-
#520 by Rodal on 24 Mar, 2016 13:55
-
Having worked as VP R&D for a large multinational company, and having been involved with many lawyers in the Intellectual Property department, including intellectual property lawsuits, I fully agree with WallofWolfStreet that, to my knowledge:Quote
there is no such thing as an NDA that lets you show the device, lets you tell the audience how you think the device works, lets you show what the device would do if it worked, but then not just turn it on and show it working.
Not just showing the device, but also showing the specific lab environment where the device is developed and tested (thereby showing the testing equipment and associated instruments) is usually a no-no as well for Non-Disclosure-Agreement (NDA) purposes, for obvious reasons (as we can tell readily in this thread by users trying to ascertain dimensions from looking at the pictures, the amplifier manufacturer, the testing device, even whether something in the ceiling is a fan or a winch, and other details one can gather from looking at these pictures). Showing the device and the lab to anybody not involved with the project and covered by the NDA is already a no-no. Allowing the device and the lab to be filmed and shown on a BBC program for everybody in the world to see and dissect would be very much against the NDA's I have been familiar with.
Out of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting to know the intellectual property justification behind such an unusual NDA that would allow all of this to be shown in a BBC program while specifically precluding showing that the device works.
Trade secrets have an advantage over patents that trade secrets (while being kept secret of course) have an infinite lifetime. Under trade secret intellectual property protection one usually has the opposite of what is being discussed:
* the fact that something works is not kept secret: everybody knows that something "works"
* but the actual technology that allows it to work is kept secret
-
#521 by rfmwguy on 24 Mar, 2016 14:44
-
Rodal, the sole reason to write is for clarification of, as you say, an incorrect statement made by a global science writer elsewhere. You clarified that you are working on a non-emdrive project (which you are not sharing here) and no one takes issue with that as far as I know. Its fully on-topic since another poster brought it to our attention, you clarified it and could possible share your experience with NDAs....Its difficult to judge given the typical industrial and/or military secrecy that floats about the planet. Rodal is invoking his privilege either personally or otherwise and we just have to accept that. Only a few of us are openly sharing what we're doing. We are the exception, not the rule.
Again, I am not building an EM Drive (a completely closed metallic cavity). Anything else I or others may be doing is off-topic for this thread titled <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>.
The statement <<Rodal is invoking his privilege either personally or otherwise and we just have to accept that. Only a few of us are openly sharing what we're doing. We are the exception, not the rule.>> is a non-sequitur, since it would be off-topic to discuss non-EM drive related subjects on this thread. You might as well also write:
<<"Chris Bergin" [substitute any other name here] is invoking his privilege either personally or otherwise for not writing in this EM Drive thread about Chris's non-EM Drive related activities.>>
No reason for writing about me doing non-EM-Drive related things on the EM Drive thread. Other NSF users are discussing other propellant-less projects in other NSF threads, for example Zen-In has a separate NSF thread on his interesting propellant-less space drive, patented invention US PTO 8575790, including building it, and his experiments:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39204.0
that readers interested in other propellant-less space drive concepts are well-served to read.
I've had a few NDAs in my day as well. They are all different and its not easy to categorize them as all-encompassing or permanent. Each is unique and each can allow for discussions outside of a specific product, design or technology. Depending on the language, an example could be a different frequency, material, size, mechanical configuration or any number of other distinct variations. An inventor NDA-ing an overall concept is ill advised. Also I've never seen an NDA that limits photographs of an inventor's test facility.
Seldom, in my humble opinion, is a overall concept protected by an NDA, it must be far more specific. None of us know shawyers limits or language on anything he might even have. All is pure speculation. In fact, the possession of an NDA itself often should not be divulged in most cases.
Since we're speculating here, I speculate that this first documentary from a reasonably reliable source (BBC) containing EMDrive will hasten the discussion, research and experimentation. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. -
#522 by Rodal on 24 Mar, 2016 14:49
-
... the sole reason to write is for clarification of, as you say, an incorrect statement made by a global science writer elsewhere. You clarified that you are working on a non-emdrive project (which you are not sharing here) and no one takes issue with that as far as I know....
Having already personally clarified it personally by me prior to your post, there is no reason for you to bring up my name again in this incorrect and off-topic context. -
#523 by SeeShells on 24 Mar, 2016 14:52
-
Having worked as VP R&D for a large multinational company, and having been involved with many lawyers in the Intellectual Property department, including intellectual property lawsuits, I fully agree with WallofWolfStreet that, to my knowledge:
Quotethere is no such thing as an NDA that lets you show the device, lets you tell the audience how you think the device works, lets you show what the device would do if it worked, but then not just turn it on and show it working.
