1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In conspiracy culture, and particularly in the "chemtrail" conspiracy community, it's common to use patents as a claim of evidence. This can come in the form of a single patent, but quite commonly you get long lists of patents that seem to have been generated simply by searching the database with terms like "aerosol", "spraying" and "airplane", without much reading of the contents (so you get patents for crop dusters, and lawn sprinklers). Geoengineeringwatch.org even lists a patent for measuring the amount of toner in a photocopier as evidence for chemtrails:
    [​IMG]

    You can generally debunk these by going through and pointing out the actual intended use of the patent, and indeed this has been done numerous times. But then there are a few patents that actually seem related to the chemtrail theory, such as patents for spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block sunlight. So are these evidence of a secret spraying program? Are solar geoengineering patents evidence that solar geoengineering is happening now?

    No, and for several reasons - all of which being misconceptions about the way the patent system works. Briefly:
    • Patents don't need to work in order to be patentable
    • Even if they do work, they don't need to describe something that exists
    • Patents are often filed speculatively

    Patents don't need to work in order to be patentable

    In the United States between 1790 and 1880, when you patented something you had to provide a miniature model explaining how your invention supposedly worked. However there has never been a provision in US law that an invention meets some kind of test of actually working. Current patent law requires only that the invention be useful for something, be a new idea, not be obvious, and be described well enough so someone could create or perform the invention based on the patent.

    So there are many patents that technically fit these descriptions, but are basically wild and crazy things that are either very bad ideas, or could not possibly work.

    One of the more famous examples of this is US 3216423, "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force" - which is basically a circular table, to which a pregnant woman is strapped. The table is spun around, until the force of the spinning pops out the baby, which is then caught in a net.

    [​IMG]

    This idea was patented in 1963, but there is no evidence it was ever even built, and while it seems quite preposterous to most people, it seems it was patented by people who thought it might work.

    An even more improbable patent is US 6960975 "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state" Which describes a kind of flying saucer, propelled by bending the fabric of spacetime.
    [​IMG]

    The idea is not based on any existing technology, but instead is based on very loose extrapolations of ideas in various papers on theoretical physics. It's basically no better than the description of warp drives in science fiction. - There are plenty of similar patents for things like anti-gravity drives, and a "Full body teleportation system" ("A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.") and a "Tubular shaped interstellar space craft".

    Have these inventions been demonstrated to work? Clearly not. There are no full body teleportation devices, or warp drive flying saucers, or spinning baby extractors. Just because something has been patented does not mean it's a good idea, or that it works, or even that the underlying science is correct. It just means that someone had an idea, and they wrote it down in a way the patent office would accept.

    Even if they do work, they don't need to describe something that exists

    While the above patents are obviously ridiculous, or highly impractical, there are some patents that actually seem sensible. Yet we still know usages of the invention don't exist because they refer to situations that do not yet exist.

    The clearest examples of these are to do with manned space travel. There are many patents for interplanetary spacecraft, and for habitats for humans on other planets - and yet nobody takes this as evidence that there are people living on the Moon, or flying to Mars. Here's a 1992 example of a house on the moon which seems reasonably practical.

    [​IMG]

    And a more recent example of a rotating spacecraft designed to fly to Mars.
    [​IMG]

    Somewhere in between these is a patent for a Space Elevator - a stunningly ambitious method of getting things into orbit by literally building an elevator that goes up to a satellite. Somewhat like geoengineering, it it not a new idea - Space Elevator as a concept was invented in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (although his idea was very impractical). Ideas about global solar geoengineering date back to around the same time, with Svante Arrhenius suggesting (in 1905) managing greenhouses gases to create an optimal climate.

    The inventions above have also not been demonstrated to work in the real world, but they seem much more plausible than the previous examples, and they address things that people have been seriously talking about doing in the coming decades. So, like geoengineering patents, they could be used as evidence that people are thinking about doing something in the future, but, also like with geoengineering patents, they cannot be used as evidence that something is being done now.

    Patents are often filed speculatively, so do not demonstrate intent

    Not only are the patent filing requirements rather vague and somewhat subjective, the current patent system has been considered by most observer to have been effectively broken for many years. Patents are awarded for the most trivial of "inventions", and hundreds of millions of dollars often change hands over ideas a child might have - like buying something with one click, or allowing a user to dial a phone number by tapping it.

