Re: Dayton Miller's Data have no Real Signal

On 16 Dec "David Thomson" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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

The term doesn't bother me because I know for sure
that I usually state that I am specifically only talking about
a physical model.
I am as well equiped as any layman to evaluate this
model called Divergent Matter.

>> 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."

I said "overrated", while the parabola has usually
been drawn by plotting from a formula, I draw them with
drafting instruments I designed and made.
I appreciate what can be done with advanced math.

>Tell me, was the patent
>accepted by the USPTO?

A patent is issued _BY_ the patent office, yes
the disclosure was accepted.

>> >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?

Right, the Foucault test of mirrors, making telescope
mirrors to a wavelength of light.

>What is that, ...proper cleaning methods?

I am going to do you a favor and show you just
how hallucinatory you are, you are living totally from
imagination with limited experience.

>How do you have knowledge of optics and not know simple algebra?

I used to know how to calculate the resolving power
of a mirror, I don't need it any more.

>You
>need trigonometry to calculate your distances from your angles.

The curvature of a mirror is specified by it's radius
of curvature, what are you imagining now that needs to
be figured from angles?

>Trigonometry, while not difficult, is more difficult that algebra.

Yes, many students fail because of trig, and a
majority never become fluent with it.

>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.

I don't think so, please stop imagining things.

>> >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?

Of course. But it wasn't needed to establish
priority, as I had disclosed the easiest configuration
to implement in a document in an earlier application
and that document was required by law, which also
required the patent office to send a copy to NASA.
The date of that document was May, 1977,
which is important, and that earlier patent issued
in January 1978.
That meant I had to file a continuation of the
technology described in that May 1977 letter by
January 1979, else it would become public domain,
and I filed December 22, 1978.

That technology was for _ALL_ plane surfaces
as flat as possible. Have you ever seen an airplane
with all flat surfaces?
What trig functions and angles do I need for
all flat surfaces, pull something out of your imagination.

Lockheed filed in Feb, 1979, beyond the 1 year
date of the issue of my first patent which contained
the letter required to be sent to NASA by the Space
Act of 1958, so while was entitled to claim flat surfaces
because I filed before the one year deadline, Lockheed
did not, and their claim number one should not have
been allowed.

>I can see how you could intuitively imagine a radar evading geometry if
>you worked around radar equipment for many years.

Sure, and I don't remember ever seeing a radar
set in operation, although they had some, just not
where I was.

>I can see you
>drawing a picture without any specifications as to the exact angles and
>airfoil shape.

I have a recollection of that, and of course I have
the documents and drawings also, so does all aircraft
companies, and the patent will be referenced in all
stealth patents in the future.

> A more knowledgeable engineer could possibly understand
>your inspiration and properly present a patent application with the
>proper specifications.

Right, and I could have gone to Washington
and taken care off that in a few days.

>The bottom line is that you are screwed because
>you didn't know math or find someone who did and who would help you.

Not for that reason, the patent issued without
my claim number one, I was sick when I was told that
it would be allowed that way and accepted it rather
than prolong the thing, as I also had other more
effective surface figures to claim.

>> 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

Develop what? The patent is complete,
and represents all I know about the matter.
I could have offered it for sale or license
it, but I didn't try, the fact that it was under
secrecy order for 12 years should give a jury
reason under the law to award me substantial
compensation, and I can file suit any time until
6 years after the patent expires in 8 more years.

Here is a link to the text, I don't know why
they don't show the drawings.

I wrote the disclosure with specifications,
and made the drawings, and prosecuted the patent
to issue myself.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5488372.html

I can provide a link to the drawings if desired.

Please realize that your imaginings were wrong,
you pulled them out of someplace, I know not where.

It would help you greatly if you do not imagine
things without prior experience or seeking information.

I could have done more, but I had some other
priorities, and I could use some money because I spent
too much the last five years, but it doesn't matter, at
my age, socialism in this country takes control.

I wish you well, and I wish I could help, but
I have no interest in something as vague as ether.

Joe Fischer

.

Quantcast