Peak Expensive Oil

[Woodsman]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

I believe you, but this is hard for me to reconcile with my impression (from too much TV, no doubt) that it's still quite possible to be disappeared, imprisoned, or executed for opposing the government/Party.

Why would you believe that?

It's one thing to say the Chinese elites are terrified of their populations (as elites are everywhere and always), but I'm not sure about characterizing it as "keeping things honest?" What the heck that does that even mean? This is how the CPC handles dissent.





Consider the CPC's vast apparatus of social control. There are arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion. Independent labor unions and human rights organizations are criminalized and the Party maintains control over all judicial institutions. The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve “social stability.”

The CPC carries out involuntary population relocation and rehousing on a massive scale, and enforces highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. China’s education system discriminates against children and young people with disabilities. China’s human rights activists face imprisonment, detention, torture, commitment to psychiatric facilities, house arrest, and intimidation. Human rights defenders are detained for ill-defined crimes ranging from “creating disturbances” to “inciting subversion” for organizing and participating in public, collective actions. Chinese police are the most powerful actor in the criminal justice system.

Use of torture to extract confessions is prevalent, and miscarriages of justice are frequent due to weak courts and tight limits on the rights of the defense. Reeducation through labor, although said to have been abolished in 2013, remains in place and is yet another form of arbitrary detention the police use to imprison people for up to four years without trial. And China leads the world in the number of executions.

Women may play an important social role, but their status is far from "in charge." Women’s reproductive rights and access to reproductive health remain severely curtailed under China’s population planning regulations. China’s government continues to enforce oppressive family planning policy, which includes the use of coercive measures, including forced abortion—to control reproductive choices. Domestic violence, employment discrimination, and gender bias against women are widespread, but the CPC limits the activities of independent women’s rights groups working on these issues by making it difficult for them to register, monitoring their activities, interrogating their staff, and prohibiting some activities.

And Heaven help you if you are gay inChina.

As for Chinese being "far more capitalistic" than Americans, it's true that the merchant culture existed long, long before Mao was an itch in in father's pants. That said, the Chinese system is a textbook example of state capitalism in the form of a socialist market economy. The defense, power generation and distribution, oil and petrochemicals, telecommunications, coal, aviation and shipping industries remain under absolute state control. The state retains indirect control in directing the non-state economy through the financial system, which lends according to state priorities. And a process of consolidation of state enterprises into large "national champions" continues, with the goal of consolidating efforts and creating internationally competitive national industries.

The state controls the "commanding heights" of the economy with the private sector engaged primarily in commodity production and light industry. And of course, there are those millions of shopkeepers, small enterprises, limited liability corporations, private shareholding corporations, private partnerships and sole proprietorships. The image of the Chinese merchant is practically universal, but there's nothing particularly "capitalistic" about the way China organizes its economy.

[santafe2]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Care to produce some equations to back up your prose Chris?

Oh, oh. porter asks an excellent question and this thread may be reduced to inarticulate equations no one here is qualified to analyze while the question goes unanswered. I'll try to rephrase the question: Will technology, (and maybe the Paris agreements), make the idea of expensive oil obsolete? Good question. I'm sure I never saw that coming.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Care to produce some equations to back up your prose Chris?

Here for your Christmas reading I reproduce a part of Chapter 8: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy 2015 Edition ISBN 978-0-9928374-0-2 (Not currently available).


8.6 A proposal for calculating gravity at the centre of a mass

First of all, I accept that the observed measurement of surface gravity totally relates to the accepted value for the inertial mass. But if I am correct, the total sum of the observed external gravity of a sphere of mass is exactly matched by the same sum of force emanating from the centre of the mass towards the surface. If there is balanced gravity at the centre and again there are internal bands within the sphere where there is again, balanced gravity due to the balance effect of the mass on both sides of the point of observation then it must follow that you cannot observe all of the gravitational forces within the total mass of the sphere while standing at the surface of the sphere. You can only observe the inertia when the mass moves, or something tries to move it and that will always relate to the observation of the gravitational mass at the surface.

