This patent of Steve Marks never got attention

Qwert · June 03, 2013, 03:24:27 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on May 31, 2013, 06:57:42 PM
As I said, his name is "Steven Mark". Do your homework and stop spreading disinformation about Steven Mark and his TPU.

Well, despite of proper info (or lack of dis-info), nobody yet was successful in replication; so, maybe disinformation will help...

poynt99 · June 03, 2013, 05:36:54 PM

Quote from: Qwert on June 03, 2013, 03:24:27 PM
Well, despite of proper info (or lack of dis-info), nobody yet was successful in replication; so, maybe disinformation will help...

Sure. It will help to confuse more people, that's about all.

Qwert · June 03, 2013, 09:32:05 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on June 03, 2013, 05:36:54 PM
Sure. It will help to confuse more people, that's about all.

If this forum is for closed-minded replicators rather than open-minded inventors, you are proper promoter here. I am studying this patent right now and I highly recommend to do that for open-minded guys.

poynt99 · June 03, 2013, 09:46:39 PM

Quote from: Qwert on June 03, 2013, 09:32:05 PM
If this forum is for closed-minded replicators rather than open-minded inventors, you are proper promoter here. I am studying this patent right now and I highly recommend to do that for open-minded guys.

Go for it. Many of us have been down that road 4 years ago. You may as well investigate cold fusion for how far off that Steve Marks patent is, along with a string of others that might look familiar.

You'd probably learn more about the TPU from SM's Spatial Enhancement patent.

As I said Qwert, do your homework.

Qwert · June 04, 2013, 02:19:52 AM

Quote from: poynt99 on June 03, 2013, 09:46:39 PM

As I said Qwert, do your homework.

I put this patent here because:
1. The name of one of the inventors closely resembles the SM name.
2. The shape and size of the invention closely resembles the contraption presented on some original videos about the TPU.
3. Some descriptions of behavior of the TPU presented on that video (rotating magnetic field) resembles that one in that patent.
4. The dates of the video and date of issuing the patent match pretty closely.
5. Despite all of the above, this patent went unnoticed, though it was presented here long time ago.
I can't find any other patent which would resemble TPU as close as this one. Yet this patent IS NOT the TPU. It is possible however, that some principles of this patent were used in TPU or vice-versa: some principles of TPU were used in this patent.
This is my homework.

If you need to be exact in your research, mr. Poynt, that patent you give for an example is issued for Steven D. Mark, not Steven Mark as Prof. Roland Schinzinger and others suggest. Now, which one is the real one: Steve Marks or Steven D. Mark? Or, both patents should be disregarded?