Merged H3 Gold detector? Wha?

LTC8K6 said:
IIRC, patented items don't have to work.
Click to expand...

If the disclosure doesn't allow one of ordinary skill in the art to practice what the patent claims, the patent doesn't meet the enablement requirement and is invalid.

IOW, patented items have to work.
 
Patents don't have to work, they just have to show something new or innovative in their design or construction.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I'm pretty sure you can find lots of patented things that don't work. I think I've had this conversation a few times before regarding other patented devices such as the MEG.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...6,362,718.PN.&OS=PN/6,362,718&RS=PN/6,362,718
Click to expand...

Again, what has to work is what you claim. If following the instructions in the patent won't lead to an invention that matches the claims, then the patent isn't valid.
What part of the patent claims in the patent you linked to above won't work?
 
The MEG patent doesn't claim free energy. It claims this:

An electromagnetic generator comprising: a permanent magnet having magnetic poles at opposite ends; a magnetic core including first and second magnetic paths between said opposite ends of said permanent magnet, wherein said magnetic core comprises a closed loop, said permanent magnet extends within said closed loop, and said opposite ends of said permanent magnet are disposed adjacent opposite sides of said closed loop and against internal surfaces of said magnetic core comprising said closed loop; a first input coil extending around a portion of said first magnetic path, a second input coil extending around a portion of said second magnetic path, a first output coil extending around a portion of said first magnetic path for providing a first electrical output; a second output coil extending around a portion of said second magnetic path for providing a second electrical output; and a switching circuit driving electrical current alternately through said first and second input coils, wherein said electrical current driven through said first input coil causes said first input coil to produce a magnetic field opposing a concentration of magnetic flux from said permanent magnet within said first magnetic path, and said electrical current driven through said second input coil causes said second input coil to produce a magnetic field opposing a concentration of magnetic flux from said permanent magnet within said second magnetic path.
Click to expand...

If the patent teaches you how to do that, then the patent is enabled.

In contrast, the patent for the OP device is claiming a process for detection. If the device can't actually detect according to the claimed process, then someone should get the patent invalidated.
 
Omar Oliblish said:
The H3Tec is part of Charles L. Christensen. Chuck got some of his technology from Stephen Jepson of Spring City, Utah. Stephen was the master, who really found things with his unit, but Charles did not know a lot about it, none the less Charles decided to commercialize it for his "gold" I worked with Stephen for a few years. He and I were of the best of friends and shared common knowledge for a long time. Unfortunately Stephen Jepson passed away a few months ago and left his partners without the vital knowledge to operate his LRL. The problems with the H3Tec is that it hits and misses, but mostly misses, because what they do not know, Stephen did, but did not pass on. Also when they do get theirs working, they cannot define whether they are reading on flower gold, a gold vein or a solid brick or coin of gold. Here in Utah there are endless small deposits of flower gold in them there hills and since they cannot tell the relative density when they do have it working correctly, it makes for a lot of digging. The depth of a target was also mastered by Stephen Jepson and Chuck cannot do it. I have one of Stephens units and it can be built for about $1,200.00, but the detection technology and knowledge takes a long time to teach and I am not in the business of commercializing it.
Sincerely, Omar
Click to expand...

Whew! Let's all be thankful that this doesn't apply to all technology... in that devices stop working when the inventor of said devices dies.

Planes dropping from the skies on the day of Orville Wright's passing. Thomas Edison dies and light bulbs begin winking out around the world. That'd sure suck.
 
Eh, never mind on the reexam. The USPTO won't examine enablement issues on reexam.
 
Psiload said:
Whew! Let's all be thankful that this doesn't apply to all technology... in that devices stop working when the inventor of said devices dies.

Planes dropping from the skies on the day of Orville Wright's passing. Thomas Edison dies and light bulbs begin winking out around the world. That'd sure suck.
Click to expand...

Our trusty HP Laserjet blew its power supply in dramatic fashion the day Bill Packard died.

Spooky.
 
AvalonXQ said:
The MEG patent doesn't claim free energy. It claims this:



If the patent teaches you how to do that, then the patent is enabled.

In contrast, the patent for the OP device is claiming a process for detection. If the device can't actually detect according to the claimed process, then someone should get the patent invalidated.
Click to expand...

If it's a novel process then that's enough. If it doesn't work then nobody will buy your device. Patent Clerks don't have to have the device demonstrated to them, they just have to make sure no one else has a patent for the same thing.
there are thousands of patents for devices that have never been built ot tried out. How will you know if they work or not?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If it's a novel process then that's enough.
Click to expand...
You have to actually teach how to perform the novel process, though -- and the novel process actually has to have some utility. But I agree that, in reality:
Patent Clerks don't have to have the device demonstrated to them, they just have to make sure no one else has a patent for the same thing.
Click to expand...
... which means that while there's an enablement requirement in theory, in practice many patents never met it and never had to demonstrate that they did. This disclosure is presumed enabled. This is a problem.
 
H3Tec: A detailed look at a dowsing rod scam

Most people have heard of Sniffex, Quadro Tracker, DKL Lifeguard, ADE 651, and GT200. They are all products with claims of being able to remotely detect and indicate the presence of drugs, explosives, or live people. They are also all dowsing rod scams.

All of these products have been objectively tested and found to work no better than random chance guessing. In some cases (Quadro, Sniffex, ADE 651) the makers have been arrested for fraud. (Any news on Jim McCormick? Arrested in Jan, nothing more since...)

Another product has emerged: H3Tec. They are based in Ogden, Utah and the principles are Chuck and Kathy Christensen. I first ran into H3Tec at the Texas Treasure Show where they were selling the units as long-range (5 miles) treasure detectors. I was told that 2 units were sold at the show, for $10,000 each. A pic of the unit is below.

The Christensens also claim the H3Tec has been sold to the US Military for IED detection, and their promotional video shows a couple of GIs using it, see pic below. They also claim it is being used in oil exploration, and can also detect "certain" drugs.

I have obtained an H3Tec unit and performed testing and a complete teardown of the device. As I get time, I will post pics and discussions of what I found, and also various communications with the Christensens in which they threaten me. This should be entertaining!
 

Attachments

  • H3inCase.jpg
    H3inCase.jpg
    149.5 KB · Views: 49
  • Military.jpg
    Military.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 34
Gosh darn that looks so wonderfully high tech. How can it not work? :jaw-dropp

If you get a chance, could you ask about the significance of what looks like a diagram of a Lithium atom on the case? :boggled:
 
The web site is http://www.h3tec.com.

I did not buy the unit, it was loaned to me. The owner is a little apprehensive about being sued by the Christensens (more on this later) so I cannot reveal how much was paid, and even the photos I post of the unit will be in B&W.

The significance of the atom is that it looks high-tech, therefore the device must be high-tech.
 
Well done TechHead. I'm very interested in your tear down and can't wait to see the Christensens squirm.
 
Hmmm... I know people living in Ogden right now. Maybe they can pre-emptively save some lives with some well-placed molotovs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom