F03H99/00 — Reactionless Drives

The device claims to produce sustained levitation force using only spinning charged disks in Earth's magnetic field. This violates energy conservation because the magnetic force does no work, and the system's internal rotational energy would be depleted without continuous external input to overcome losses, making it a perpetual motion machine.

The patent describes a perpetual motion machine that incorrectly assumes virtual particles are real objects that can be mechanically manipulated to extract unlimited energy from empty space. It violates energy conservation and fundamental principles of quantum field theory and thermodynamics.

The patent describes a device that claims to use a small input to extract and amplify ambient energy, feeding it back to become self-sustaining and produce excess output. This constitutes a classic over-unity claim that violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) by asserting a net energy output greater than the total energy input from all identifiable sources.

The patent describes a device that claims to extract ambient environmental energy and then 'amplify' it through cascading stages to produce more usable energy than is supplied, violating energy conservation. The description is vague, uses obfuscated technical language, and implies a mechanism for generating net work from an isothermal environment, which is thermodynamically impossible.

The patent describes a system where 'moist air' and 'dry air' units interact to produce energy that cascades and multiplies, powering subsequent units. This is a classic perpetual motion claim, as it lacks a clear primary energy source and suggests energy output greater than input, violating the first law of thermodynamics. The use of humidity-related terms obscures the lack of a valid thermodynamic cycle with a true gradient (like a concentration cell) that could perform work.

The patent describes a system where an electrical input creates fluid cavitation, which is then claimed to generate more electrical energy than was input. This constitutes a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, violating energy conservation, as no adequate external energy source (like a significant thermal gradient) is identified to justify a net energy gain.

This patent describes a 'membrane ion engine' that claims to produce thrust by dissociating and accelerating hydrogen protons, but fails to account for the substantial energy required for dissociation, acceleration, and maintaining superconductivity. The description of 'superconducting inductive energy accumulators' as energy sources without an external charging mechanism suggests a perpetual motion violation.

The device claims to create gas flow by establishing a temperature gradient between internal layers, but fails to account for the energy required to create and maintain that gradient against ambient equilibrium. This constitutes a classic 'self-powered' heat engine that attempts to extract work from a single heat reservoir, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The device is fundamentally a heat engine using compressed gas. The patent fails to account for the significant energy required to compress the air or liquefy the gas initially. Adding heat to this pressurized fluid to drive a turbine cannot produce net useful work exceeding the total energy input (compression + heat), violating the First and Second Laws if such claims are implied.

The patent describes a hydrodynamic device claiming to generate more mechanical energy from a turbine than is required to drive the pump, violating conservation of energy. It suggests 'frictionless force' and energy multiplication through flow redirection and vortex chambers without identifying any external energy source to account for the claimed excess energy output.

The device claims to generate 'additional energy' and 'frictionless force' by redirecting fluid flow within a closed system. This violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) as it suggests a net energy output greater than input, ignoring the energy required to establish the initial flow. The description fits a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

The patent describes a reactive motion engine where a gas is heated, expelled, cooled by radiation in space, and then recaptured and reheated multiple times in a series of chambers. This process violates conservation of energy, as reheating the same gas repeatedly requires continuous energy input not accounted for, and violates the second law by suggesting useful work can be extracted from a closed cycle that radiates waste heat to a cold sink and then magically recovers the gas at a useful pressure/temperature to repeat the process.

The claimed solid-state compressor appears to violate thermodynamics by suggesting gas can be compressed through controlled heating/cooling of internal layers alone, with no mechanism for net volume displacement or external work input to account for the compression energy. It resembles a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

This device is a variant of a 'blower-driven vehicle' or 'ducted fan car,' a classic physics fallacy. The electrical motor powers a fan/compressor to move air from the front to the rear of the device. While this creates internal airflow and local pressure variations, it cannot generate net thrust to propel the vehicle forward because all forces are internal to the vehicle-air system. It is analogous to sitting inside a car and pushing on the dashboard; you cannot move the car.

The patent describes a self-powering device that uses a small control input to extract energy from an ambient 'energy medium' to power itself and produce excess output. This violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) by claiming more energy out than is put in, and the second law by proposing to extract useful work from what appears to be a single thermal reservoir at equilibrium.

The patent describes a motor that uses a single power source to drive a rotating body, then claims this setup generates additional 'motive power' through shaft interactions and torque management without identifying any external energy source. This constitutes a perpetual motion claim of the first kind, violating energy conservation.

The device is a sealed system with an internal working fluid. Internal aerodynamic forces between blades and the fluid are action-reaction pairs that cancel out within the system, producing zero net thrust on the housing. To sustain fluid flow against friction requires continuous external energy input, which is not properly accounted for.

This patent describes a propulsion device using charged particles but fails to specify the energy source for charging and accelerating them. The claims imply particles can be recycled and re-accelerated without energy input, violating conservation of energy by suggesting continuous propulsion from electrostatic fields alone.

The device claims to generate propulsion and artificial gravity through internal electromagnetic configurations and to pump energy from the environment to create a 'free energy system.' This violates conservation of energy and momentum, as it proposes a closed system producing net thrust and energy without a legitimate external source or reaction.

The device is presented as fuel-less but actually consumes its own structure as reaction mass for annihilation, violating conservation of mass-energy. The core mechanism of focusing diffuse antiparticles and reflecting annihilation radiation for thrust misapplies physics concepts and is not physically viable.

The patent describes a device that uses a small input to create a fluid vortex, which is then allegedly amplified through multiple stages to produce useful work. This constitutes a perpetual motion claim, as it lacks any identifiable external energy source to account for the increased output, directly violating the first law of thermodynamics.