Not just showing the device, but also showing the specific lab environment where the device is developed and tested (thereby showing the testing equipment and associated instruments) is usually a no-no as well for Non-Disclosure-Agreement (NDA) purposes, for obvious reasons (as we can tell readily in this thread by users trying to ascertain dimensions from looking at the pictures, the amplifier manufacturer, the testing device, even whether something in the ceiling is a fan or a winch, and other details one can gather from looking at these pictures). Showing the device and the lab to anybody not involved with the project and covered by the NDA is already a no-no. Allowing the device and the lab to be filmed and shown on a BBC program for everybody in the world to see and dissect would be very much against the NDA's I have been familiar with.
Out of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting to know the intellectual property justification behind such an unusual NDA that would allow all of this to be shown in a BBC program while specifically precluding showing that the device works.
And really it doesn't even need to be a NDA for him not to show. How his actions are structured would depend on if it's with a corporation or a governmental agency. I've seen some pretty unusual requests from governments over the years. Just saying. I've sold machines to black operations just to end up seeing it listed in procurement data. Go figure.
This may not mean anything but...
Looking at a couple of other things in the video and knowing engineers ability to collect "stuff". I was struck at just how spartan his lab was, equipment that is critically needed to even test a EMDrive. There are so many things just didn't fit right in this video. So many questions that are unanswered that could have been.
Shell -
#524 by RERT on 24 Mar, 2016 14:56
-
The pictures didn't show Shawyer surreptitiously pushing an EMdrive which was purported to be working, it showed him obviously and deliberately pushing the thing up the air-track. Absolutely no claim at all was made that that clip showed the device working. Aside from anything else, to do so would have made liars out most of the program contributors.
What we saw was just some footage concocted to liven up shots of soundbites from an old guy. Like, we all gained some understanding by watching the physicist play boules in the desert, right?
What we saw neither confirms nor denies anything.
I think it's a bit fanciful to mull over what an NDA would/would not allow him to show: this is taken to be defense secrecy not SEC rules. To my knowledge no-one has as yet discussed any financial investors in SPR.
It's surprising at first that he would be allowed to participate at all if his later work is not allowed to be shown. However, given the earlier newsflow and the fact that the program was going ahead anyway, it may make some sense by way of damage limitation.
R.
-
#525 by rfmwguy on 24 Mar, 2016 15:00
-
Except that if you choose to help the readership understand the intricacies of NDAs, which I believe you have done. By now, you probably have sensed what shawyer and others might have gone through regarding speculation, criticism and inquiry. It can be annoying.... the sole reason to write is for clarification of, as you say, an incorrect statement made by a global science writer elsewhere. You clarified that you are working on a non-emdrive project (which you are not sharing here) and no one takes issue with that as far as I know....
Having already clarified it previously, there is no reason as to why to keep bringing up my name up in this incorrect and off-topic context.
-
#526 by Rodal on 24 Mar, 2016 15:04
-
Having worked as VP R&D for a large multinational company, and having been involved with many lawyers in the Intellectual Property department, including intellectual property lawsuits, I fully agree with WallofWolfStreet that, to my knowledge:
Quotethere is no such thing as an NDA that lets you show the device, lets you tell the audience how you think the device works, lets you show what the device would do if it worked, but then not just turn it on and show it working.
Not just showing the device, but also showing the specific lab environment where the device is developed and tested (thereby showing the testing equipment and associated instruments) is usually a no-no as well for Non-Disclosure-Agreement (NDA) purposes, for obvious reasons (as we can tell readily in this thread by users trying to ascertain dimensions from looking at the pictures, the amplifier manufacturer, the testing device, even whether something in the ceiling is a fan or a winch, and other details one can gather from looking at these pictures). Showing the device and the lab to anybody not involved with the project and covered by the NDA is already a no-no. Allowing the device and the lab to be filmed and shown on a BBC program for everybody in the world to see and dissect would be very much against the NDA's I have been familiar with.
Out of intellectual curiosity, it would be interesting to know the intellectual property justification behind such an unusual NDA that would allow all of this to be shown in a BBC program while specifically precluding showing that the device works.
And really it doesn't even need to be a NDA for him not to show. How his actions are structured would depend on if it's with a corporation or a governmental agency. I've seen some pretty unusual requests from governments over the years. Just saying. I've sold machines to black operations just to end up seeing it listed in procurement data. Go figure.
This may not mean anything but...
Looking at a couple of other things in the video and knowing engineers ability to collect "stuff". I was struck at just how spartan his lab was, equipment that is critically needed to even test a EMDrive. There are so many things just didn't fit right in this video. So many questions that are unanswered that could have been.
