What I have are a large number of papers which detail solutions to long-standing problems in a number of physical disciplines as well as many inventions. I decided to give my inventions away after discovering that under the U.S. patent system, a single patent costs $10,000. If an invention has military applications (many of my inventions do) the government can literally throw a person in jail simply because they sought patent protection. By driving people away from the option of obtaining patents through both probibitive costs and through legal threats, the government has rendered moot its own Invention Secrecy Act.This is a significant release and for much of the content, it is the first time it is being shared here, so it is likely new to the denizens, many of whom I understand are university students. I am sharing this because I want to put my work before researchers in a position to confirm the hypotheses and to prototype the devices. These really should have been sent to DARPA, but the "little people" out there like you and me "don't meet the eligibility requirements" to make submissions because we "are not business owners." The ingenuity of our ideas is not amongst the government's considerations; only the social class of the prospective proposer.The monograph deals with optics, computing, propulsion, remote metrology, precision navigation and timing, metallurgy, energy and medicine.Please feel free to pass the information along to any interested party.https://archive.org/details/Collection_of_Ideas_DARPA_Didnt_WantTechnical questions can be forwarded to the POC listed on the Internet Archive page.P.S. I have taken the liberty of sending this information to Saint Petersburg State University... two years ago.Have a nice day.
all these are very publishable, why didn't you try journal, also don't worry i will cite you
I read them, llm fluff
This whole toolkit is basically two tricks: use controlled interference (phase cancellation/coherence) to make weak signals pop out of noise, and use precise timing (often asynchronous/networked clocks) to infer geometry/identity without direct line-of-sight sensing. Everything else in the archive is mostly those two primitives wearing different application costumes, these are known tools in the field.It can be publishable if you turn it into a new unifying formalism + evidence: define one clean primitive (alignment residualization constraint-graph), state 1–2 theorems/claims (e.g., identifiability/SNR gain bounds), and run 2–3 concrete benchmarks against standard baselines.
>>16882959>If an invention has military applications (many of my inventions do) the government can literally throw a person in jail simply because they sought patent protection.That's not how it works. If it's a national sexurity question, us citizens can file a patent in the usa and the usa government will be paying royalities for that patent. They are not allowed to file abroad, disclosing this invention to other countries. If it's not a matter of a national secutiry, but something useful for the military, the us citizen can file it whenever he wants and will get royalties from the government for using that invention.So if you invent some weapon that can cause a mass distruction, no shit Sherlock you can't run your mouth around. Try posting a tutorial on making a heroin or a bomb. You will be jailed in any country.
>>16883218That's a hysterical typo by the way, but in any event, everything you just said is incorrect.There have been countless documented cases of the government preventing commercialization of novel inventions and paying literally zero. "Royalties" are not automatic. Businesses which want to manufacture patented product invented by another business or individual can do so without getting sued if they reach a civil agreement called a Royalty Agreement with the company.There is no legally codified financial compensation reflexive to the government's useage of intellectual property belonging to an inventor when secrecy is invoked. Invoking secrecy is an easy way for them to be able to build things without paying for whatever it is. Oftentimes, however, they don't even use whatever it is and the inventor is nonetheless prohibited from commercializing. In the cases in which the military does use something, the original inventor is never going to be able to make money from the idea because if the government assigns the development task to Hughes Research Laboratories, for example, they are going to have an insurmountable business advantage over someone who has never built the product before and who likely has no factory in which to build it.Some people have sued for financial compensation in response to ISA gagging orders, but there has not been a single documented case of anyone winning a penny.I would argue that anyone who has a plausibly useful idea who is told that he or she may not patent it, in effect, through the instigation of the $10,000 fee which is assessed by patent attorneys (Pro Se is cheaper but rejected 97% of the time) would have a cause of action against the government.
>>16882959>under the U.S. patent system, a single patent costs $10,000This isn't true.
Oh, and for anyone who thinks I am just throwing jargon around, I have received confirmation of plagiarism coming from a prestigious research institution, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden Rossendorf.I've been sharing my ideas with quite a large number of people, but I was surprised to find that HZDR had ripped off a fairly important paper. On December 16, 2025, HZDR's Dr. Ralf Schutzhold published a paper suggesting the radical notion that gravity waves affect light in a measurable way and that the inverse is also true: That the emission of light generates gravity ripples.https://www.hzdr.de/db/Cms?pNid=99&pOid=76137This is an incredibly important insight. Unfortunately for HZDR, it isn't truly original. I have been suggesting exactly this since as early as 2011 and it comes up repeatedly in my writing which, I JUST SO HAPPENED TO FORWARD TO HZDR IN MARCH OF 2025.Although Bernd Schroeder never got back to me, he was the only person from HZDR I ever contacted about this. He works in their Media Relations department. Exactly nine months later, Dr. Schutzhold published information which was dismissed as insane by American research institutions for many years and which could only have come from my monograph.Judge for yourself what is really going on here.
>>16884725>for yourselfYou published to /sci/ first, I will not entertain alternate claims.
What exactly is unique about this