The patent describes a device intended to produce thrust by cyclically varying the inertial mass of an object using internal, time-varying energy fields. This directly violates conservation of momentum and energy, as it attempts to create net propulsion from a closed system without expelling reaction mass. The use of physics terms like 'vacuum', 'time-varying energy', and 'relativistic mass' is obfuscatory and does not circumvent these fundamental laws.

The patent describes devices that purport to create thrust or generate electricity using acoustic oscillators, but the described mechanisms violate Newton's laws and energy conservation. The system would require more energy to produce the sound than could be recovered as useful work, making the claimed net energy extraction impossible.

This device is an attempted reactionless drive. It describes accelerating plasma ions internally to impact a plate, transferring momentum to the spacecraft, then neutralizing and recycling the gas. This violates Newton's third law (conservation of momentum) as no reaction mass is expelled from the closed system. The energy accounting also ignores the significant losses from ionization, impact heating, and gas recycling, violating the first law of thermodynamics.

The device claims to be a closed propulsion system generating thrust from internal fluid flows. This violates Newton's third law (conservation of momentum) as a closed system cannot produce net external thrust. The claims about multiplied inertial mass and velocity summation suggest a misunderstanding of basic mechanics and energy conservation.

The device is described as a heat engine but operates like a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) system where internal magnetic forces allegedly produce continuous rotation. This violates Newton's laws for closed systems, as the energy needed to create the plasma flow and magnetic fields exceeds any rotational work output, making it a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

The patent describes a system that appears to circulate energy internally while claiming to produce net useful work output. This violates energy conservation as it lacks a clear external energy source or thermodynamic gradient, effectively describing a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

The core propulsion concept violates Newton's third law. The magnetic force used to 'accelerate ionized gas away from the coil' is an internal force between the coil (part of the vehicle) and the plasma (inside the vehicle), producing no net thrust on the vehicle as a whole. While the microwave beam adds energy, it does not solve the fundamental momentum conservation problem.

The claims fundamentally violate Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy/momentum. A rocket's thrust comes from ejecting mass rearward; you cannot 'capture' and reuse that ejected momentum to generate additional net forward thrust without adding new energy and reaction mass from outside the system.

The patent describes a device purportedly generating electrical energy from gamma-ray and laser-induced processes, but it completely fails to account for the massive energy input required to produce gamma radiation, sustain a fusion plasma, or power lasers. The terminology is a mix of correct physics words used in an incoherent, obfuscating manner, characteristic of over-unity energy claims that violate energy conservation.

The device describes an internal cycle where water molecules are broken apart and recombined, claiming the recombination heat provides kinetic energy to expel the molecule for thrust. This violates conservation of energy and momentum, as no net external energy is added to create net momentum change of the spacecraft. It is a closed system attempting to produce propulsion.

The patent claims an 'electronic drive' for aircraft via electron emission, but this cannot produce net thrust in atmosphere without expelling reaction mass. The vague 'Materie-Energie' conversion and implied self-sufficient capacitor system suggest over-unity energy generation, violating conservation laws.

The claim describes a rocket motor based on a proton accelerator fed by a fusion reactor, but the energy accounting is circular and incomplete. It uses correct-sounding terms (tandem accelerator, fusion reactor) in a confused and impossible manner, violating energy conservation and relativistic limits.

The patent describes a flying body that uses resonant electromagnetic waves within a parabolic shape to create a directional energy field for propulsion and remote power transmission. It violates core physics principles by implying energy amplification without a source and creating a net propulsive force from resonant electromagnetic conditions, which is thermodynamically impossible.

The device claims to generate positional/kinetic energy ('Lageenergie') by exploiting small electromagnetic weight variations in a rotating system. However, the energy required to create these variations, plus all system losses, must be supplied externally. The description implies a circular energy flow (using a generator powered by the device's own output), which directly violates the first law of thermodynamics. No novel external energy source is identified.

The device attempts to act as a 'rectifier' for particle oscillations to produce net thrust. However, in the described closed system (object + medium), the oscillating particles have zero average momentum. Any force imparted to the object when a particle hits the closed gate is balanced by an equal and opposite force when the particle bounces off, resulting in no net thrust over a cycle. Producing net thrust would violate conservation of momentum.

The patent describes a jumbled collection of mechanisms claiming to extract energy from Earth's rotation, orbits, and tides. It violates fundamental conservation laws (energy and angular momentum) by proposing to generate net work from these systems without an external energy source or a usable gradient, and obfuscates this with a barrage of unrelated technical terms.

The patent claims a propulsion device where a pump impeller, driven by the vehicle's engine, circulates fluid in a closed loop. It asserts that by shaping the impeller blades as 'reaction vessels', the energy of the exiting fluid is fed back to the system, so the required input power equals only the useful thrust plus losses. This directly violates the conservation of energy, as it claims to recover and reuse reaction momentum internally without an external energy source, effectively describing an over-unity mechanism.

The system claims to generate useful thrust from ambient cosmic rays inducing fusion in deployed fuel, but the cosmic ray flux is far too weak and the proposed processes (muon-catalyzed fusion from random cosmic rays) are physically implausible at any scale needed for asteroid propulsion. It effectively suggests extracting net work from an isotropic, diffuse radiation field without a thermal gradient, violating thermodynamic limits.

The device claims to produce rotational motion using only electrical power to fire 'ray guns' at sealed liquid cells, with no identifiable external energy source or thermodynamic gradient to supply the mechanical work output. This constitutes a perpetual motion scheme of the first kind, violating energy conservation.

The device is fundamentally a reaction engine that ejects onboard particles. While it may harvest ambient RF energy to assist in particle ejection, this does not circumvent the rocket equation or conservation of momentum. The claims misleadingly suggest the RF waves themselves provide propulsion, which is a violation of physics.

