Nonlinear plasma:
Hey there, again. I'm still feeling thanks, for your info, regardless of strong disagreements. No one needs to stick around, on this particular ground, but I haven't shifted from my impression(s).
First, for better readability, try separating sensible sized paragraphs; all packed together increases reader impatience:. I was saying, to myself while reading:
"The lengthy details seem too deep, leaving me, the reader having to figure out just a basic, what does that do ?" Similar for the actual claims, in your Patent Application.
"...Oh, ok, propulsion of a.."...uh now THAT I would guess a ROCKET...but that's only because your thread starts out with that near the title, elsewhere in your bulked-out and out of control narratives.
So I'm thinking, 'Kinetic Propulsion' (?) But how ? Expecting something like: "Conventional Propeller action then occurs.".
But that gets overlooked, so then I had to speculate:
"OK, maybe it's mainly a FUSION novelty."
But there's no real connect made, you even state that the 'reader' can figure that out. Fusion to boil water to steam, and then, somehow, Forward Motion happens.
Wait, ...steam turns turbine turns Propeller; I got this,
but then why is a propeller NOVEL ?
I mean, isn't this just in the FUSION to steam catagory, with that propeller just a 'Prior Art' portion of the overall machine (Rocket)?
BTW, it's your 'brush-offs', that get people coming back, to twist your sheets a bit. Telling me 'Thats sweet of you' is just a bit offsetting.
Anyway, I think next maybe would be for someone, (me I guess), to go track down the assigned Patent Catagories, to see if includes 'Novel Propulsion methods', or just the 'Fusion'. Because, a propeller, being cranked by Darth Vader is STILL 'prior art'.
If you can separate each paragraph, even not perfectly, that will help your credibility. And confidence, in the invention, will help qwell that 'knee-jerk' reactive burst of visably USELESS and insulting back-responses you are getting. We still like you here, at least I do. Sounding maybe conflicted, but you could change a lot,and plus an argument with respectful boundaries is a learning experience. (I still don't like the text style).
Anyway, that Australian Patent officer, viewing your application, perhaps might want some proof of concept, I'm not able to provide that assessment.
"Money first, proof later..." just don't cut it.
Perhaps, in a special case, in lieu of a 'working prototype', perhaps the Australian examiner might allow a 'peer review', written up by a nearby University Physics person. That kind of thing, maybe spend a couple hundred on, just a little bit of exam / discussion with your friendly local Patent Attorney. Some of those things might better impress any potential investors.
With your (seemingly defiant) presentation of yourself, so far, as an investor I would want to buy the whole package, of the I.P. just to sweep you off to side, out of the way and unheard.
But I've got all kinds of rough handling that I've dished out, probably wrongly, so there we go...I'm not so perfect, as the next guy.
If you can work on the paragraph structure, a bit, and LEAVE OUT the magnetics bs, completely, I'd be tempted to read further. AND, even better, tune in on the other talented replies even better than my scrawled
musings.
I think maybe that's a FUSION method application, the propulsion not so much (novelty).
Thanks.