The Beginning

In the fall of 1952 I was a Sophomore at University High School, Normal, Illinois.  In my first biology class, using my first real microscope and looking at a professionally prepared slide I had the assignment of making a drawing of what I saw.  The specimen was a thin leaf cross section such that we were seeing transverse internal cell structure.  The section was a few cells thick and we saw the leaf top and bottom as well as the structures within.

The specimen was stained pale blue.  Some areas had the reddish pink color stained lignin where the cellulose was pale blue.  The most outstanding features were “stomata.” They looked like round rooms with openings to the bottom of the leaf, but never to the top.  After 20 minutes of drawing our teacher, John Carlock, called for attention to discuss what we saw.  I asked about the stomata and he said, “They’re like our pores.  They cool the plant.”

I differed and asked, “Why aren't they on the top?  It’s hotter there and they would work better, like our pores.”  Carlock had no answer, but he was a sharp teacher and said that perhaps I was onto something.  He commented cacti have fewer stomata and live in hotter places, but the literature attributed a cooling function to stomata.  He also noted their function in transpiration to move dissolved chemicals through the plants. 


I did not get a full answer then and it was not until 2007, 55 years later that I would really understand green plants.  My ideas could change the world, but more than anything I missed the opportunity  to tell "Carlock."  He would have been very pleased.

In 1974, 22 years after that 1952 day, I was hired to take over the production of three educational filmstrip series including, “Energy Now” for Doubleday & Co.’s Orange County, California production arm.  They had commissioned another producer, a film school hot-shot, that knew no science to produce them.  The scripts were written by two Ph.D.s who knew nothing about picture production and they were not producible due to the limited budgets we had for educational filmstrips.

I had been in the business for 14 years, built a reputation as a very effective producer, capable of salvage, a “script doctor.”  I took one look at the series and told the executive producer I would do it if I could rewrite the scripts and that I would cover everything in the outlines.  She accepted quickly as the company had announced the series in their catalog and they had to have it.  They would not be nitpicky about the scripts especially where I would write them as I was an experienced, science-trained producer and my stuff sold better than anyone else in the business.  I had long known film company executives are business types, bean counters who feel they have to make creative inputs to justify their salaries so I always made an effort to include their ideas.

The first problem I saw was in the script on nuclear power as this was pre-Three Mile Island. The question then was all the water vapor from the cooling towers of the planned 1,000 new power plants. “Would they turn America into a steam bath?”  That much of America already was a steam bath did not matter to people whose profession it was to find something to worry about.

I got engineering data on the output of cooling towers; computed the mass of the atmosphere and concluded that it was not only overwhelmingly large, but in motion and much of the excess water vapor would be blown out to sea in the areas of greatest concern.

Plus, seeing the atmosphere as a system it was clear we would only increase the rain a little if anything and that would be good news.

The figures looked good to me, but to be sure I put them together as a six page paper and sent them off to Dr. S. Fred Singer, the leading climate authority in the United States having been the head of the U.S. Weather Bureau Satellite Division for 30 years and then the head of the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Virginia.  I included a return cover and letter asking Dr. Singer to review my paper.

Three weeks later it came back in the return cover and on the top of the first page was written in pencil, “Looks OK to me. Fred”  I kept the envelope and paper in the script file “just in case” as I knew Doubleday would want to sell this set for 20 years and it was solid evidence of my preparation and consideration of the market. 

The paper was never needed as Doubleday folded the film company and I got the three filmstrip series in settlement where they had breached my distribution contract.  I started my own mail order business to exploit them.  That was very successful from 1975 through 1985.  By then the computer had come to the fore and was eating all the audiovisual money so I shifted to computer software and shipped to Educational Images in New York the remainders of my filmstrip business.

Then I noticed the “Ozone Hole – Freon” controversy and none of the chemistry made sense.  The papers were full of stories about “ozone shields” blocking ultra violet, UV, radiation from the sun.  I knew this was nonsense as gases cannot form reflective surfaces and ozone is not a “shield,” but a product of UV hitting oxygen which it does down to the surface!  Witness the natural brown, oxides of nitrogen made when atomic oxygen, [O], combines with nitrogen, N2.