What I am saying is that, mathematically; you must be able to observe a force from both directions. From the surface, you only observe the force from the vertical column beneath your feet and that the observed gravity G of a spherical mass must be only that pertaining to the vertical column from the surface to the centre.

However, at the centre, you are observing the sum of the total of those columns of force all concentrated into the point of the centre. This is a little like the stiletto heel of a woman’s shoe, only in reverse. Further, the value will be very high due to the considerably reduced area of observation.

Effectively, we are observing the total gravitational force of the surface, (projected towards the surface from the centre), and concentrated into an area less than a full stop on this page.

Therefore the theoretical total observable gravity field GT of a spherical mass, observed right at the centre of the mass must be the surface area S times the observed gravity G

S = 4πR² Therefore GT = 4πR² X G.

This gives sum total figures for gravity towards the surface of:

(The values have been given a negative value to reflect that the force field is in the opposite direction to that observed at the surface).

Right at the centre: - 197,359,446 G (Total from all angles)

10 mile (17km) diameter: - 314,066 G (One direction only)

100 mile (170km) diameter: - 3,140 G

1000 mile (1700km) diameter: - 31.4 G

These figures take no account of:

• The balanced gravity effects as observations are made along the column from the centre to the surface, over a distance of 3963 miles from the centre.

• Any consideration of a reduction in the diameter of a single column between the surface and the centre, and thus the potential for a reduction of the value for G as the diameter reduces with depth.
• Also please note that not only does gravity balance at times, but that the value for G will change relative to any increase in density as we move the point of observation towards the core.
  

It is my opinion that the actual total Gravity field TGF of the total mass of the sphere, again measured right at the centre, is the sum of all the balanced gravity forces, between the centre of the sphere and the surface.

Therefore, right at the centre, observed gravity, looking in any direction must be one half of the total TGF.

Taking as an example the inner core of a radius of 1221km and for the sake of argument at value of 0.1G at the interface between the inner and outer core to reflect the balanced gravity effects proposed, this gives sum total figures for gravity towards the outside surface of the inner core of:

Right at the centre: - 1,873,689 G (Total from all angles)

100km diameter - 30 G (half of GT for Inner Core)

(Note: projected towards the outer surface of the inner core) I will leave others better skilled than myself to calculate the true value for TGF using the known data from the likes of USGS. But of one thing we can be certain; the value will still be very high indeed. It will be quite lethal to try and stand at the centre of this planet.

This takes us into a completely new view of the core of every large body in space. With such high negative Gravity values at the core of an object, science will have to completely re-consider the effects of mass within a reasonable distance from the centre of the core of the object.

As I stated at the outset of this exercise, it is my opinion that gravity is much higher close to the core than at the surface of this planet and every other large mass object. A careful review of the balanced gravity effects will reduce the rough outline figures I have presented herein, but the value will still be considerably higher than presently accepted as the norm.

In Part 2, The New Thinking; I will show you how everyone, including Professor Sears, came to believe in what must now be seen as the incorrect conclusion; that gravity emanates from the centre of the planet and pulls everything toward it. But first of all I need to open up this debate even further, and ask more questions.

--------------

............“Just to remind you of what Newton wrote in Principia, The Author’s Preface:”

“But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all; for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn; for it requires that the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately, before he enters upon geometry; then it shows how by these operations problems may be solved. To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from mechanics; and by geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry that from these few principles, brought from without, it is able to produce so many things.”

The problem is not one of mathematics, but mechanics. Until you sit down and draw your right lines, you cannot provide a solution.

Everyone today is taught to learn by rote the mathematics; rather than question the basis of the right lines from which geometry makes use of their accuracy to create accurate mathematical solutions. No one can learn from rote, other than from what is placed in front of them; to learn to think requires a desire to question everything placed in front of you; and an acceptance of the need for a polite consequential debate about what has been missing from the right lines for so many decades.

I have attached a PDF file of a paper, Visual Proof of Balanced Forces in Equilibrium Visual Proof of balanced forces in equilbrium.pdf which was delivered to the UK Royal Society 2011. All of you can go try the same experiments yourselves, the materials are readily available and cheap.


