Breakthrough Invisibility Cloak & Absorber Technologies Receive Patents

My pleasure OM!

 

Yue...

RE: the 2012 PIFA article: What a JOKE!

Accusing me of "language abuse" . That's a new one!

Your PIFA article(provided) is neither original nor accurate. First, because fractal PIFA's have been around since 1997--I built a LEO fractal PIFA for USArmy CECOM under a SBIR, and the first commercially available fractal PIFA was installed on Indy racing cars in 2002. Go look up the patents on fractal loads; counterpoises, etc.

Those who take more than 5 minutes to think about it understand that the term 'FRACTAL ANTENNA' was--defined-- in the original (Cohen) patent application, as two or more iterations of a motif. Go look.

This was explicitly defined--FROM THE GITGO--to prevent the issue of whether a 'fractal antenna' meant an infinite number of iterations. It does NOT. That is not acheivable.

My colleague Benoit Mandelbrot was NOT happy when people abused his descriptions. For example, in MATHEMATICS he understood that the 'infinite iterations' applied. But in NATURE--and he wrote the now famous book on it-- he ASSERTED that 'fractal' applied to finite iterations.

You can't have a book called "THE FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NATURE" if fractal means infinity. Why? Because the universe itself is F-I-N-I-T-E. All the natural FRACTAL examples in the book show a finite number of iterations.

Benoit got so sick of the abused term 'fractal' (by others) that he sought to use the more general term of 'roughness'.

Inventors have an obligation to teach the art, and that includes either citing, or defining relevant terms. This is exactly what I did in the first patent application, and that was mirrored in the 1995 Comm Quart article.

There was no ambiguity on the definition of what constitutes a 'fractal antenna'. It invokes 'finite iterations', unless someone failed to define or invoke the term (and cite it).

If you want to debate that issue, at least don't cite an article that accuses me of "language abuse". Its in really bad taste to say that when that person originated it and defined it.

But hey! I 'm 'just a ham'---the 'Invisible ham'--wadda I know! It takes them thar per-fesshunells to repeat the work of others, pose it as new, and then accuse thet thar ham an-tan-na persun of "langedge ay-buse'.

Still waiting for your translation on 42:15. C'mon 'fess up.



73
Chip W1YW

-------------------------------------------------
The future...I snow!

 

Yue,

Here's that snapshot at 42:15 or so. We all want to learn about this so-called 'supermaterial discovery from PRC scientists'.




I think some of us want to know why this is not attributed as an AMERICAN invention--and we'd all like to know HOW PRC obtained that information before it went public in AMERICA.


The INVENTOR did NOT provide that to PRC scientists. The INVENTOR did NOT authorize PRC to use the invention on PRC stealth bombers, now apparently practicing runs to bomb AMERICA.

Can you kindly help us understand this unacceptable 'procurement' and unacceptable 'application' ?

Yue, why do we not see appropriate references to 'Nathan Cohen' in the PRC publications? What is the origin of the term 'Minkowski fractal loop'? Can those PRC scientists instruct me on the provenance of these inventions and terms?

73
Chip W1YW

 

Fine Business, Chip, very impressive!!! Congratulations !!!

 

Chip
Thank you for your efforts.
73
Dennis

 

The url posted has the last character (s) cut off. Try this one or add an s to the end.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...bombers-warplanes-training-strikes-against-us

 

H-20 with PRC 'supermaterials'.....

Is it just me or is this sounding like the PRC version of 'Star Wars'....

Notice the 'supermaterials' shown are conformal skins for X band and Ku radar (alleged) low visibility....that's my educated speculation.

Hey...wadda I know...I'm just a H-A-M.

QUACK! I ain't the sitting duck....

----------------------------------------
The future...I snow!

 

That W1YW is one high powered Chip!

Now we need just the opposite invention: one that makes you look like you're at work, when you're not.

 

I was issued laser protective goggles for flying in the navy back in the late 80's after an intelligence officer was partially blinded by a laser from a Soviet intelligence trawler. Laser protective visors are available for flight helmets. Laser goggles are available from scientific laboratory suppliers.

The airlines just need to make the decision to incorporate usage into cockpit landing procedures.

 

part 2

Sorry for my bad English, and everyone's time.

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

US patent 10,030,917 which can be found under this link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm


The operation mechanism of 10,030,917 is something completely different to the structure proposed in the “another PRC paper” (attachment 2).


The 10,030,917 described a low loss periodic structure that take EM wave and allow it to travel along the surface or so called Fractal Plasmonic Surface (FPS) without have large attenuation until: 1- surface wave re-emitted into free space or, 2- the surface wave reach the “wide band absorber” located along the surface boundary.