And, the demonization of chloro-fluoro-carbons made no sense.  The purported effect was seen only at the south pole when by far most of the Freon was made and used in the Northern Hemisphere.  Why was the effect not seen at the North Pole?  My quick conclusion was, “There is no effect.”  

The reaction claimed to be the cause of all this havoc had very high thermodynamic demands and it did not appear to me that the energy levels in the very low pressures of the upper atmosphere would be sufficient.  The thermodynamics were backwards!

Then I later found the reaction had not been done in a lab anywhere in spite of vigorous attempts at MIT by Dr. Molina, one of the discoverers.  He is still trying to make it work, to this day!| The more I read the more I became convinced these two guys were armchair chemists who had done nothing, but write speculative equations on paper and prepare an impressive grant application.

All of this applied to nothing directly, but it showed skullduggery was at work in science and particularly atmospheric science.  About this  time there was serious speculation we were entering an ice age caused by the increase of carbon particulate matter and the use of carbon fuels should be controlled.  However, the group presenting this to Congress did not make a good case to the electeds making the mistake of showing them how smart they were with esoteric language and math the elected gasbags could not understand and were too embarrassed to ask.  No sale in 1971, but in that group was one Dr. James Hansen.


It has always amazed me that people in positions of authority, power and trust do not demand specialists express things in terms they understand because it can be done.  There is an academic kind of arrogance that has hurt progress in many instances and all it takes is persistent questioning of a kind few students dare.

17 years later an older, much wiser Dr. James Hansen came back to Congress with a better idea and reinforced by U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Junior.  Gore had written a nonsense book entitled “Earth in the Balance.”  It was clear he was the author, unlike most books ostensibly written by elected people, as it was full of stupid errors no science writer or editor would ever let pass.  It was clear Mr. Gore, in all his arrogant splendor, insisted, “Not a word be changed!”  Every book written, but his has been improved by editors if the authors were sensible men.

On the hottest August 22^nd, 1988 in history Dr. Hansen and Al Gore were at the Senate Hearing room early and opened all the windows to overwhelm the air conditioning system.  Their presentation, “Man Caused Global Warming - We’re All Gonna Die!” went over with a stunning effect as they wisely included the demonization of carbon and new taxes in the pitch.  With hypothetical cash registers ringing in their greedy little minds the Joint Committee of the House and Senate was very impressed.
 

From Day One of the Anthropogenic Global Warming controversy I have been opposed to the idea and people.  It has cost me a lot as I had the temerity to propose educational projects opposing it.  I knew the idea was causing science textbooks to be rewritten with new ideas coming out of environmentalism and politics.  Nothing talks like money and these people have contributed to the ruin of America, but I always felt the truth would prevail.  However, soon after the turn of the century I began to have doubt as the “Greens” were winning victory after victory


After DDT was banned 100 million people died of Malaria in spite of the fact it is no more poisonous than unleaded petroleum. It was designed to kill mosquitoes by clogging their breathing spiracles like petroleum, but not be flammable or volatile.  It did that perfectly, but Rachel Carson demonized it in print and the environmentalists were off and running.  International socialism, aka Communism, had found a new home.


When Freon was banned, Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for a chemical reaction that had not been observed in nature or accomplished in a lab.  And, any chemist knows the “ozone shield” is a myth.  Gasses do not form surfaces!  Only solids and liquids can form surfaces as their molecules are touching. It is just that simple.


Meanwhile back in Washington, DC bunches of white coats started writing grant applications designed to shore up the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.  But they had two problems:


(1)  CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and is insignificant by definition.


(2)  Water vapor is much better absorber by a factor of nearly seven and it has 80 times as many molecules creating 560 times the heating effect or 99.8% of it.  CO2 only does less than 0.2% of all atmospheric heating.