This closes the matter here. I do not, at present, have funding available to print the book, but hope to get it out during the coming year.

May I wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Woodsman]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Very interesting viewpoint; parallels my own belief on both fronts. That the CIA answer to no one, (I must add, to the detriment of everyone), and that in just another 10-15 years, the world will be unlike anything we see today.

Bit more nuanced, I think. To whom did the Praetorian Guard answer? And who chose him?

Douglas Valentine asks us to think of them as the organized crime wing of the government. When certain distasteful yet necessary tasks are required, the executives of the firm turn to them. And in turn, depending on the task, they turn to a myriad of sometimes "public" and sometimes "private" resources to the the work. Sometimes common, not so ordinary criminals and sometimes those charged with serving and protecting.

But who runs who and who stands behind who? Well dig a deep hole and jump in if you expect to find out.

Another mess the idiot Truman left us. Our own red white and blue Cheka and Gestapo.

[vt]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Woodsman said:

"Consider the CPC's vast apparatus of social control. There are arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion. Independent labor unions and human rights organizations are criminalized and the Party maintains control over all judicial institutions. The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve “social stability.”


It seems like one of our parties engages in similar behavior:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tarianism-2016


The other party here engages in different behaviors that are damaging too, but at least they believe in preserving basic freedoms of speech and expression.

Other examples of the attack on free speech:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ee-speech.html

[aaron]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Woodsman said:

"Consider the CPC's vast apparatus of social control. There are arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion. Independent labor unions and human rights organizations are criminalized and the Party maintains control over all judicial institutions. The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve “social stability.”


It seems like one of our parties engages in similar behavior:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tarianism-2016


The other party here engages in different behaviors that are damaging too, but at least they believe in preserving basic freedoms of speech and expression.

I suppose the Libertarian party does believe in preserving basic freedoms, but they will not be elected in our current system. It seems we will be stuck between the hawk Killary and the gawk Trump

[shiny!]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

I suppose the Libertarian party does believe in preserving basic freedoms, but they will not be elected in our current system. It seems we will be stuck between the hawk Killary and the gawk Trump

Thanks aaron. Woodsman's signature says it all. Nice to see you again, btw.

Praying that this thread doesn't now descend into another fruitless flame war of, "I know both parties are awful but one's still better than the other one."

[Techdread]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Had a read of your paper, are you theorizing that there are locations in a sphere that gravitational forces are canceled/ballanced out?

Because this should be testable. Imagine if you were to bore a hole to the centre of the earth your theory would say that an object would suffer acceleration and deceleration effects not accounted by present theories. why not try to get access to deep mines, or ask GRG55 if he can as one of his contacts to share bore hole data with you.

Would your theory say that Black holes would have have to be more massive to form?
Would it also be possible to have multiple nuclear burning rings instead of just the centre of big stars with your theory?

I'm sure with a bit of thought you can devise a observable experiment.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Woodsman said:

"Consider the CPC's vast apparatus of social control. There are arbitrary curbs on expression, association, assembly, and religion. Independent labor unions and human rights organizations are criminalized and the Party maintains control over all judicial institutions. The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve “social stability.”


It seems like one of our parties engages in similar behavior:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tarianism-2016


The other party here engages in different behaviors that are damaging too, but at least they believe in preserving basic freedoms of speech and expression.

Other examples of the attack on free speech:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ee-speech.html

This sounds familiar:

"On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an “outdated concept” and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...tarianism-2016

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Had a read of your paper, are you theorizing that there are locations in a sphere that gravitational forces are canceled/ballanced out?

Because this should be testable. Imagine if you were to bore a hole to the centre of the earth your theory would say that an object would suffer acceleration and deceleration effects not accounted by present theories. why not try to get access to deep mines, or ask GRG55 if he can as one of his contacts to share bore hole data with you.

Would your theory say that Black holes would have have to be more massive to form?
Would it also be possible to have multiple nuclear burning rings instead of just the centre of big stars with your theory?