    People recognize there is a lot of money to be made from patents. So some people file patents not because they themselves plan to develop the technology, but because they think it's possible that someone else might develop it in the future, and then they can claim millions of dollars by licensing their patent. Patents just cost a few hundred dollars to file in the US (just $65 for the provisional application).

    This is called "Patent Trolling", and it's not just something that lazy individuals do. The flaws in the patent system force companies to patent every single thing they can think of, just so they will have a portfolio of patents they can counter-sue (or trade) with other companies - the current Samsung and Apple patent war being a good example.

    These large companies file thousands of patents every year. IBM filed 18 patents every day in 2012. Many of these are "just in case" patents for ideas that people in the company had. Speculation about what they might develop in the future, not necessarily what they are developing now, and almost certainly not something they have actually finished developing.

    And even if it works and there was some intent to use it, the vast majority of patents (95%) never even get used:
    http://www.wired.com/2015/01/fixing-broken-patent-system/
    So Geoengineering Patents Don't Mean Anything

    So yes, there are geoengineering patents, and patents for houses on the Moon, and Mars spaceships. But it does not mean that geoengineering is happening now any more it mean there are men on Mars.

    All a patent means is that the person or company who applied for that patent thought that they could either make money from the patent in the future, or they should add it to their patent portfolio, just in case they wanted to develop the technology in the future, or possibly use the patent to make a deal later.

    And even if you ignore all of the above, even if you continue to insist that patents are evidence of something, there's one more fundamental objection to the whole "patents as evidence" theory - if you wanted to do something in secret, then why would you let private companies patent evidence of that thing?

    Bottom line here? Patenting a thing does not mean that thing exists, or even that it works.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2015
    • Like Like x 12
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    It may be worth adding how much a patent costs. A couple of hundred pounds in the UK. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-applying/p-cost.htm

    Even for an independant inventor that cost is worth it for the speculation of an idea. While in patent no one else can use the idea

    Edit: sorry you already covered it
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    so basically, If I patented a geonengineering idea involving spraying chemicals from planes at a hopelessly inefficient height, and you could PROVE the governments of the world were doing it, they are infringing my patent and owe me a shitload of money.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I added it after you mentioned it, thanks!
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm pretty sure that patents would be pretty meaningless if a government decided it needed doing. US patents would certainly not apply to say, China.
     
  6. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Products like WD-40, and Coca-Cola, have Trade Secrets, to help keep their formulas secret......and are not subject to the limited lifespan of a patent.
    However, the downside is, a trade secret can be exposed through "reverse engineering" ......by anyone.

    http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/patent_trade.htm
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    • Like Like x 2
  8. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I think it's worth observing that a supposed super-secret organization, perpetrating a super-secret world-wide spraying operation would hardly patent their super-secret methods so they would be preserved in a public database where any curious person could look them up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  10. vooke

    vooke Active Member

    Thank you Mick,
    It's not far fetched to guess that some Chemtrail patents may be filed by Chemtrail believers to profit in case they run into somebody,organization or government engaging in this
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think that actually is pretty far-reached - at least based on all the chemtrail believers I know. None of them think that the government is doing it in any real kind of legal framework where patents would apply. And if they think it is patentable, then they also think it's already been patented.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea but they'd have to patent a device that actually WORKED before the illuminati could replicate it. and since they don't seem to know how aerosols and such work, that is rather improbable.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  14. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Conspirancy-Therorists in general ignore what the main goal on Patents is...

    Patents exist to save the rigths of an Inventor for his Idea, so that he has the power to control what´s happening with his invention.

    Back to Chemtrails:

    There is a real "Chemtrail-Patent", mostly ignored by the Chemtrail-Believers.

    A guy named Mark Hucko in Bratislava had despcriped the general "Chemtrail-Theory" in an US-Patent.

    Patent US 20090032214 A1
    "System and Method of Control of the Terrestrial Climate and its Protection against Warming and Climatic Catastrophes Caused by Warming such as Hurricanes"

    Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090032214?printsec=description&hl=de

    This part descripes in general the whole Chemtrail-Conspirancy-Theory. And it was accepted as an official US-patent. So if everbody wants to use this (or better "his") idea, he must get in contact to Mr. Bucko in Bratislava and have to ask him under which conditions the "idea of Mr. Bucko" could be used in real.