The claim violates the first law of thermodynamics by proposing a device that outputs net useful work (propulsion, electricity) from the ambient quantum vacuum, a state in equilibrium from which no net energy can be extracted. It also violates the second law by implying energy recycling without loss, constituting a perpetual motion machine.

The invention is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. It claims to dissociate water using heat, burn the products for work, and use that work to drive the process again, creating a net energy surplus. This directly violates energy conservation, as the combustion energy of the hydrogen cannot exceed the energy required to produce it from water.

The patent describes a static arrangement of metals and dielectrics under high voltage claimed to produce propulsive force. This violates conservation of energy and momentum, as a static system cannot perpetually output kinetic energy. The terminology is physically nonsensical, indicating a fundamental violation of electrostatics and thermodynamics.

The device claims to be a 'reactionless electromagnetic engine' producing macroscopic thrust. This directly violates conservation of momentum, as a closed system cannot generate net momentum change through internal forces alone, regardless of the complexity of electromagnetic interactions.

The invention claims a 'matter-antimatter dipole' can provide propulsion. This is impossible because all forces between the vehicle's antimatter and its matter are internal forces; they sum to zero and cannot accelerate the vehicle's center of mass. It is a reactionless drive, violating conservation of momentum.

The device is an antenna powered by electricity. The described Lorentz force interaction is internal; for every force on one part of the system, there is an equal and opposite force on another part, resulting in zero net thrust. Claiming propulsion without reaction mass violates conservation of momentum.

The claimed system violates fundamental conservation laws. It describes a closed electromagnetic device that purportedly generates net thrust by manipulating fields internally, which is impossible without expelling reaction mass or interacting with an external field. This is a form of 'field propulsion' that ignores the necessity of exchanging momentum with something outside the system.

The core propulsion claim violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum by suggesting a 'delayed reaction force' can produce net thrust without expelling mass. While solar energy is cited as the power source, the described mechanism for converting that energy into spacecraft translation is physically impossible in empty space.

The core claim of generating 'reactionless' directional kinetic energy or propulsion is a direct violation of the conservation of momentum. The described system uses internal forces and energy conversions but cannot produce net thrust on the vehicle without ejecting propellant.

The patent claims a method to convert ambient thermal energy directly into work using body forces like gravity, which is a classic violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (a Kelvin-Planck statement violation). The use of terms like 'perceived specific heat capacity' is a technical obfuscation for a mechanism that, if implemented as described, would constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

The claim explicitly seeks to 'challenge' Newton's action-reaction law for space propulsion, which is a fundamental violation of momentum conservation. The described assembly of components lacks a coherent principle for generating net thrust without expelling reaction mass, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is physically impossible.

The patent describes a device that claims to create pressure and temperature differences, and thus extract useful work, from ambient thermal energy by applying a force field that causes particles to deviate from standard statistical mechanics. This is a classic violation of the Second Law, as it proposes a perpetual motion machine of the second kind—doing work by cooling a single heat reservoir—without identifying the required external energy input or entropy sink.

The device claims to produce propulsion by accelerating internal masses (ions, fluids, rings) in closed paths, which violates conservation of momentum. Internal forces cannot create net external thrust on a vehicle's center of mass without expelling reaction mass.

The device claims to generate propulsive force solely from electromagnetic waves inside a resonant cavity, violating conservation of momentum (no reaction mass expelled) and conservation of energy (no identified external energy source to sustain the waves against inevitable losses). This describes a reactionless drive, which is physically impossible.

The claim describes a device with impossible capabilities like flight through a 'virtual universe' and time displacement using undefined 'magnetic-quantum' mechanisms in 'virtual time and space'. It uses correct physics terms ('thermonuclear reactor', 'vacuum-plasma') in a nonsensical, obfuscating context with no identifiable energy source, directly violating conservation laws and thermodynamic principles.

The core claims violate Newton's laws by proposing thrust from internally confined momentum changes and violate energy conservation by proposing remote energy generation. The use of superconductors and technical jargon obfuscates these fundamental physical impossibilities.

The claim violates fundamental physics by proposing faster-than-light 'virtual' waves and a reactionless drive that converts electrical energy directly to net momentum without an equal-and-opposite momentum exchange, breaking conservation of momentum and special relativity.

The patent claims a propulsion mechanism based on a repulsive 'fifth force' from gravity acting on invented 'pseudoelectrons.' This directly violates the known attractive nature of gravity and the conservation of momentum, as it attempts to produce net thrust without expelling reaction mass or drawing from a legitimate external energy source beyond the initial electron preparation.

The device is an overcomplicated attempt to create a net propulsive force from internal motions. The forces described (centrifugal, thrust, drag) are all internal to the system of engines and track. Over a complete cycle, the net change in momentum of the system center-of-mass is zero, so it cannot generate a unidirectional force to propel an external object.

The claim describes a purely mechanical system that purports to generate a sustained, directed inertial force without ongoing external energy input and without reaction from its surroundings, directly violating Newton's laws of motion and the conservation of energy. The use of correct mechanical terms (crank, connecting rod, slider) obfuscates the core impossible claim of a closed system producing net directional force.

The claim describes a closed system performing internal orbital and rotational motions. Newton's laws dictate that such internal forces cannot produce a net external force on the system's center of mass. For propulsion without expelled reaction mass, momentum conservation is violated.

The device attempts to create net spacecraft thrust by internally hammering a wall with compressed air while claiming to 'neutralize' the equal and opposite recoil force. This is a classic reactionless drive, directly violating Newton's third law and conservation of momentum. No internal mechanism can produce net thrust on a closed system.