Note the cylinder structure is designed mainly to redirect the encounter EM wave rather than absorb it. In the other hand, the Planar structure has its lossy element only exists on part of the surface, primarily on the surface boundary that stops the uncontrollable emission due to the discontinuity of periodic surface pattern.


The author of 10,030,917 included an unclear claim in the most end of the patent file: “2. The system of claim 1, wherein the FPS incorporates a resistive layer.” I assume the author able to claim the resistive layer can be (optional) cover the whole area of the structure without making this patent hit the wall.


Over all 10,030,917 apply to a structure such, significant traveling wave exist on the structure surface.



The structure proposed in accused paper namely “another PRC paper” (see attachment 2) is base on the space impedance matching method proposed in this paper:

< perfect metamaterial absorber, Landy N I, Sajuyigbe S, Mock J J, Smith D R and Padilla W J 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 1002074021 > (attachment 1).

The structures in this case, “receive” the encounter EM wave and immediately absorb the energy locally with a (uniformly distributed) lossy layer under the (wide band) surface pattern.


Over all there is no significant traveling wave exist on the surface. The encounter EM energy is absorbed locally. Further, in such case, a periodic surface pattern is not mandatory if, a good space impedance matching can be satisfied with each sub surface pattern


In conclusion, different technology are applied to the structures between 10,030,917 and accused paper. The low loss structure in 10,030,917 did refract the encounter wave and allow it to pass, and the lossy structure in accused paper eliminates the encounter wave by total absorption. The accusation to the paper in attachments 2 and similar publications cannot be validated base on the contain of US patent 10,030,917 and related patents.

 

Finally--

PROGRESS!

Notice there is no attempt to DENY the RIPOFF of the AMERICAN technology, but a handwaving and bogus attempt to claim the 'technology' is different because of an assertion that the 'mechanism' is different.

This will be FUN! I will break this in many parts that are publicly available.

First, patents are defined by the CLAIMS. In post #5 we already have the list of the CLAIMS for 10,030,917. Your invoking of a CYLINDER has nothing to do with these CLAIMS, other than a CYLINDER arrangement is ONE EMBODIMENT of an application of the CLAIMS. Want proof that the CLAIMS support a description that is NOT a cylinder? Here's Figure from the patent 10,030,917.

There is NO CYLINDER REQUIRED (see RED from your post). Got it? The Figure 6 --FROM THE PATENT--shows a PLANAR surface, as one EMBODIMENT. Also, look at Figure 1 from the patent. No cylinder shown.


I will let you 'absorb' this and then post for another disqualification of your explanation.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Addressing more of your comments (in RED).

First patents do not have AUTHORS. Patents have INVENTORS. Please educate yourself on the distinction.

Next, unclear claims are claims that don't get allowed--- because they fail to 'claim' the subject matter, and instruct on the invention. There is razor sharp clarity on what these claims mean. They are 'plain language' and direct. Let's explore.....

So here, as prior shown in post #5, are claims 1 (independent) and claim 2 (dependent):

1. A plasmonically-coupled resonator system, the system comprising:

a plurality of close-packed fractal cells disposed on a supporting surface, wherein each fractal cell includes a shape at least a portion of which is defined by a second iteration or greater fractal, said shape then defining an electrical resonator;
wherein the plurality of fractal cells are positioned sufficiently close to one another to support plasmonic transfer of energy between the fractal cells;
wherein the plurality of fractal cells are configured as a fractal plasmonic surface (FPS), wherein the FPS is operative to dissipate power from one location on the FPS across the surface area of the FPS, and wherein the dissipation is through absorption over a wide band of electromagnetic frequencies.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the FPS incorporates a resistive layer.

CLAIM 1 clearly states that the system need "support transfer ....between the cells". This does not , as you may hope it says but doesn't, mean the dissipation REQUIRES a transfer to ALL THE CELLS ON THE SURFACE. It just means that the system MUST be capable of an evanescent mechanism.

Can the individual CELLS also "dissipate.... energy"? The matter is irrelevant, because as long as the SYSTEM "SUPPORTS transfer ..." it is novel and protected by the patent.

It is obvious to anyone skilled in the art that ALL resonators, themselves, dissipate energy, irrespective of EM radiative emissions, because ALL RESONATORS have at least some degree of ohmic loss.

No ONE can patent that which is already known: resonators have loss.

But, its important to note that: If these resonators are placed close to each other, you cannot AVOID evanescent transmission.

CLAIM 2 is the dependent claim. It encompasses a more specific example where the losses are ENHANCED through a resistive layer.

CLAIM 1 is BROAD.

CLAIM 2 is more SPECIFIC.

You seem to be under the impression that it is possible to get a close spaced arrangement of fractal resonators--that will NOT have evanescent transmission and thus , when used as absorbers, each individually--and solely-- accomplish that task. Please CITE A REFERENCE where you can show this. I am well familiar with your second reference. It does NOT support that explanation.

