On 15DEC17, Dr. James Sheehy, Chief Technology Officer for the Naval Aviation Enterprise, wrote a letter to Phillip J. Bonzell, Primary Patent Examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, requesting immediate action concerning a denied patent application by a certain Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, an aerospace engineer at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. Dr. Sheehy anecdotally explained his case to Mr. Bonzell, relating how [Howard] Hughes in the early 1960’s claimed the invention of the “ruby laser”, when factually the United States Army at Picatinny Arsenal built the first such device in 1958. The negligence of not seeking a patent for the invention cost the Department of Defense dearly.

The letter concludes with the marginally cloaked implication of United States’ National Security being severely jeopardized by the then current application’s rejection. Dr. Sheehy supported his position stating: ”Based on these initial findings [Dr. Pais’ supporting feasibility experiments] I would assert this will become a reality. China is already investing significantly in this area and I would prefer we hold the patent as opposed to paying forever more to use this revolutionary technology…”

U. S. Patent Application 15/141,270 (PAX205)/B64G1/409 Unconventional spacecraft propulsion systems Patent Number 10,144,532, Granted 4DEC18, Adjusted Expiration 28SEP36

What can we learn from this? 1) The history of the Ruby Laser needs to be rewritten, wikipedia and anything about the laser does not acknowledge what is being claimed here.

2) The Navy has to use an example from 1958/1960 to avoid any issue but still make the point... "just like this other time we didn't patent what we built and therefor it was a mistake... we should patent this new technology... that we haven't made... but in case we did make it like the Ruby Laser, then let's patent it.

Der grönländische Eisschild verliert aufgrund der globalen Erhitzung 30 Millionen Tonnen Eis pro Stunde und damit 20% mehr als bisher angenommen. Manche Forschende fürchten, dass damit das Risiko eines Kollaps des Amoc größer ist als bisher angenommen. Der Eisverlust ist außerdem relevant für die Berechnung des Energie-Ungleichgewichts der Erde durch Treibhausgas-Emissionen. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals

Studie: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06863-2.epdf?sharing_token=iqz0ns4_X6P1af3896jdntRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Pcew_aMz7qHMDjrF_9OLTexA24mQs8ERV-259eCQry-G1-OcR886jfHOICrWGcm8cGg2VLBlaWiYSzX6VygthHh72iiwkk1tHZcLD1G1oJIqdPha0A1oTMHLlfMAnTQrtd8PDFsj4xKAmTnOSL-6mrcbTbHbswhJaFji9IbAnyGW2pLAYwREeh-QWIL9xUFdsDBojJhNYWYoijtYUQx5YCyfzCJPGOEtlLO_PeIU9Tip8BaF24vqXfHcmad2_vz5eg0jcny8HHzO0uvDtSh_Bhym1eC8D25wZM6uZZ5vH9BA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com