The system claims to generate a net thrust (force) from an internal electromagnetic wave interacting with its own waveguide, with no expulsion of reaction mass or interaction with an external field. This violates the conservation of momentum, a fundamental physics principle. It is analogous to a car attempting to move forward by pushing on its own dashboard.

The device is a form of a linear motion 'reactionless drive' where an internal electromagnet pulls on an internal magnet attached to the same rigid structure. This violates Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum, as it claims the entire system can accelerate without expelling any reaction mass or interacting with an external field. No net external force can be generated by internal forces alone.

The device is an internal, closed system that uses electromagnetic components to move masses internally. It claims to produce net spacecraft acceleration without expelling reaction mass or interacting with an external field, which directly violates conservation of momentum. No mechanism is described that could generate a net external force.

The device claims to produce directional thrust by injecting particles into a rotating frame using quantum effects, but it provides no external source of energy or momentum. This constitutes a reactionless drive, which violates conservation of momentum and energy. The use of quantum terminology obscures the fundamental violation of Newtonian mechanics.

The described cyclic mechanism is an internal rearrangement of masses within a system. Conservation of linear momentum dictates that such internal motions cannot produce a net propulsive force on the system's center of mass without expelling mass externally. This is a classic reactionless drive claim, which is physically impossible.

This device claims to propel an object using only internal rotating masses, which is impossible as internal forces cannot produce a net external force on the object's center of mass. It is a classic reactionless drive that violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum.

The device claims to generate a net propulsive thrust using only internal electromagnetic forces between fixed components, which violates conservation of momentum. No mechanism is described for exchanging momentum with an external environment, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is impossible under Newtonian and relativistic physics.

The device claims to use sound as a 'catalyst' to convert ambient heat into kinetic energy, which is thermodynamically impossible. The electrical energy input to the oscillator is the true source; any net thrust on the plate comes from momentum transfer in the fluid, not from conversion of ambient thermal energy into work.

The device is described as a 'no-port engine' using internal fluid circulation to generate directional force, implying propulsion without reaction mass or external energy input. This directly violates conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is physically impossible.

The device claims to achieve 'inertialess' reversal of a moving mass stream to produce a continuous force. This is a reactionless drive concept, which directly violates Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum. No internal manipulation of mass can produce a net force on a closed system.

The device is based on an electrohydrodynamic effect that only works in atmosphere by pushing against ionized air. The claim that it works in the vacuum of space violates the conservation of momentum, as it proposes a reactionless drive. The terminology is also technically obfuscated.

The described method attempts to create thrust by heating and cooling ambient air internally, with no external working fluid intake/expulsion or thermal gradient. This violates thermodynamic limits (no net work from a single reservoir) and Newton's laws (no net momentum change in a closed cycle).

This patent claims a propulsion method using the Casimir effect to generate a net force from virtual particle pressure differences. This violates conservation of momentum and energy, as the Casimir force is a conservative, static quantum effect between surfaces that cannot produce net thrust in a closed system without an external energy source.

The device claims to produce net thrust (тяги) by internally moving and asymmetrically extracting energy from a rotating mass within an 'unclosed system'. This is a classic reactionless drive concept that violates conservation of momentum. No external energy source is identified to justify a net force output.

This device claims to generate tractive force by inducing changes in an object's inertial mass via time-varying power in a vacuum. This violates conservation of momentum (no reaction mass) and energy, as it suggests creating net propulsion from internal mass variations without any external energy source or thermodynamic gradient to justify the claimed force output.

The device attempts to create a directional force using only internally spinning masses on a pivoting beam. This is a classic overbalanced wheel variant, where internal momentum shifts cannot produce a sustained net external force or useful work output without an external energy input, violating conservation of momentum and energy.

The patent describes a 'light electromagnetic' propulsion/lift system with no identifiable energy source or physical mechanism. Generating net lift or thrust without expelling reaction mass or interacting with an external field violates conservation of momentum, making it a perpetual motion claim of the first kind.

The claimed device violates fundamental conservation laws. The Lorentz force from Earth's uniform magnetic field cannot produce a net force on a closed current loop, regardless of shielding. Any force on one segment is balanced by forces on other segments, so the apparatus cannot generate sustained lift without expelling reaction mass or interacting with a field gradient.

The device claims to generate net thrust in a vacuum by converting centrifugal forces within a spinning rotor, which is impossible. In a closed system, internal forces (like those between magnets and masses on the rotor) cancel out and cannot produce a net external force on the vehicle, violating conservation of momentum.

The device claims to produce directional thrust with no moving parts by creating internal pressure differences, but this violates Newton's Third Law as it provides no net expulsion of reaction mass. The described electrostatic and magnetic interactions would create internal forces that cancel out, resulting in zero net thrust for a closed system.

The device is an internal momentum management system. While moving masses against centrifugal forces requires energy, the net force on the system's center of mass from internal forces is always zero. No net thrust can be generated without expelling propellant, violating conservation of momentum.

The system is an internal mass actuator attempting to generate net propulsion without expelling reaction mass. This violates conservation of momentum, as internal forces cannot accelerate a system's center of mass. The damping mechanism does not circumvent this fundamental law.

The patent describes a mechanism for instantaneous space travel via 'dimensional channels' and quantum teleportation, which fundamentally violates relativity, causality, and known quantum mechanics. It misapplies real physics concepts without a coherent energy or force mechanism, placing it firmly in the realm of pseudoscience.

The patent claims a fundamental violation of energy conservation by proposing that simply bringing subatomic particles together releases vast 'binding energy' without a defined reaction or input, and misuses quantum mechanical terms. It describes no real physical process and instead invents a new, impossible interaction.