    This "Official Chemtrail-Patent" by a guy in Bratislava is in Power since 2009. So every Gouvernment who wants to make Chemtrails has to ask Mr. Bucko if they are allowed to do so ;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2014
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Brilliant! Why is this ignored?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    I wish patents were proof of the existence of what's in the patents. I'd be on a Space Elevator in an instant!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I really like this post.

    The existence of patents is one sort of evidence a person can use to support the chem trail theory, but it is intellectually dishonest to use it as definitive proof that spraying IS going on, which is what most chemtrail believers seem to think. Now that this post has described exactly what conditions a patent can be filed and accepted, the existence of patents seem even weaker as evidence of definitive spraying going on. Not all evidence is created equal, and they all vary in strength. When combined with the other factors as well as the general implausibility of the scenario in question, believing in chemtrails seems to be a misplacement of energy.

    I just thought I'd spell it out for myself. Helps me get a better understanding for the philosophy of science :)
     
  18. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    That is one of the most frustrating thing about talking to chemtrail belivers- intellectual dishonesty doesn't seem to bother them at all. If something even remotely seems to support their basic story, they embrace it, wholeheartedly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Agreed. I used to assume that people would really check their facts before believing in such things, especially in such a complex, multi-faceted theory. There needs to lots of evidence for all aspects of the theory but when the evidence is actually considered, the vague, incomplete news reports designed to instill anxiety within viewers and things like patents are used as justification for their suspicion.

    It's even worse when asked if spraying is going on, and the response you get is "Look up! All the evidence you need!". That doesn't prove anything ecept that planes are making contrails as they've always done. It says nothing about if there are chemicals in the trails, a giant spray operation going on, or anything else except that there was a plane flying through there a while ago.

    Admittedly, patents are the one aspect I couldn't really figure out how to debunk, but this thread gave me knowledge of how the patenting system works. Another tool in the arsenal!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    I suppose that's a salient point too: Proving the existence of a theory versus proving the practical application of a theory. That is, proving the theory itself exists versus proving what the theory is about exists.

    A theory in it self will always exist. The theory of Santa Claus exists in the minds of many people under a certain age. You can prove that a 'Theory of Santa' exists by speaking with any young child. But can you prove Santa exists? Or can you prove he doesn't actually exist? Someone might patent a santa sled that could be piloted by mechanical reindeer, but that would only serve to bolster the theory itself rather than the subject of the theory.

    There is a Chemtrail Theory, there is GeoEngineering theory, and there's a lot of things written about those theories. It's probably worth noting that sometimes the elaboration of a theory, or engaging with the facets of a theory, can be confused with the proving the reality of what a theory is about. It's like when I talk about the Marvel Universe to my wife in a level of detail that she finds.. strange. I can engage in that with glee, but I can still step back and know that it's a fictional universe.

    Patents, photographs, stories, water tests, etx. aren't proof of a Chemtrail theory, but rather the bones the theory is built with. It's like the research a writer would do to gather enough real-world experience to make the novel he's writing sound authentic.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    another tool is to look at the patent history. patents need to be renewed from time to time and several of the patents listed on 'chemtrail' sites were never renewed by the people who filed them. Which to me means they were either determined to be junk or determined not to work as the patent said.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Yes, and then they say we are trying to get people to not believe what they see with their own eyes, as if we are saying the TRAILS don't exist. GAAH!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  23. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    In addition from what I can see most of the patents have only been filed in the US. I would have thought the NWO would file them worldwide just to be on the safe side.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I would think that such a secret operation and organization would not call attention to itself by filing patents at all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I don't know about that, Monsanto the NWO are very possessive about intellectual property.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. D. Grayson Day

    D. Grayson Day New Member




    Excellent. Thank you




    [large quote removed]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  27. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    I started out a review long ago of the "patents lists" mirrored on various "chemtrail" sites. It's far from finished, but I managed to go through the earliest patents. The purpose was, of course, to see if the the patents featured on that list can actually be considered "evidence" for large scale spraying operations. I might extent this post in the future if I get the time.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A rebuttal to Globalskywatch.com's so called "Chemtrail Related Patents for Research" and "Exhaustive list" on GeoengineeringWatch.org.

    http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1360#Post1360
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/


    Definitions:

    "Chemtrails" is defined as all known "chemtrail" theories, regardless of claimed purpose.
    "Geoengineering" is defined as climate manipulation, which is different from regular cloud seeding which purpose is weather manipulation.
    "Climate" is defined as long term, global environmental conditions.
    "Weather" is defined as short term, local environmental conditions.
    "Aerosol" is defined as any particulate matter that is suspended within a gas. Water droplets or ice crystals suspended in air are thus considered aerosols.