Shell
OK, this is an interesting discussion for people like me interested in intellectual property issues. As I said:
Trade secrets have an advantage over patents that trade secrets (while being kept secret of course) have an infinite lifetime. Under trade secret intellectual property protection one usually has the opposite of what is being discussed:
* the fact that something works is not kept secret: everybody knows that something "works"
* but the actual technology that allows it to work is kept secret
________
Now, there is another contradictory issue here: the fact that Shawyer has already obtained PATENTS.
The whole exercise (in time and money) of getting patent protection strongly argues against any intellectual property restricting to show that something works, while allowing to show why it works and what makes it work.
Patents have a finite lifetime: 20 years.
Some Shawyer patents have already expired.
The financial value of a patent exponentially decreases with time: as the life of a patent decreases with time.
The patent lifetime clock keeps on ticking: tick tack tick tack
Thus, in order to maximize the financial value of a patent, one normally does the opposite: one wants to show that something works, so that one can either sell the working units or otherwise sell the patents (and perhaps the company) to interested parties.
All entrepreneurs know this, as patents is just about the most valuable thing to own for a small company that does not yet have sales. Entrepreneurs know that investors in a technology company and the whole financial structure of a small technology company is geared towards having sales of product as soon as possible.
BOTTOM LINE: I have yet to see any coherent reason why Shawyer would have a BBC program, showing his device and his lab, and yet not want to show his device working. -
#527 by wallofwolfstreet on 24 Mar, 2016 15:10
-
To my knowledge no-one has as yet discussed any financial investors in SPR.
I've actually discussed this at length. You can look into my comment history just a few comments back and you will see it. -
#528 by RotoSequence on 24 Mar, 2016 15:14
-
From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
-
#529 by rfmwguy on 24 Mar, 2016 15:20
-
From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
I'll be watching it tonight, could you give me a basic summary as to why? -
#530 by Rodal on 24 Mar, 2016 15:28
-
...Except that if you choose to help the readership understand the intricacies of NDAs, which I believe you have done. By now, you probably have sensed what shawyer and others might have gone through regarding speculation, criticism and inquiry. It can be annoying.
Off the mark. Shawyer has just had a BBC program showing the whole world his lab and his EM Drive device, as well as a website and numerous reports through the years on what he is working on. Shawyer is the inventor of the EM Drive, which is the subject of this thread.
For the last time: please don't bring up my name in this thread regarding anything I may be working on that is not the EM Drive. Doing so is 1) off-topic, 2) improper as I have repeatedly and explicitly asked you not to do so. You might as well bring up the name of Chris Bergin [substitute any other name here] regarding what Chris or anybody else may be working on that is unrelated to the EM Drive. -
#531 by RotoSequence on 24 Mar, 2016 15:32
-
From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
I'll be watching it tonight, could you give me a basic summary as to why?
Charitably speaking, the science content was light, much of the footage that accompanied the narration was trite, and each and every effort explored follows the same pattern of yanking the viewer's chain. "This would be so great if it worked. We explored this idea, and here's the tantalizing thought about what it might be" before saying, in a sort of narrative footnote that it doesn't actually work. The whole narrative of Project Greenglow is built on the angle of pursuing a dream, while establishing that the entire field has no sense of credibility. -
#532 by tchernik on 24 Mar, 2016 15:33
-
From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
Not my feeling. I agree the presentation of the Emdrive done by Mr. Shawyer wasn't very good, because he is seen pushing it over the air cushioned track with his own hands. That was worse in terms of PR than not showing it working at all. He should have avoided it or explain that he is testing it over an air cushioned track, because well, this was his chance to make this known to a broader public than his regular bunch of Internet followers (including me).
However the words of Dr. Tajmar had the feeling of being overall positive about it, even if his papers themselves are much more cautious. That part I liked. -
#533 by Rodal on 24 Mar, 2016 15:36
-
Can't argue with that, but it was nice to see Tajmar and Shawyer in their working envinronments.From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
I'll be watching it tonight, could you give me a basic summary as to why?
Charitably speaking, the science content was light, much of the footage that accompanied the narration was trite, and each and every effort explored follows the same pattern of yanking the viewer's chain. "This would be so great if it worked. We explored this idea, and here's the tantalizing thought about what it might be" before saying, in a sort of narrative footnote that it doesn't actually work. The whole narrative of Project Greenglow is built on the angle of pursuing a dream, while establishing that the entire field has no sense of credibility.