The claim explicitly states a force is created 'without the counterforce' (ohne die Gegenkraft), which is a direct violation of Newton's Third Law and conservation of momentum. Creating a force to counteract gravity without any energy input or reaction violates fundamental physics principles.

The device is a closed thermodynamic cycle using electrical energy to heat and cool a gas internally. It claims the resulting internal pressure and velocity changes generate a net thrust without expelling any reaction mass, which directly violates the conservation of momentum. No internal process in a closed system can produce a net external force.

The claim describes a reactionless spacecraft drive that generates its own power, violating conservation of momentum (no expelled propellant) and conservation of energy (self-powering operation). It uses vague quantum and vacuum field terminology to obfuscate the lack of a legitimate physical mechanism for net force generation.

The device claims to produce net thrust (a change in momentum) using only internal electric fields and dielectrics with no external reaction mass or momentum sink. This is a direct violation of conservation of momentum, a cornerstone of classical physics, making it a form of reactionless propulsion, which is impossible.

The device claims to convert rotation into linear thrust using internal moving masses. This is physically impossible as it violates Newton's laws of motion; internal forces cannot produce a net force on the system's center of mass. The described 'directed disbalance' is an internal force whose net external effect is zero.

The patent claims describe a reactionless drive system that purports to reduce inertial mass and generate thrust in space using electromagnetic fields alone, directly violating conservation of momentum. The use of technical terms like 'gravitons' and 'anti-gravity fields' obfuscates the core violation: producing net propulsion without expelling reaction mass.

The device claims to achieve levitation by generating 'gravitational shock waves' through a speculative and physically implausible conversion of light in spiral waveguides. This violates conservation of momentum (action-reaction) and misapplies concepts from general relativity and electromagnetism, placing it firmly in the realm of perpetual motion.

The device claims to achieve levitation without an atmosphere by generating 'gravitational shock waves' through a spiral array of LEDs, converting light into gravitational forces. This violates conservation of momentum (no reaction mass) and misrepresents fundamental physics, as gravitational waves cannot be produced or harnessed in this manner. The energy conversion described is physically impossible.

The described device is a classic reactionless drive. Accelerating a mass in a closed loop creates only internal forces that sum to zero, providing no net thrust to the vehicle. It violates conservation of momentum, a cornerstone of classical physics.

The claim describes a levitation system that purports to generate lift by creating an interaction between manipulated electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves, a process with no basis in established physics. It uses correct terminology (e.g., electromagnetic wavelengths, gravitational waves) in a nonsensical, obfuscating manner to suggest an impossible energy conversion for anti-gravity propulsion.

The device claims to generate a net thrust force from an internal high-voltage capacitor, violating conservation of momentum. In a vacuum, it is a form of reactionless drive, which is impossible. Any measured force in air is from ion wind, which requires ambient fluid and is not a novel propulsion mechanism.

The device claims to generate lift via magnetic repulsion with Earth's static field, which is impossible as it provides no reaction mass or external gradient to push against, violating conservation of momentum. The addition of unrelated technical details (temperature zones, disc composition) obfuscates the core physical impossibility.

This patent describes a spacecraft propulsion system that recirculates gas internally to create thrust, violating Newton's third law and conservation of momentum. No external reaction mass is ejected, so net acceleration of the spacecraft is impossible regardless of internal fluid dynamics or energy input.

The proposed drive system claims to function 'without contact with the outside world' using only internal cooling and heating phases to run a cold gas engine. This describes a closed system attempting to create its own usable temperature gradient cyclically, which directly violates both the conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics, as it requires no net energy input to produce work output.

The patent describes a system of rigidly coupled electromagnetic field generators pulsed in sequence to produce a directed force. Since the generators are part of the same rigid system and interact only with each other's fields, any internal forces sum to zero, producing no net acceleration for the system's center of mass. This violates conservation of momentum and energy.

The claim describes a system where internal motion and electric polarization allegedly generate a new accelerating force. This violates Newton's laws of motion, as internal forces cannot produce net acceleration of an isolated system's center of mass, and implies the creation of energy from nothing.

The device claims to generate linear force via controlled magnetic interactions between rotating magnetized rotors. This describes a mechanism that, if intended to produce net work cyclically, violates the first law of thermodynamics by having no identifiable external energy input to compensate for energy extracted as work. It is a classic magnetic perpetual motion claim.

The patent describes a reactionless drive, claiming a spacecraft can propel itself by internally accelerating and colliding masses without ejecting anything. This directly violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum. No arrangement of internal collisions in a closed system can produce a net change in the system's center-of-mass momentum.

The patent describes a vehicle propelled partly by ejecting captured ambient electrons. This is a clear violation of Newton's Third Law (conservation of momentum), as you cannot gain net thrust by manipulating ambient particles you did not initially carry. The implied 'recharging' in space also suggests a violation of energy conservation.

The device is an internal, closed electromagnetic system. The forces from photon pressure on opposite walls are equal and opposite, canceling out. To generate net thrust, momentum must be expelled from the system, which this design does not do. It is a form of a reactionless drive, which violates conservation of momentum.

The device claims to generate propulsion (reactive thrust) by cyclically driving dipoles with alternating electric and magnetic fields. This is a reactionless drive, as it provides no mechanism for momentum exchange with an external propellant or field, directly violating conservation of momentum. The physics described does not yield a net force.

The device claims to generate propulsion by creating a 'non-material force beam' through internal mass acceleration, constituting a reactionless drive that violates conservation of momentum. No external energy source is identified to explain net acceleration of the closed system, making it physically impossible as described.