    Patents:

    1338343 - April 27, 1920 - Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=bJ...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1338343&f=false

    1619183 - March 1, 1927 - Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
    Purpose - To produce smoke screen from air to protect ground troops, or aircraft from anti-air weapons.
    Method - Reactive liquid that produces smoke as it falls through the air is dropped from aircraft.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. This is clearly a tool used for strategical warfare. It produces a vertical non-hazardous smoke screen.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=jO...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1619183&f=false

    1631753 - June 7, 1927 - Electric Heater - Referenced in 3990987
    Purpose - To heat water using electricity.
    Method - To heat water using electricity.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. It's a patent for a electrical device heating water. For use in coffee percolators for example.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=3i...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1631753&f=false

    1665267 - April 10, 1928 - Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
    Purpose - To create artificial fog.
    Method - Gasses and mechanical processes produce fog.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. The use of artificial fog goes way beyond the need for "chemtrail" alone. That this patent is related to producing "chemtrails" is just a blind assumption.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=In...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1665267&f=false

    1892132 - December 27, 1932 - Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
    Purpose - A spraying device "particularly with a view to destroy insects on vegetation".
    Method - Distribution of atomized substance using the gas flow from engines.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. Let's first take in consideration that the patent itself is designed for airplanes models from 1930 and prior. While the principle of spraying is there, you don't usually spray pesticide using modern jet aircrafts. Spraying pesticides would be done by much smaller planes for obvious reasons. Besides, there are other uses for such device beyond "chemtrails", which make this patent quite useless as proof.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=qJ...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1892132&f=false

    1928963 - October 3, 1933 - Electrical System And Method
    Purpose - Produce rain.
    Method - Charge neutral water particles to attract to each other to form heavier droplets, causing it to rain. Other particle substances beyond water that can be used according to the patent: sand, clay, marble dust or cement dust
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. Local weather manipulation is not the same as climate manipulation, aka geoengineering. This patent address methods to manipulate weather conditions.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=p9...ected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=1928963&f=false

    1957075 - May 1, 1934 - Airplane Spray Equipment
    Purpose - Equipment for distribution of liquid sprays from an airplane in flight "especially for pest and insect control."
    Method - To utilize the airflow from the plane and the propeller to distribute atomized spray over adjacent territory without "bulky mechanism".
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. The patent is based around small airplanes from the 30s, the main point of this patent is the use of propellers. Modern aircrafts, especially those that are associated with "chemtrail" conspiracy, does not use old fashioned propellers, but jet engines. Thus this patent cannot be applied to modern aviation.
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=ww...ay 1, 1934 - Airplane Spray Equipment&f=false

    2097581 - November 2, 1937 - Electric Stream [Steam] Generator
    Purpose - To produce steam with electricity.
    Method - Well, the device heats regular water which expels water vapours as output.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. Producing steam by electrical means does not indicate or suggest anything related to "chemtrails".
    Detailed description - http://www.google.com/patents?id=lQ...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false


    6315213 - November 13, 2001 - Method of modifying weather
    Purpose - Reduce damage costs caused by heavy weather.
    Method - An aqueous polymer creates a gel like substance that absorb water inside clouds.
    Is it "chemtrail related"? - No. Substance is only seeded at the edge of violent storms, either by a seeding flare from the ground, or a transport plane. The substance is completely biodegradable and non-hazardous.
    Detailed description - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6315213
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  28. JesseCuster

    JesseCuster Active Member

    Isn't it a general idea of the chemtrail movement that spraying started in the 1990s? Are they suggesting that patents for the technology they're using were filed up to 60 or 70 years in advance of chemtrails actually being sprayed in the sky?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    As far as I can tell, the reason those early patents are included is that they are listed in the "citations" section of the later patents. That's all. So, for instance, a device that uses an electric heating element might reference the earlier electric water heater patent.