Would have preferred that more time would have been devoted to active participants like Tajmar and Shawyer and the project using quantum mechanics to sense gravitational fields and less time to presently inactive people, and people that were involved in projects that did not work out. -
#534 by Notsosureofit on 24 Mar, 2016 15:54
-
Still, Tajmar's comment that self-accelerating photon systems are accepted and demonstrated was interesting. But, he ascribed it to photons with negative mass rather than that the photon is its own antiparticle.
-
#535 by rfmwguy on 24 Mar, 2016 16:17
-
Looks as though they had to moderate it with "entertainment" and ditch the over-your-head science stuff so not to lose the average Joe watching it. I produced a direct-to-DVD documentary about the old west a few years back. While the participants were long dead, the re-enactors had to entertain AND provide historical facts. Its a fine line on entertainment and historical content...it all depends on the target audience. BBC is targeting a mass market with general science interest. Thanks for your summary...look forward to viewing it.From my perspective as a hopeful but cautions observer, EM Drive (along with most of the other efforts) came off looking ridiculous in the Project Greenglow program.
I'll be watching it tonight, could you give me a basic summary as to why?
Charitably speaking, the science content was light, much of the footage that accompanied the narration was trite, and each and every effort explored follows the same pattern of yanking the viewer's chain. "This would be so great if it worked. We explored this idea, and here's the tantalizing thought about what it might be" before saying, in a sort of narrative footnote that it doesn't actually work. The whole narrative of Project Greenglow is built on the angle of pursuing a dream, while establishing that the entire field has no sense of credibility. -
#536 by SeeShells on 24 Mar, 2016 16:40
-
The pictures didn't show Shawyer surreptitiously pushing an EMdrive which was purported to be working, it showed him obviously and deliberately pushing the thing up the air-track. Absolutely no claim at all was made that that clip showed the device working. Aside from anything else, to do so would have made liars out most of the program contributors.
What we saw was just some footage concocted to liven up shots of soundbites from an old guy. Like, we all gained some understanding by watching the physicist play boules in the desert, right?
What we saw neither confirms nor denies anything.
I think it's a bit fanciful to mull over what an NDA would/would not allow him to show: this is taken to be defense secrecy not SEC rules. To my knowledge no-one has as yet discussed any financial investors in SPR.
It's surprising at first that he would be allowed to participate at all if his later work is not allowed to be shown. However, given the earlier newsflow and the fact that the program was going ahead anyway, it may make some sense by way of damage limitation.
R.
I found it interesting that anything he showed was off the shelf common equipment.
Shell -
#537 by knowles2 on 24 Mar, 2016 16:44
-
The pictures didn't show Shawyer surreptitiously pushing an EMdrive which was purported to be working, it showed him obviously and deliberately pushing the thing up the air-track. Absolutely no claim at all was made that that clip showed the device working. Aside from anything else, to do so would have made liars out most of the program contributors.
Actually all the shareholders information is here
What we saw was just some footage concocted to liven up shots of soundbites from an old guy. Like, we all gained some understanding by watching the physicist play boules in the desert, right?
What we saw neither confirms nor denies anything.
I think it's a bit fanciful to mull over what an NDA would/would not allow him to show: this is taken to be defense secrecy not SEC rules. To my knowledge no-one has as yet discussed any financial investors in SPR.
It's surprising at first that he would be allowed to participate at all if his later work is not allowed to be shown. However, given the earlier newsflow and the fact that the program was going ahead anyway, it may make some sense by way of damage limitation.
R.
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/04097991/SATELLITE-PROPULSION-RESEARCH-LIMITED/group-structure
Also found this document,
http://ind-tech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Investment-Memorandum-final.pdf
More interestingly there seem to be no one helping Sawyer develop this engine in the lab. He an old bloke, I don't think it reasonable for him to still be working alone on this project if he planning on scaling it up any time soon.
As to the documentary, the thing that disappointed me the most was that there wasn't more information on project Greenglow, a project that seem to ran for at least a decade and apparently all it did was Sawyer research and they didn't even have the funds to recreate the Russians research, seem strange to me that BAE Systems would let a project run for that long with nothing to show for it. -
#538 by Monomorphic on 24 Mar, 2016 16:53
-
Able to get TE013 at 2.44889Ghz using Shawyer's flare-shape geometry, but with different dimensions. Units are in cm. It's about twice the size as the c-band unit shown on BBC.
-
#539 by SeeShells on 24 Mar, 2016 17:01
-
Able to get TE013 at 2.44889Ghz using Shawyer's flare-shape geometry, but with different dimensions. Units are in cm. It's about twice the size as the c-band unit shown on BBC.
It looks about the size of the unit on the bench in the background. Interesting.