The device claims to control gravitational acceleration by synthesizing electromagnetic energy from pulsed static electricity, which violates fundamental physics principles. There is no known mechanism for electromagnetic fields to directly cancel or control gravitational acceleration without enormous energy densities or reaction mass, and the description uses technical terms in a vague, obfuscating manner that suggests perpetual motion capabilities.

The claim violates core physics principles by proposing to extract net energy from isotopic decay via externally shortened half-lives and from the Earth's field without a maintained gradient, both thermodynamically impossible. The description is obfuscated with incoherent technical jargon and lacks any complete energy accounting, rendering it a perpetual motion claim.

The claim describes an incoherent assembly of processes with no clear, compliant energy pathway for net propulsion. It attempts to extract useful work (body movement) from ambient 'Earth orbit vibrations' using an undefined amplification mechanism, which violates thermodynamic principles by implying energy extraction from an equilibrium state without a genuine gradient.

The patent describes generating 'transformation energy' and altering spacetime geometry through superposition of electromagnetic fields, but provides no physically coherent mechanism or identifiable energy source. It uses obfuscated terminology to suggest energy creation or spacetime manipulation without respecting conservation laws or established limits of general relativity and electromagnetism.

The patent claims describe generating a unidirectional force or thrust by manipulating high-frequency electromagnetic fields to create an asymmetry in 'transverse tension' or radiation pressure. This violates the conservation of momentum, as a closed system cannot experience a net internal force. The described mechanism is essentially a reactionless drive, which is impossible under standard physics.

The device claims to generate antigravity, controllable gravity waves, and fusion energy from an internal particle accelerator and resonator system, implying net energy creation and forces that violate conservation of momentum and energy. It uses correct-sounding physics terms (cavity resonators, particles, fields) in a nonsensical sequence to obfuscate the lack of a coherent, energy-conserving mechanism.

The claim violates energy conservation and known physics by proposing that reorienting electron orbits within atoms using electromagnetic and ultrasonic stimuli can generate 'negative gravitons' for propulsion, effectively claiming to extract net useful work (thrust) from a system without an identifiable external energy source beyond the input used to manipulate the orbits. The description is a classic example of technical obfuscation using real physics terms to dress up an impossible mechanism.

The device claims to produce lift or propulsion by creating a repulsive gravitational interaction through alignment of fictional nuclear dipoles, violating the conservation of energy (no energy source for the work done) and the fundamental nature of gravitation. It uses invented physics terminology to describe an impossible mechanism.

The patent describes a propulsion device that claims to generate thrust by electrostatically accelerating ambient ions. This violates conservation of momentum, as it attempts to create a net force on a vehicle without ejecting reaction mass or interacting with an external fixed structure. It is a form of reactionless drive, which is physically impossible.

The invention claims to generate directional propulsion forces solely by applying asymmetric voltage pulses to a capacitor. This violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, as it describes an internal electromagnetic process that cannot impart a net force to the device's center of mass without ejecting reaction mass or radiation.

The device claims to produce directional thrust solely by accelerating electrons internally between capacitor plates. This violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, as there is no expelled propellant or interaction with an external field to act as a reaction mass. Invoking speculative concepts like a Rindler horizon does not circumvent this fundamental violation.

The system claims to produce a net propulsion force (a net change in momentum of the device) using only internal electromagnetic interactions and a clever timing of currents. This is a direct violation of Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is impossible for a closed system.

The device claims to produce thrust solely by accelerating electrons internally between capacitor plates. This violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, as no external reaction mass or asymmetric field interaction with an external environment is described to balance the momentum change of the device.

The claimed propulsion system violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum. The 'magnetic field moment' is part of the system's total momentum; changing it internally cannot create a net external force on the device. This describes a reactionless drive, which is physically impossible for a closed system.

The claim violates fundamental conservation laws, specifically conservation of momentum. It describes an internal, cyclic redistribution of electrons on an object's surface and asserts this creates a net, sustained acceleration without any external reaction mass or field interaction, which is physically impossible for an isolated system.

The device claims to produce a net thrust on a spacecraft without expelling propellant, asserting the reaction momentum is carried by the Poynting vector. This violates conservation of momentum. The Lorentz forces described are internal to the spacecraft; for the craft to accelerate, momentum must be transferred to something external, like expelled propellant or directed radiation, which this patent explicitly denies.

The device is a closed system that attempts to generate net thrust by internally recirculating air. This violates Newton's laws, specifically conservation of momentum, as a reaction force requires the net expulsion of mass. The description uses correct-sounding mechanical terms to obscure this fundamental flaw.

The device describes moving internal masses cyclically to produce a net thrust. This is physically impossible because internal forces cannot propel an isolated system's center of mass; it is a classic 'reactionless drive' concept that violates conservation of momentum. The trajectory of an object in free fall is determined solely by its initial conditions and gravity, not by rearranging its internal parts.

The device is an internal electrostatic assembly. All forces described are internal action-reaction pairs, which cancel out for the entire device. It cannot produce net thrust without violating conservation of momentum, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is physically impossible.

The claim violates fundamental physics by requiring superluminal travel for massive objects and proposing a momentum-generating mechanism from a homogeneous vacuum with no identifiable external energy source or reaction mass. The terminology is invented and obscures the lack of a physically coherent process.

The described system is a closed internal mass driver. The momentum imparted to the vehicle when a ball is shot toward one end is canceled when the ball is stopped, returned, or hits the opposite end. This is identical to a person sitting in a car trying to move it by pushing on the dashboard—internal forces cannot produce net acceleration. The claim of sustained propulsion from internal pressure differences violates Newton's laws of motion.

The device is an internal electromagnetic system with no external reaction mass or asymmetric external field interaction. It therefore cannot generate net thrust on its enclosure, violating conservation of momentum. The claims confuse efficient internal force generation with the production of net propulsive force.