Anyone looking at this situation with even rudimentary knowledge of physics will see that blaming CO2 for warming the atmosphere is insane.  However, the number of people that can figure this out for themselves is small as only five percent of the population has taken physics in high school.  It is no longer taught in most American high schools.

Working for the promoters of the fraud is that:

(A.)  95% of the people are ignorant of the physics.

(B.)  many of the knowledgeable people are egomaniacs and cannot explain anything in simple terms so eager are they to impress everyone with how smart they are, i.e.  "...couldn't understand a word. He's real smart!"

(C.)  man can really affect the environment fits the liberal, “Me big, strong, evil man!” especially if “white,” prototype that pleases the arrogant and works so well for guilt tossers.

(D.)  the concept serves the elected ruling class by giving them more power in economics and politics than anything in 800 years, the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

(E.)  the inertia of the electorate in not wanting to know the people for whom they voted are flawed in any way. 

The elected ruling class may not have the knowledge to sort out the issue for themselves, but they do have the responsibility to take testimony sufficient to reveal the truth.  Most are trained lawyers supposed to be able to do this kind of investigation, but they don’t because money and power will be gained with the wrong answer.

These factors contributed to creation and funding of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences on the campus of Columbia University in New York City.  This “think tank” of armchair scientists was staffed by 50 Ph.D.s in the sciences with the assignment to come up with projects and papers that would promote anthropogenic global warming.

To lend authenticity to their papers up to 40 of them would be listed as co-authors.  This is a red flag to people in academia or publishing as they know it is impossible for a committee to write a paper. They may endorse a paper, but for anyone to claim 40 authors confesses fraud to anyone who understands the process.

Furthermore, if you track these names you will find those on this list serve as reviewers in the journals and magazines. Thus, they have successfully poisoned the “peer review” process.  This is a scandal more obvious than that at East Anglia University and a powerful example of how money and power pollute and ruin science. They may take America down as well.

Many who get into science do it because it is clean.  When you become a scientist you are not working with sick people who die on you as happens to physicians.  You are not working with angry, insane, immoral miscreants like lawyers and psychiatrists.  You are working with concepts that work or not, that are straight-forward and without guile, fraud or evil.  And, there is always the chance you may make a great discovery.  Most scientists live their whole lives without doing that, but they are men who can dream.

The whole concept of what was happening and how to deal with it did not come to me until I read “The Ozone Hole,” by Dotto and Schiff.  They laid out the mechanics of big science, seeking grants and awards in a way that exposed the whole “game” to me.  The conclusion was that government had poisoned science with money.

In 1971 when Jim Hansen showed up at a Congressional hearing with a team trying to sell the idea particulate carbon was shading Earth such that we were cooling so much an ice age would be the consequence he was only the computer programmer in the group. He had written the code that was to predict the weather for the next several decades in spite of the fact that no one has written a program that will tell you if it is going to rain tomorrow, in a week, month or year!  Congress didn’t buy it, but in time Jim saw that the reason was that they had not included the taxing potential and that took him 17 years.  Jim should pray he never gets the seven year itch.

In 1988 when Jim came back with Albert Gore, Junior and the idea carbon should be regulated and taxed rang the cash registers of the Congressional joint committee in August 1988 and our 536 Federal electeds have thought about little else since as this is global and could lead to one world with them in charge!  It is that thirst for power that has driven this nonsense for over two decades.  And, it seemed so powerful in 2005 I felt they would win.

Articles on secondary education revealed that physics was no longer taught in high schools because union run schools could not pay a premium for science teachers when 80% who enter that curriculum drop out.  Everyone has to be paid the same in the forced socialism of union schools and science majors can make more money in other places. 

What science graduate is going to work for $32,000 a year when he can start in industry for $60,000 and in five years be making well over $100,000 while the teacher is not yet getting $40,000?  Add to this the loans students now have to pay back since colleges have become socialist states and you can forget seeing science taught by well-trained people in the public schools.  Physics, for example, is no longer offered in American high schools as they cannot get teachers and few students want to subject themselves to the rigors of the subject.  In my college class 80% of those starting dropped out.

We have also been told science classes at Stanford and Berkeley begin with a five to 15 minute indoctrinations in environmentalism. This gives 10 to 30% of instruction time to socialism.  Public money has bought the soul of academia and handed it to politicians.  


There are only two kinds of people who take money at gunpoint:  robbers and government people.  Therefore, I went into a deep, back-burner thinking process and in 2005 SCAF burst out while I was standing in front of my stereo system loading a CD.  The whole vision fell on me like the proverbial “ton-of-bricks.”  I know not what triggered it.


“Why pump CO2 into old wells when putting it in the ground for plants will feed them?   Deliver the gas directly to the moisture underground where it is 10 Celsius degrees, very soluble and stable.  The plants will cut water use in response.”  Virtually the whole concept came to me in a flash.

In days following I added ideas of putting finely ground charcoal, then Cottrell precipitator “Lamp black” into soil for amending and sequestration.  As these things go, ideas came thick and fast, but I managed to devise an experiment, went to K-Mart to buy two as identical Dieffenbachia plants as I could find, put one on distilled water with the idea that was as close to rain as could be had and the other on soda water.  I hoped that Dieffenbachia was a reasonable house plant that would not be overrunning my house or attacking me in the night.

That experiment went on for several months and the results were significant.  The plant on soda water did much better and after a dozen weeks I shut it off for a stress test.  I reduced the watering from one ounce a day, keeping the pot soil moist, to once a week.  The reaction was dramatic.

The pure water plant wilted as expected.  Within a week the soda water plant dropped all its leaves.  They looked like they had been cut off the plant at the nodes.  There was a straight line right at the bottom of each leaf and it was lying by the plant.  The stalk remained green viable, but then new tiny leaves developed.  The water only plant showed no such reaction.  The soda water plant had made a decision!  It appeared to have thought through the crisis!

          
Both plants stayed alive, but the pure water plant did visibly less well than the soda water plant on the severely reduced regimen.  I started looking for other examples of plant intelligence and the only one found to date was in the wild Blackberry.  The stalks that are rising bear flowers and fruit where the ones sent out at ground level as runners do not.  The plant appears to be electing which stalks have the highest likelihood of getting fertilized by flying insects.

What To Do?

While all of this was going on I was writing descriptions of the concepts, designing equipment to implement it and looking for things I could modify and adapt in the drawings and equipment when needed.  I also had to develop a strategy for getting a patent as I knew that field was over-run with shysters and con-artists.  


I searched around the Internet and the Davison organization appeared to be the largest “invention development” company so I went to work looking up as much as I could on them.  As luck would have it I managed to find some SEC filings on Yahoo as Davison had come under the scrutiny of the SEC where they are publicly traded and there had been complaints.  In those filings I found that only one of 1,300 patents makes more money than it cost in fees!  A 0.077% success rate is ridiculous!  Why would anyone ever get a patent?


Having been raised in academia where so many things are done for  stupid reasons, I immediately realized that any young professor trying to get a full professorship and tenure would be looked upon with great favor if he got a patent.  Colleges are places where getting published in a journal is a necessity despite the fact most of them are printed in garages by other professors, have circulations of less than 500 and require authors to buy 100 copies when they are published.  Of course they mail them to everyone they can think of to impress them. 


The ridiculous fact of this came to me when an art teacher on our campus had a piece in Readers Digest.  This was a publication few of the faculty snobs would admit to reading, but all did and one was to be found in every faculty family bathroom as all were tightly bound.  And, much the same is true in business where an employee getting a patent will be thought to be a genius and be promoted to Vice President over someone who has not patented.  Of course his tires will be slashed in the parking lot.


My strategy came down to a few things:  Getting a patent would help me to sell the concept and make money from it.  It could be helpful in my primary business of science writing, but I did not want to get screwed all the way to the bank.  How could I sort the legitimate people from the con artists?  I first tried the invention groups on Yahoo and soon found all were loaded with schills promoting the “patent developers.”  No cigar.  I devised my own tool for finding a good developer.

