There’s zero credible evidence for this
[0]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-in...
Which parts of the patent were not valid?
Military science is always far ahead of mainstream science.
But yeah, must be aliens. Super logical
I don't know about this. I think it's more of a romanticized view than anything else. I don't doubt they have some of the top aerospace engineers but scientists? I can't imagine they're years ahead of top professors in academia - the chair of quantum physics at Hamilton College described Salvatore Pais' patents as "bearing no more resemblance to quantum physics as I understand it than does ‘The Force’ from Star Wars" [0]
Either leading academics in quantum physics are so far behind they can't even understand military academics or these patents are sci-fi gobbledygook. For example the energy required for his room-temperature semiconductor is greater than that of a magnetar (according to some physicists whose summaries I read) - that's 1.4* more than the sun.
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...
In Examiner's Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief, dated July 1, 2018, Examiner "held" that after considering the Sheehy declaration filed with Second Amendment "the claims are still not enabled." Examiner, however, agrees that high frequencies of vibration on the order of 10 Gigahertz are possible, by stating *obtaining high frequencies are possible."
Hefurther asks that the Applicant demonstrate these high vibrational frequencies to create a local polarized vacuum. This directly contradicts the Federal Circuit's dicta that stated "al patent does not need to guarantee that the invention works for a claim to be enabled" (Alcon, 745 F.3d at 1189) and that it is improper for the Patent Office to suggest that an inventor had to offer proof for a claimed result (In Re Cartwright, 165 F.3d 1353 at 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Moreover, in Applicant's peer reviewed paper *AlAA 2017-5343, it is shown that by vibrating electrically charged matter in an acceleration mode, *it is possible to generate the high energy E-fields and B- fields that can polarize the vacuum. Thus, proving enablement of the invention.
Additionally, enablement is also shown in an IEEE paper (K.J. Coakley et al, "Estimation of Q-Factors and Resonant Frequencies" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, Vol. 51, No. 3, March 2003), that Applicant described and entered into the record in his January 23, 2018 response to Examiner's Office Action of November 28, 2017.
The Examiner never addressed this reference or Applicant's arguments related to this reference, in any of his responses, that this paper shows enablement. The paper describes the fact that high Q-factors and vibrational frequencies in excess of 10 Gigahertz can be enabled readily. In particular, Table I on page 866 ofthis paper shows that by emitting microwaves within a copper resonant cavity it is possible to experimentally obtain vibrational frequencies in excess of 10 Gigahertz, thus enabling electromagnetic (EM) flux values of 10^33 Watts/ m?, according to Equation in the inventor's AIAA paper (AIAA 2017-5343). This EM flux value is equivalent to the generation of E-fields on the order 10°18 V/m and B-fields on the order of 10°9 Tesla. Thus, the fields required for the invention are both feasible and enabled
As you've highlighted, you actually meant that the claims were enabled under US patent law, which does not generally require the patented idea to actually work.
I noticed your quoted text uses "it is possible to experimentally obtain". That's an odd way of saying "it is theoretically possible to obtain".
Clearly if the theory is wrong then it can make wrong predictions about feasibility. The patent office isn't tasked to determine if such theories are wrong.
For example, no one has demonstrated that "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state" (see https://patents.google.com/patent/US6960975B1/en ) actually works. Very few expect that idea to work, and I expect that most who do are ill-informed of the science.
The same applies here.
One deep problem with the entire idea of extracting usable energy from the vacuum energy state is highlighted in this letter to a curious 19 year old, at https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1277 :
> The point, however, is that this is not the calculation of some energy that’s sitting around waiting to be used. It’s just the calculation of a natural unit in which to measure energy. If it has a physical significance, it may represent the amount of energy that has to be concentrated in a small scale (the Planck distance, about 10^-32 cm) in order to make weird quantum gravitational things happen.
> To get usable energy out of some process, there must be some way for things to fall to a lower energy state than they are now in. That’s possible for many nuclei- hence we can get nuclear power- but such nuclear reactions are known and have little to do with the Planck scale.
> The Planck distance-time scale is the scale on which our current theory of space and time is likely to break down. If there really is some process on that scale that could settle into a lower energy state, that would mean that the current vacuum is unstable. It could somehow start to collapse to the more stable state, which would destroy any sort of physical structure in the current universe. Something like that probably happened at least once in the early universe, ending the strongly inflationary period of the Big Bang.
> These are not processes which I would attempt to ’use’.
The materials you've pointed to assume the vacuum energy state is "energy that’s sitting around waiting to be used", without demonstrating that it's true.
Further, they make no mention of how that energy is transferred to a lower energy state than vacuum. We know of no such thing.
As an analogy, a bird sitting on an high power line - which isn't even insulated - is touching a huge amount of energy. It's not affected because there's no lower energy place for that energy to go. At best it could get power from AC power lines due to the fluctuating fields, but that's far less than the power going through the lines.
This all sounds way too far out there to most people. I'm also highly sceptical and need proof, but don't mind entertaining the idea.