The device claims to be a 'closed-system' propulsion generator, meaning it produces a net force on itself without expelling any propellant. This is a direct violation of conservation of momentum. The described internal electromagnetic interactions cannot create a net force on the system's center of mass.

The claim directly violates the second law of thermodynamics by asserting near-100% efficiency for a heat engine and uses a barrage of misapplied technical terms to obfuscate this fundamental violation. No physical mechanism can achieve the described performance.

The patent claims a resonant cavity with an internal standing wave can produce a net force on itself. This is a reactionless drive, which violates conservation of momentum. No mechanism (e.g., directed photon emission, interaction with external fields) is provided to balance the momentum change, making it physically impossible.

The system attempts to generate net propulsion using only internal magnetic forces between its components. This is physically impossible, as internal forces cannot produce a net acceleration on the system's center of mass—a direct violation of conservation of momentum.

The device is a closed fluid system driven by a motor. It claims to produce a large net thrust force from internal fluid motion alone, which is impossible as internal forces in a closed system cancel out, providing no net external thrust. This directly violates Newton's laws of motion.

The claim of 'reactionless motion' that produces thrust without an equal and opposite reaction is a direct and fundamental violation of the conservation of linear momentum, a cornerstone of classical and modern physics. The description uses physics-like terms ('space-time impulse response') obfuscating a mechanism that is impossible under known physical laws.

The patent claims a device that generates propulsive thrust from the quantum vacuum (Casimir force), which violates conservation of momentum. The Casimir force is a conservative, equilibrium force between objects and cannot be harnessed for net directional propulsion in free space.

The described system uses internal magnetic repulsion between its own components. Since magnetic forces are internal to the system, they create equal and opposite forces that cancel out, resulting in zero net momentum change. This is a classic reactionless drive claim that violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum.

The device is an internal charge-sequencing system with no mechanism to push against an external medium or expel reaction mass. It cannot generate net thrust in a vacuum or atmosphere, violating conservation of momentum.

The patent's core claim of generating thrust 'without the ejection of propellant' by trapping pressure against an internal levitating mass is a direct violation of Newton's laws of motion. Internal forces cannot produce net thrust on a vehicle. The inclusion of conventional propellant-ejecting engines does not redeem the fundamental violation in the alternative claimed mode.

The claim violates fundamental conservation laws, specifically the conservation of momentum, by proposing a closed electromagnetic system that generates net thrust without expelling reaction mass or interacting with an external field. It further invokes scientifically undefined concepts like 'hyperspace energy' and 'wormholes' to explain the purported mass reduction and lift, placing it firmly in the realm of pseudoscience.

The patent claims propose fundamental revisions to established physics (general relativity, quantum mechanics) that are internally inconsistent and contradict empirical evidence. The core promise of using gravity 'as motive power' suggests extracting net work from a static potential, which violates energy conservation unless coupled to an explicit, depleting energy source.

The device claims to produce a net thrust using only internal electrical energy and electromagnetic fields, with no external reaction mass. This is a direct violation of the conservation of momentum, a cornerstone of physics. The 'Mach effect' mechanism cited is not an established or accepted physical phenomenon.

The device claims to generate a net lift force (thrust) solely through internal electromagnetic fields and rotations, violating conservation of momentum. It is a form of reactionless drive, which is impossible without expelling a reaction mass or interacting with an external field.

The device claims to generate a net force ('lift' or 'self-action force') on a mobile object through purely internal manipulation of a gas within a sealed chamber. This is a direct violation of Newton's laws of motion, specifically the conservation of momentum. An object cannot propel itself by internal forces alone; it must expel mass externally to generate net thrust.

The device attempts to generate net directional thrust solely through internal moving masses. This is physically impossible for an isolated system, as internal forces cannot produce a net external force on the system's center of mass, violating conservation of linear momentum.

The device claims to generate a net thrust force from an asymmetrical capacitor powered only by electricity, with no expulsion of mass or interaction with an external field. This violates conservation of momentum, a cornerstone of classical physics, as internal electrostatic forces within a closed system cannot produce a net force on its center of mass.

The core thrust mechanism is physically impossible because it attempts to propel the vehicle by applying a force between two of its own internal components (the body and the rolling wheel). This violates conservation of momentum, as there is no external reaction mass or field to push against to generate net thrust. The vehicle cannot 'roll' in air or space using this internal force alone.

The patent describes a process using invented terminology and physically nonsensical steps (e.g., molecular 'annihilation' into a directed gravitational pulse) to claim generation of gravitational waves and energy. It violates fundamental physics by proposing a mechanism for gravitational wave generation that is many orders of magnitude too weak and by implying energy generation without a credible source.

The claim violates fundamental physics by proposing that simply bringing mass and charge together releases usable net energy without an external source, which contradicts conservation of energy. It uses correct-sounding terms like 'binding energy' and 'elementary particles' in a vague, incorrect manner to describe an impossible energy creation process.

The device claims to reverse thrust/drag relationships without changing the direction of working fluid flow, which would violate conservation of momentum. The description uses obfuscating terminology like 'force fields' and ionizers without specifying an energy source, suggesting an attempt to create net motion from an equilibrium system.

The patent claims a vehicle propelled by 'gravitational induction energy,' which violates the conservation of energy. Extracting net propulsive work from a gravitational field via internal motion alone is impossible without an external energy source or gradient, making this a classic perpetual motion claim.

The system attempts to create a net propulsive force using only internal magnetic interactions within a rotating apparatus, violating Newton's third law. The description misuses concepts like centrifugal force and incorrectly claims one half of an action-reaction force pair can be canceled or made not to act on the system, which is physically impossible for a closed system.

