Total patents analyzed: 732 • Violation rate: 52%
Generated February 22, 2026 • apex-core.org
USPTO patent class physics violation analysis
The claimed energy source is nuclear fusion, initiated by an optical laser input. The system purports to use laser pulses to modify the quantum state of fluid fuel particles to increase their fusion probability.
The patent describes using shaped infrared laser pulses to control quantum states and induce fusion in fluid fuel at ambient temperatures. This violates established physics because the optical photon energies involved are millions of times smaller than the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier between atomic nuclei for fusion, with no plausible mechanism provided. The claims use correct optical terminology but obfuscate the fundamental energy scale problem.
Unclear. Claims suggest electricity generation from ionized fluid flow and 'electrochemical and fusion reactions' without specifying a primary energy input. The described system appears to be a closed-loop fluid circuit with internal energy extraction.
The device claims to generate electricity from ionized fluid flow and unspecified 'fusion reactions' in a closed-loop system. It violates core thermodynamics by implying net energy output without a defined energy input, constituting a perpetual motion scheme. The mention of fusion is physically implausible given the described apparatus.
Unclear. Claims suggest energy is generated from nuclear fusion (D+D→He + γ + energy) initiated by electrolysis and stimulated by alpha/gamma radiation, but the described mechanism of 'probability-enhanced intermediate channels' lacks a coherent physical basis for energy input.
The patent describes a system claiming to produce helium and excess energy from deuterium oxide via electrolysis and radioactive stimulation. The proposed mechanism misuses quantum mechanics and lacks a credible physical basis for overcoming the Coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion at low temperatures, violating energy conservation. The terminology is obfuscatory, and the claimed 'excess energy' output is thermodynamically impossible without an unaccounted-for energy source.
Unclear. The claim suggests energy generation from irradiating unspecified 'atomic particles' with monochromatic light (453 nm), implying the output energy exceeds the input optical energy.
The claim describes irradiating particles with light to 'generate energy' but provides no mechanism for how this process could yield more energy than the light itself supplies. This violates energy conservation (Pattern A) and uses vague technical terms like 'atomic particles' and 'generate energy' without a coherent physical model (Pattern C).
Unclear. The primary claimed source is fusion in a lithium-ammonia fuel, but the described mechanism (cavitation, magnetic fields, arcing electrodes) is insufficient to achieve the conditions (high temperature/pressure) required for significant net fusion yield. The rotational energy input to the armature is the only explicit energy input, but its conversion to fusion energy is not plausibly explained.
The device claims fusion energy generation but describes a cavitation and arcing system wholly incapable of creating the necessary conditions for fusion. It mixes correct physics terms (magnetohydrodynamic, fusion) incorrectly, creating a veneer of plausibility while relying on an undefined and impossible energy conversion process.
Primary energy input is from an external AC source and a DC power source, which power the primary circuit. The device claims to impart energy from injected dipolar molecules to the secondary circuit via high-voltage resonant interactions.
The device uses external electrical power to create high-voltage fields and sparks. While the physics of manipulating dipolar molecules with fields is valid, the claim of imparting energy from these molecules to the circuit is vague and suggests incomplete energy accounting, as the molecules are not an identified energy source.
The primary energy input is the kinetic energy of the external ignitor (projectile, beam, or photon sail impact), which is intended to trigger a self-sustaining fusion burn wave in the fuel (e.g., He3).
The claim is not an explicit violation of energy conservation, as it specifies a large external energy input. However, it uses correct physics terms in a vague and non-standard way to describe an unsupported mechanism for achieving and stabilizing a fusion burn wave, making its feasibility highly questionable.
Electrical input to lasers (compression and ion acceleration) which deliver energy to a solid hydrogen-boron-11 fuel target to initiate fusion. The claimed net energy output would come from the exothermic p-B11 fusion reaction.
The patent describes a fusion concept without violating fundamental conservation laws, as the ultimate energy source is nuclear. However, it makes vague quantitative performance claims and omits the critical energy accounting needed to demonstrate net energy gain, placing it in the 'questionable' category due to technical obfuscation and unsubstantiated feasibility.
External electrical power to the ion accelerator and plasma window (anode/cathode system) provides all energy. The system is a particle accelerator with a specialized vacuum/pressure interface.
This patent describes a mechanical and electrical design for a plasma window used in a particle accelerator system. It consumes external electrical power to create and sustain a plasma, acting as a barrier between different pressure regions. No conservation law or thermodynamic limit is violated; it is an engineering design improvement for a known technology.
External shockwave incident on the component provides the energy input to shock the contained fluid fuel.
The patent describes a passive mechanical component (a fuel chamber with a non-linear fill line) designed to be energized by an external shockwave. No thermodynamic cycle or energy creation is claimed; it is purely a containment and delivery geometry. The claims are structurally descriptive and imply no violation of conservation laws.