Re: airfoil patent 4,066,226 - Paper-10.jpg (1/1) - Paper-11.jpg (1/1) - Paper-12.jpg (1/1)

On Apr 13, 7:47�am, Kenneth Edmund Fischer <stealth...@iglou.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"









<m...@sushi.com> wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:02�pm, "Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:

Kenneth Edmund Fischer wrote:

� [something]

I guess you think you were attaching a binary
to your posts in this text based, non binary usenet group.

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If they are just patents, google is the way to go. Alternatively you
can use uspto.gov. Basically the patent number is good enough as most
of us know how to look up patents.


� � � �The papers I posted are not in published patents, but are in
the application file wrapper that is available to the public either
in person or by mail, the last I heard a certified copy of the
entire file wrapper was $150.00.

� � � �I thought I had seen images posted here before even though
the word binary is not in the newsgroup name.
� � � I am at a disadvantage using the computer at the library,
my internet service will be restored at home next week and
I will be able to use an FTP program to put the images on my
homepage.

I need to dig up the reference, but there was research done in
acoustics regarding sound diffusion where they tested theories by
essentially mirroring the scheme with radio waves instead of source.
That is, they didn't have the resources to test the diffusors
acoustically, so they built the shapes out of metal and measured the
reflected radio waves. I'm certain this predates NEC.


� � � �Paper number 11 was the first document I know of in the
patent office that mentions "all flat surfaces", it was available
to the public from the date patent 4,066,226 issued in Jan., 1978
which would seem to preclude any entity other than me from
being allowed a claim on all flat surfaces (I only had one
year after that date to file an application, which I did, but
I was so reluctant to put the basic theory on paper, I filed
an incomplete application.

� � � I made the invention before the spring of 1976 and spent
time testing microwave optics using infra-red.

� � � I was also flying a model of a vehicle (one inch to the foot)
8 feet wide and 20 feet long that had all flat surfaces except for
the airfoil shape, and showed it to a retired air force guy that
knew people in the southwest working on low RCS technology,
I have no idea if that helped them or not.

� � � From what I read in the Ben Rich book, Lockheed started
development of flat surfaces in the spring of 1976, about the
time I realized the technology could change the balance of
power in the world.
� � � But the important thing is that the United States implemented
it first. � � �I feel Clinton made a mistake removing the secrecy order
from patent 5,488,372 even though the Lockheed "Vehicle" patent
had already issued, because patent 5,488,372 is more of a teaching
patent for the art and the theory behind it, which is not evident in
the Lockheed patent or it's reissue in 1999.
� � � According to the Ben Rich book, computers played a big part
in the design of the Have Blue and the F-117, but neither of those
aircraft used the most effective surface configurations.

� � �I received a D-2 allowance on all claims except flat surfaces
in 1988, 5 years before the Lockheed "Vehicle" application was
examined and issued.

� � �Yet it is difficult to find any mention of my name on the Internet.

Ken


Hey, I didn't have to google you since your name is on the patent.

The thing with patents is they are only for the honest. For instance,
the Chinese can steal any USAF technology they want as long as they
don't try to sell it to another country. If there is a military edge,
you can better believe patents will be violated.

Microsoft is trying to get some law passed that they can sue a company
that gets parts supplied from another company that is violating
Microsoft patents. Er, that would be 100% of China. Good luck on that
one Mr. Balmer. Microsoft was suing Russian dissidents who were using
bootleg copies of XP, but the bad press made them change their mind.
To be clear here, I think Microsoft has a right to protect windows, at
least as a copyright. Patents should be reserved for actual science.

The patent office has been out of control for decades. I thought it
jumped the shark when the "cat exerciser" patent was granted. That
consisted of using a laser beam for the cat to chase. But the tax
avoidance patents are simply ridiculous. Seriously, patent financial
gimmickry? Hell, I wouldn't even allow software patents. The Price
Line asshole is the latest patent troller, but nobody is as big of an
asshole as Steve Jobs who is trying to patent Appstore. How long has
the phrase "killer app" been around? Oh, maybe Lotus 123. Prior art
for "store" must go back a few centuries.

I have done my best to avoid patenting anything, especially since the
patent would go to the corp for which I was hired gun. I got dragged
into one patent lawsuit since I was a witness on a particular patent.
I had to deal with the process server, and there are few people as
creepy as process servers. Then the disposition. And you just can't
blow these clowns off. The pay was dismal compared to the aggravation.
But I knew the suit would go nowhere because they never do. It is all
about getting patent right trades.

All the patent office really does is stifle innovation. There are
simply too many landmines out there to pull off a start-up without
some sort of lawsuit.