The described mechanism attempts to generate propulsion or work through internal cyclic conversion of motion (rotational to linear and back) without identifying any external energy source. This constitutes a perpetual motion scheme, as it violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) by implying net work can be extracted from a closed cyclic process.

The patent describes a closed mechanical system with counter-rotating masses arranged in mirror-image configurations, claiming continuous anti-symmetric motion. This violates Newton's laws and energy conservation because internal forces in a closed system cannot produce net work output without an external energy source.

The core claim violates fundamental conservation laws. The proposed method of 'detaching' a field pulse to exert a net force on the motor's own structure is impossible, as it would create momentum from nothing. The use of advanced terminology (UHF/SHF bands) obscures a mechanism that is essentially a reactionless drive, which is prohibited by Newton's laws.

The device claims to generate a net thrust on itself in a vacuum using only internal electromagnetic forces. This is a direct violation of Newton's Third Law and the conservation of momentum, as there is no expelled reaction mass or interaction with an external field to balance the momentum change of the device.

The device claims to be a reactionless drive, which directly violates the conservation of momentum. The description misuses fundamental physics (photon absorption by free electrons, MHD braking) to obfuscate the fact that no closed system can generate net thrust without expelling propellant. The energy source is external radiation, but momentum conservation is still absolute and violated by the claimed operating principle.

The device claims to produce a net thrust on a space vehicle by interacting with its own emitted electromagnetic field, asserting the field is 'detached' and thus provides no cancelling reaction. This directly violates Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum, as momentum cannot be created from nothing within a closed system.

The claim describes a propulsion and energy system that ostensibly extracts momentum and energy from the quantum vacuum without an external energy input or reaction mass, directly violating conservation of momentum and energy. The terminology is borrowed from physics but applied in a way inconsistent with established theory.

The described system attempts to use internal electromagnetic interactions to create net propulsion, which violates the conservation of momentum. No clear, external reaction mass or momentum sink is identified, making it a form of reactionless drive, which is physically impossible for a closed system.

The patent describes a particle collider but provides no physically coherent link between positron-electron collisions and the generation of usable gravitational waves, let alone warp propulsion. It violates known physics by implying a tabletop experiment can produce gravitational waves of sufficient magnitude for propulsion while ignoring the astronomical energy scales and momentum conservation required.

The patent claims violate established physics by proposing a mechanism for warp drive and FTL travel using electromagnetic fields in an atmosphere, which is incapable of generating the extreme spacetime curvature required. It uses correct terminology (mass-energy density gradients, reference frame) in a fundamentally incorrect and obfuscating way, conflating fluid dynamics wakes with general relativistic effects.

The patent claim is physically incoherent, using scientific terminology incorrectly without describing any real energy source or conversion process. It appears to suggest extracting 'atomic power' from water in a closed system, which would violate energy conservation if it claims to produce net useful work without an external energy input.

The device claims to generate a force or modify gravity using a combination of rotating superconducting layers, positron emission, and counter-rotating fields, but provides no physically valid mechanism linking these components to the claimed effect. It violates fundamental principles of general relativity (the source of gravity is mass-energy-momentum stress, not such configurations) and conservation of momentum.

The device confuses orbital mechanics with aerodynamics. Spinning a rotor at orbital speed inside a chamber does not create propulsion for flight; it's a non-sequitur that violates no conservation law directly but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. The claim is physically incoherent rather than energetically impossible per se.

The patent's core energy source (fusion) is physically possible, but the described mechanism is based on a nonsensical model of nuclear structure and charge. The overall concept is built upon this invalid foundation and ignores well-established relativistic and engineering constraints, rendering the proposed vehicle and mission profile physically unworkable as described.

The patent describes an electrical antenna system but provides no physically valid mechanism for converting the input electrical energy into directed gas flow (thrust) with high efficiency. The language is obfuscated, implying a novel propulsion effect without addressing fundamental conservation of momentum and energy, making it a thermodynamic violation.

The patent describes a 'levitation system' using spiraling UV light guides but provides no physically coherent mechanism for generating net lift. Emitting light, regardless of its pattern, cannot produce a sustained force to counteract gravity without ejecting mass or interacting with an external field, violating conservation of momentum. The description is a classic example of technical obfuscation.

The patent text is technically garbled and describes no clear energy input, while implying electron extraction/generation. This is characteristic of obfuscated perpetual motion claims that violate energy conservation by suggesting output without input.

The claim violates fundamental thermodynamics by misusing entropy concepts and implying unlimited performance. While a combined-cycle engine is possible, the description confuses physical principles, invokes impossible 'negative entropy' operation, and makes vague, superlative claims that contradict conservation of energy and momentum.

The claim constructs a word salad of advanced physics terms without a coherent, mathematically sound mechanism. It attempts to derive propulsion from undefined concepts like 'negative inductance' and wildly misapplies general relativity, resulting in a clear violation of conservation of momentum and established physical law.

The submitted 'patent claim' is not a coherent technical description but appears to be corrupted or intentionally obfuscated text/image data. Since no physical mechanism, energy input, or output can be identified, it is impossible to verify compliance with conservation laws, and the presentation itself violates the fundamental requirement for a clear, analyzable disclosure.

The device claims to generate aircraft lift via magnetic repulsion between a rotating disc and Earth's magnetic field. This violates Newton's third law (action-reaction) as a static magnetic interaction cannot produce a net external force on the aircraft as a whole. It also misapplies magnetic force concepts, suggesting energy can be extracted from the Earth's field for lift without an equal reaction on the Earth or another external energy input.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 99% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 98% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 85% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 98% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.

This patent was flagged as a physics violation with 95% confidence. The claimed mechanism appears to violate fundamental physics principles.