You won't find one because it does not exist. But I can prove otherwise---that such an arrangement WILL produce an evanescent wave and thus "SUPPORT...transfer...".

Let's see your reference first though....

73
Chip W1YW

 

Several of you have asked exactly where the PRC is using these fractal surfaces. I have no inside knowledge. My educated speculation is based on what I see, from the references already available and posted on this thread.

WHAT IS BEING MADE:
The Chinese (PRC) video shows several types of 'supermaterials' being fabricated en masse. These include, but are not limited to, the fractal stuff which has been RIPPED OFF and shown at 42:15.

WHY DOES IT LOOK THE WAY IT DOES?
The supermaterials are shown fabricated as panels of finite size, with resonators designed to work (based on scaling of the images) moderate to low Q at X band and Ku band. These are bands that are used extensively, apparently, in Asia and the Pacific for military purposes. IOW, these panels are thin, conformal, and PIECE TOGETHER to form skins on military apparatus--presumably jets, missiles, vessels, etc--to thwart these military radar. Their thicknesses and structures tell how they are used. They are STEALTH SKINS.

WHY AREN'T THESE COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS?
No one would fab things in panels like that unless they were trying to stitch them together like a puzzle. A jet, for example.

AREN'T THERE BETTER WAYS TO DO STEALTH?
This is, IMO, probably the cheapest. The skins can later be removed and retrofited with, IMO, little downtime.

AREN'T ANGLE-BASED REFLECTORS BETTER FOR STEALTH?
This technology is why the new generation of vessels look so weird. Radar reflections bounce off at angles far away from the reflection angles of radar. Yes, this works well, unless there is a bistatic system that sees those off-angle reflections.

CAN YOU DO BOTH?
Yes.

WHAT IS AMERICA DOING ON STEALTH?
Search me. I'm just a H-A-M. We have LOTS of very smart HAMS in the USA. The US has never divulged capabilities, that I am aware. But hey--what duz a HAM know?

WHY IS PRC SHOWING THIS?
Who knows? If history is a guide, we know that the US offered to blow up the atomic bomb offshore first, but the Emperor's people apparently ignored it. Maybe the PLA is trying to show capability to leverage a compromise on land/sea grabs. Look at the Spratley islands....

DO YOU THINK THE VIDEO WILL BE REMOVED?
Yep. Copy it.

SHOULD THE WORLD WORRY ABOUT THIS?
When people THINK they have an edge, they use it. That would be very ,very destructive and, IMO, not achieve anybodys' objectives.

ANY FOOD FOR THOUGHT?
Great nations take great risks. Peace is the riskiest, but most rewarding.

OTHER THOUGHTS?
If a lil' ol' HAM can figure this out, its probably wise to assume that thousands of other stateside people are aware of it and planned accordingly. That's my speculation.

RIPOFF IS A VERY SERIOUS ACCUSATION
Yep. Assume no such thing as privacy from foreign eyes.

 

Hmmmm... interesting below: Obviously some others saw what I saw...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...now-you-dont-china-tests-stealth-invisibility

 

Refraction invokes differentional indices of refraction, AND curvature. IF REFRACTION was the mechanism afoot here--that is "10,030,917 and related patents" -- then cloaking SHOULD NEVER WORK WITH A PLANAR SURFACE because of an ABSENCE OF CURVATURE on the planar surface.

Yue, I gave a public demo of a planar invisibility cloak at the Electronics Design Innovation Conference in 2016. Hundreds of people saw it.

They saw CLOAKING OF A PLANAR SURFACE. By evanescent surface waves. NOT REFRACTION.

So that lots more people could see that demo, we also produced and publicly posted a superb video that clinches the matter, That is, evanescent surface waves. NOT refraction. Many folks here have already seen this. Here it is:



You are simply wrong about the physics of what is happening, and claiming that the SAME physical device--a fractal cloak, or fractal absorber-- is "two different technologies" ( absorbing at resonator versus refraction) is simply bogus. Its an invalid and an EMBARRASSING excuse to try to justify the RIPOFF and outrageous application of American innovation.

PRC has clearly ripped off Smith's group at Duke--by being there physically--and (some) of my work --by monitoring (ILLEGALLY) my emails.

It is NOT INDEPENDENT DISCOVERY invoking different MECHANISMS.

The real question, Yue, is why PRC wants to use the STOLEN technologies.

WHAT IS THE INTENT, YUE?

To many people, it looks like an attempt at asymmetric warfare. On the offense.

Again, PLEASE TRANSLATE THE VOICE OVER ON THE PRC VIDEO ON AND AROUND 42:15.

73
Chip W1YW