in Feb. 1979, but my application was missing
> documents required by law, so it was given a Sept 1979
> filing date.
> I doubt if Lockheed would have been allowed by
> the Air Force to apply for a patent, but they knew I had
> filed an incomplete application, and had Lockheed
> prepare the application and hand carried it to the patent
> office and had two supervisory attorneys stamp it
> received but didn't allow them to read it, but just briefed
> them on the subject matter.

What was the document you were missing? It wouldn't be the design
specifications ***, would it?

I can see how you could intuitively imagine a radar evading geometry if
you worked around radar equipment for many years. I can see you
drawing a picture without any specifications as to the exact angles and
airfoil shape. A more knowledgeable engineer could possibly understand
your inspiration and properly present a patent application with the
proper specifications. The bottom line is that you are screwed because
you didn't know math or find someone who did and who would help you.

> Then Air Force took the application and put it
> in their safe in their section of the patent office, and
> it stayed there and not seen until 1993 by anyone.
> But applications under secrecy order are not given
> the same privileges as others.
> My application contains technology that can be
> applied to anything, the lockheed patent just discloses
> a particular airplane design.

I hope you salvage something from it and succeed in developing the
idea.

Dave

.

Quantcast