I'm sure with a bit of thought you can devise a observable experiment.

Thank you, all great questions.

are you theorizing that there are locations in a sphere that gravitational forces are canceled/balanced out?

Yes. Indeed, not just locations, but (roughly, dependent upon the external shape, and internal mass structure of the object, this planet not being a perfect sphere for example), spherical shells of balanced gravity within the mass; any mass; and the larger the mass the more significant the effects as photons of energy will be trapped in such. It is that, that underpins the underlying structure of a planetary nebula, an object once an ordinary star, now emitting copious streams of energy back out into space.

Because this should be testable. Imagine if you were to bore a hole to the centre of the earth your theory would say that an object would suffer acceleration and deceleration effects not accounted by present theories. why not try to get access to deep mines, or ask GRG55 if he can as one of his contacts to share bore hole data with you.

I have had such a discussion some years ago and the view was they do not observe such in deep boreholes. But then the problem is that if the hole is perpendicular, there is no balancing mass above the instrument recording the measurement. It might be possible with horizontally drilled holes. Again, compared to the distances involved from the surface to the probable location of the balance point; such, even deep drilled holes, are in point of fact only just scratching the surface of the outer skin of the planet. Thus such a measurement may be challenging.

Would your theory say that Black holes would have have to be more massive to form?
Would it also be possible to have multiple nuclear burning rings instead of just the centre of big stars with your theory?

No. This does not change the basic mass calculations for a black hole; but that question now brings us to the event horizon, or should I say, the very simple mistake made regarding the event itself and which presents an answer to the second half of your question.

The great mistake is that the event horizon is a mathematical point; where the mass structure, (which does vary dependent upon the starting point of the evolution towards the event), the mass rises to the point where the escape velocity for a photon is reached and the photon cannot pass beyond the surface of the mass. The conventional theory allows for increased mass mass within the event horizon; but that is mathematically impossible. I give as an example a cup of coffee; half full it is a star shining, add further mass, coffee, until the liquid is at the rim with the meniscus just about to break over the edge and you have reached the event horizon. Now, add more mass to your coffee cup; where does it go, it goes over the rim of the cup.

Once the event horizon occurs, as more mass is added to the structure, that mass must be outside of the original event horizon, and in which case it is super compressed inert mass and forms a shell that has no energy within the mass; that the energy of the photons within that new mass being deposited, is thus drawn down through the first event horizon and ends up trapped within the balanced gravity shell of the main mass. Now, there is a second event horizon rising off the surface of the outer surface of the mass that exactly, mathematically, matches the gravity quantum that prevents a photon from escaping.

As the object grows, you will have further event horizons within the mass, one most certainly between the central balanced gravity point and the inner surface of the main mass as the forces must become so high as for a void to form right at the centre, with the main mass becoming large enough to form into two very large balanced masses; an inner Galactic Core Object, itself surrounded with a balanced gravity band containing all of the photons of energy from all of the mass deposited upon the outer surface; itself a now massive, balancing mass relative to the inner Galactic Core Object, forming a ring of mass surrounding the inner core. As we can see from M51, another galaxy has come close and caused a disturbance to the force structures and caused the outer ring to break, allowing the outer ring to fling out into the surrounding space. Ergo, why we have "arms" to many galaxies.

Now we get to the answer to your final question. Those jets emitting from an active galaxy are emitting from the annular ring of balanced gravity and the flow of energy and mass, extending from each side of the structure, themselves create new galaxies on either side of the original. Thus the universe is in steady state and very very much older than present theories admit.

It is possible that the Milky Way, our own galaxy, was formed from the release of such energy from M51.

Oh! and those congregations of super compressed inert mass. Well they have no energy, and thus no electromagnetic force fields to attach the protons and the energy trapped within the balanced gravity shell has been ejected, drained away. So, over a very long period, that slowly expands and forms all those familiar dust clouds.

Enjoy!

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Had a read of your paper, are you theorizing that there are locations in a sphere that gravitational forces are canceled/ballanced out?

