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.

List of key words.

Taking carbon steel as an example, as shown in Picture 1, using a 1000w fiber laser cutting machine, for carbon steel materials thickness below 10mm, when the thickness of carbon steel is less than 2mm, the cutting speed per minute can be up to 8 meters. When the thickness is 6mm, the cutting speed is about 1.6 meters per minute, and when the thickness of the carbon steel is 10 mm, the cutting speed is about 0.6 to 0.7 meters per minute.

• Taking carbon steel as an example, as shown in Picture 1, using a 1000w fiber laser cutting machine, for carbon steel materials thickness below 10mm, when the thickness of carbon steel is less than 2mm, the cutting speed per minute can be up to 8 meters. When the thickness is 6mm, the cutting speed is about 1.6 meters per minute, and when the thickness of the carbon steel is 10 mm, the cutting speed is about 0.6 to 0.7 meters per minute.

It can be seen that when the thickness of carbon steel material is less than 2mm, customers who attach great importance to cutting speed can consider using 2000W fiber laser cutting machine, but the 2000W machine is much higher than 1000W in equipment price and operating cost. When the carbon steel material is larger than 2mm, the 2000W machine is not much faster than the 1000W cutting speed. Therefore, the 1000W fiber laser cutting machine is more cost-effective than the 2000W fiber laser cutting machine.

The cutting speed can directly reflect the efficiency of the fiber laser cutting machine. For cutting different materials with different thickness, the cutting speed will also change greatly. The thicker the thickness, the slower the speed!

Difference between HPM and lazer

dataset