    From the geoengineeringwatch list:

    upload_2015-4-8_18-19-20.

    The patent is referenced in no 3990987, which is a 1976 patent for a smoke generator: http://www.google.com/patents/US399...Nj8M4-a8gSgooDYDQ#v=onepage&q=3990987&f=false

    From that patent, the tubing acts as an electric heater:

    upload_2015-4-8_18-21-15.

    And so the patent examiner (not the applicant, as indicated by the asterisk) has added the earlier patent in to the list of citations.

    upload_2015-4-8_18-22-16.

    And so the earlier patent gets added to the list of "chemtrail proof"! :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some of them are, yes. But I think the more general idea is to demonstrate that things can be sprayed out of planes.

    Of course that's something that's self evident. Really the reason these lists exist is that it's a long list, and a long list looks like a lot of evidence. It's type of Gish Gallop.

    It's bizarre to that Dane STILL has that photocopier toner patent in the list, over a year since it was pointed out.
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/an-extensive-list-of-patents/
    [​IMG]

    The only reason I can think why it's still there is that Dane simply is ignoring every single bit of criticism. He's convinced that people who disagree with him are disinfo agents, so everything they say must be wring, so he's simple not seen this thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    If those patents 'prove' the existence of chemtrails, does this prove the existence of Santa Claus?
    http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5523741
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  32. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    It takes a special kind of skill to perform this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    They really don't agree at all on the start date. More recently, many of them have seen how many old photos of persistent contrails there are, and appearances in old movies, so they have amended the theory to say they started way back, and some also claim that the WW2 photos are fake and that trails have been "inserted" into old movies.
     
  34. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    New member here. I'm surprised that in all my years as a patent attorney, I've never seen that childbirth centrifuge patent before. This site is priceless! I'm looking forward to getting the time to read more :)
    I recently had to explain to a family member why a patent issued to the USDA for aluminum-resistant GM plants didn't necessarily mean that the government is spraying its citizens with aluminum.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  35. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Great: "years as a patent attorney"...that's a wonderful area of expertise to add to this interesting collection of...uh...um...

    I never thought much about patents until I joined this site...it never occurred to me that anyone would reason:
    "I bet these billionaire, genius world manipulators with their sophisticated, ultra-secret plans for world domination...
    are filing those super-secret evil plans in public, via patent applications...yeah...that's it!"


    BTW, I'm the gentleman born via "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force" (in post #6)
    --and you can barely tell, today. I also went to school in the Bay Area...love it...miss it. Mmmm...Beach Blanket Babylon.


    p.s. So far Buddy Ebsen & Jack Haley are the only two guys we've sprayed with aluminum...(and that was MGM, not the government)
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  36. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    Since no explanation was given on the purpose of the first patent on the list, I thought I would try to figure out what it was about. The US patent doesn't mention the intended use for the invention. My first thought was that maybe it was for special effects in the movie industry. But, I looked at the corresponding UK patent, and it mentions that it's for military use.

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...KC=A&FT=D&ND=1&date=19190605&DB=&locale=en_EP

    Makes sense. The patent was filed during the middle of WWI. And, titanium tetrachloride, the chemical used in the patent, is included in a list of chemicals used for making military smoke screens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. ronnygage

    ronnygage New Member

    As far as I can tell, the reason those early patents are included is that they are listed in the "citations" section of the later patents. That's all. So, for instance, a device that uses an electric heating element might reference the earlier electric water heater patent.
    http://www.patentlawyerusa.com/file-a-patent.php
     
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes that seems largely to be the case, although I think there's a few early aerial smoke screen and crop-dusting patents.

    I'm not sure what the photocopier patent was related to though. Maybe http://www.google.com/patents/US4633714 was referenced in some aerial spraying patent. That would make the photocopier patent doubly irrelevent.
     
  39. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    The photocopier patent may relate to the toner feed mechanism - helix or belt or whatever to feed the "chemicals" to the "nozzles".
     
  40. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    I am working on a reply to this comment in Rogue Valley Geoengineering Awareness. Have any of the patents he mentions been covered here?