Because this should be testable. Imagine if you were to bore a hole to the centre of the earth your theory would say that an object would suffer acceleration and deceleration effects not accounted by present theories. why not try to get access to deep mines, or ask GRG55 if he can as one of his contacts to share bore hole data with you.

[...]

I'm sure with a bit of thought you can devise a observable experiment.

Just wanted to clarify for you, Techdread, that this "new theory" that gravitational forces cancel within a hollow spherical shell of material is NOT a point of difference from the existing description of gravity AT ALL. It is instead a trivial observation, and is easily demonstrated using a simple calculation that every physics student performs in their introductory freshman physics course. All that is required is elementary calculus:

Here's a typical mathematical treatment of the problem.

If you prefer a textual, rather than mathematical, description, it can also be understood without any calculus, and a great description of the original argument concerning this point between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke can be found in Huygens and Barrow, Newton and Hooke, by V.I. Arnold, pages 11-30. This textbook on the history of science will immediately clarify that Chris' line of thinking is about as far from "new" as one can get; his objection first came up when postulating that an inverse-square-law was applicable for describing gravity. He is literally just re-hashing the very first historical objection (~1686) to Newton's original approach to gravity, which has been re-examined countless times since then.

Indeed, there is no basic gravity-related objection that he has brought up on iTulip so far that was not already thoroughly disproved before the year 1700, and rendered laughable by 1750 (after which time no one could claim to be a scientist without a good understanding of calculus). We are NOT talking about a NEW theory at all. Just an old and long-ago-discredited one, that Chris has independently re-created from scratch, including all the same mistakes as his predecessors, who also managed to misunderstand the math, and in much the same way.



It is helpful to remember that the lack of gravitational force in the center of a sphere does NOT mean that there is no PRESSURE at the center of a non-hollow sphere. The pressure arises from gravity between a given test mass and those spherical shells of lesser radius, and is propagated inward to the center by the electrostatic repulsion of adjacent atoms. So at the very center of, say, the earth, one finds both zero net gravitational force due to the earth's mass, and incredibly high pressures due to the layers of earth above oneself. This might appear to be a contradiction, but in fact it is not. The force due to gravity is transmitted toward the center by the electrostatic repulsion of adjacent atoms.

On re-reading Chris' posts, it appears that he is simply making the common beginner's mistake of confusing "gravitational force," "total force," and "net force" and letting those basic but unchecked errors lead him to their associated ridiculous consequences. Gravitational force does go to zero, total forces do not.

To summarize, any experimental observation of a decline in gravitational force with depth does NOT in any way call into question any existing underlying description of gravity, which already predicts exactly this. It also does not have any of the consequences Chris claims regarding black holes, which are already fully consistent with this trivial property of gravity in the current description, though some math is required to clarify this fact.

Insisting on text-based, rather than mathematical, descriptions leads one down all kinds of rabbit-holes, generally unproductive. All sorts of apparent "contradictions" are created with this approach, which on closer inspection turn out to just be misunderstandings due to imprecise definitions, or improper addition of forces. That's why, where Chris sees "problems," physicists who use mathematical descriptions see only his own mistranslation of the existing theory into words. The apparent contradictions go away when the translation is done correctly, which is exactly why tomes of natural philosophy have been replaced by textbooks containing equations and proofs. The language of math does not as readily confuse meanings, as that of philosophy.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

When the book comes out you can all see that I too take the debate right back to Isaac Newton and what I believe was a misunderstanding of just three words he used in Proposition LXX. Yes there is a profound belief in the present mathematics, which will require an equally profound need to look very carefully indeed at the resulting debate. No one at present within what can be described as the conventional scientific community knows exactly what gravity is and how it works. Yes, they do claim as here to have the most detailed mathematical description. My view is that the entire mathematical exercise was based upon a misunderstanding of what gravity is physically, and how it works. What I gave here is a very short description of what is an entirely new theory for the description of what gravity is and how it works.

What has been interesting is, whether or not I am correct, I am able to describe what we see in a manner that, as others have said, makes a lot of sense. The debate cannot continue without the full book, that is a certainty. I must add that one of our greatest scientists, Professor Eric Laithwaite, entered this debate some decades ago with a number of demonstrations of gyroscopes that resulted in his being shunned by the entire scientific community on exactly the same mathematical basis as I am herein. http://www.rigb.org/blog/2013/december/eric-laithwaite I have recently added a new chapter to show why he was right to ask questions about the actions of a gyroscope and have included many possible experiments in Part 6 Questions needing answers which I believe will resolve the solution to the overall debate.

The mathematics are entirely based upon an incorrect understanding of exactly what gravity is and how it works. As such, the debate will have to wait for the book and then no doubt will continue until all the proposed experiments show where the mathematics do not, indeed, cannot possibly describe; what exactly causes the force we all describe as gravity.

Yes, I agree, to achieve that, I have had to destroy the entire basis for the current belief and that is, very understandably, difficult for the existing theorists to take on board. That is the very nature of debate, everyone has to be able to accept that there might be right and wrong on both sides.

The mathematics are wrong and I believe that I can prove it.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

In passing, it is also important to also state that I have herein presented a full visual demonstration of balanced forces in equilibrium, a demonstration anyone can themselves easily repeat using simply a length of knicker elastic and a marker pen; yet receive back a tirade of mathematical reasons why it cannot be true.

There's none so blind as those can't see.

[Jam]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Then was diverted by my work on other matters that resulted in my traveling throughout the US having opened an office in Washington DC and my proposals for a Video-911 system for the entire US based upon my US patents granted me, 5,712,679; 6,181,373; and 6,469,735. I am certain that I can say I am the original inventor of the wireless camera phone with navigation such as GPS.

Chris,

The patents you cite are for "Security system with locatable portable electronic camera image transmission." I note that the claimed inventions are considerably more narrow in scope than purported in your iTulip post. I imagine that this narrower scope is the result of either (1) the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) not allowing the broader invention of "wireless camera phone with navigation" (due to pre-existing 'art' at the time) or (2) the inventor not having the foresight at the time to anticipate the broader application of camera phone with GPS. Either way, not to be nitpicking, but, technically, the claim you are making in the post above looks like an exaggeration.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Chris,

The patents you cite are for "Security system with locatable portable electronic camera image transmission." I note that the claimed inventions are considerably more narrow in scope than purported in your iTulip post. I imagine that this narrower scope is the result of either (1) the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) not allowing the broader invention of "wireless camera phone with navigation" (due to pre-existing 'art' at the time) or (2) the inventor not having the foresight at the time to anticipate the broader application of camera phone with GPS. Either way, not to be nitpicking, but, technically, the claim you are making in the post above looks like an exaggeration.

You are correct, I did indeed exaggerate; just a little. Those patents were for a a camera phone with a navigation system, including GPS and I am certain that I am the first to file for that combination, or the whole application would have foundered.

May I quote from my agent regarding 6,469.735:

"Your attention is drawn particularly to Claim 13. This claim recites a method of identifying the position of a first location to security personnel at a remote location. The method comprises only the three essential steps of: (a) receiving global positioning signals at the first location; (b) obtaining an image of the first location; and (c) transmitting the received global positioning signals and the obtained image from the first location to the remote location. This claim is particularly broad because it does not include any limitations related to the nature of the device that carries out the method. Accordingly, the claim covers any device that practices the method including analogue, digital, and/or computer controlled devices. It also includes portable or self-contained devices, as well as component systems. Of all the claims of all of your U.S. patents, this is perhaps the most broadly written."

What happened was, when I was abandoned by the European Patent Office in 1992 because I could not pay their fees, and I by then had personally managed to get an application into the USPTO and then over six years, I carried out my own "Office Action" and made a change to the title from that of the Record Copy issued by the UK Patent Office. The by far the strongest was that record copy and the Japan Patent Office granted that verbatim..... water under the bridge. I made mistakes and ended up without earning a thing from them, but that is a VERY long story too.