RectoLux(tm) Disclosure

The September 1, 1997 issue of the Swedish medical journal Medicska Internska featured an article entitled, “Illuminating Internal Organs,” by Bjarne Bjerko and Perr Onnnskar.  They had found Swedish people had many more internal afflictions than those living where the sun shines during winter.  Sweden is essentially in darkness six months of the year.  They illuminated internal organs of 100 test subjects with fiber optics inserted in the rectum and all were happy.  Some were very happy.

While doing undergrad work at UC Santa Barbara, Dr. Bjerko had observed people who spent many hours in sunlight were healthier and sexier, but stupider. This proved to be the critical concept in Dr. Bjerko’s thinking.

We created RectoLux as a result episodic constipation.  Ironically, the concept sprang forth in a rustic outhouse where in a blinding moment of creativity, elimination, and “wind breaking” we made contributions to earth, air and invention in what may go down in history as, "The fart heard round the world!"

The RectoLux(tm) consists of a light collecting "beanie" with 1,000 hair-thin fiber-optic strands gathered into a cable conducting light down the back and into the body in a way that would be indelicate to describe in anything, but a clinical setting or an adult-toy catalog.  The work continues:  A halogen light model for night shift workers is planned.  There will be a strobe flash version for exotic dancers and people riding bicycles at night.

No longer will organs bump into each other blindly.  One can only imagine glands saying "I feel your pain!" practicing conflict resolution and political correctness.  We here claim this to be our work and ours alone.

Adrian Vance

This ridiculous “disclosure” is in the form of communication that is used to communicate the essence of a concept to a lawyer or development service.  It outlines the device simply, but contains no claims.  “Claims” are the heart of the patent and the most important part of the document.  They determine who owns what in court cases.

          
I had learned to do patent searches while living in Los Angeles as there was a US Patents room there and as one trained in science new patents were always a curiosity to me.  As well, my uncle Frederick Goff had two patents, and actually should have had a third, but there lies a story.

Fred was an “antsy” kid in school and did not go beyond high school. He was interested in machines, particularly machine tools and became a highly skilled machinist living in Elgin, Illinois, the home of the famous and thriving Elgin watch company.  Watches are made of non-ferrous metals to avoid becoming magnetic as that makes them erratic.  Where alloys of iron are easy to machine other metals are not.  Alloys have “mixed melting points,” which means they melt over a range of temperatures unlike to pure substances which melt at fixed points.

Non-ferrous metals “puddle,” which is related to the mixed melting points and that makes them very difficult to machine.  Fred came up with a tool that made machining non-ferrous metals non-puddling and highly accurate.  In essence it involves a small roller that would press them into shape while forging and increasing the strength of their surfaces.  With some help he filed a patent only to soon be called on by two FBI agents.

Fred had inadvertently solved a problem the people who were making the first atomic bomb had run into as they wanted to machine uranium and polonium, non-ferrous metals, with high accuracy.  He was still of draft age, but as the inventor of something important to national defense he was taken off the draft board list and the government made his patent TOP SECRET.  As a result he did not receive a penny from it and after the war a German inventor had patented a similar system there so there was really no reason to have kept his system under wraps.  The German company made millions on its patent as it improved European watches and clocks.

Meanwhile back in 2006 California I did a search on my concepts and found 25 patents that were related to, but not close enough to mine for it to be considered an infringement.  These had come from 250 patents I had read and analyzed relative to my concepts.

“RectoLux™” was sent to ten invention development organizations and produced positive responses from seven, no response from two and a “Thanks for the laugh!” reply from The Invention Home in Pennsylvania.

This was what I wanted; people who gave an honest response.  On looking at their website I saw a bunch of “young Republican” types so I gave them a call.

The Invention Home representative was pleasant and convincing so I purchased an official search which is the first step in applying for a patent through a firm of attorneys.  It cost $400.

          
When I received the result I was disappointed.  Their search had missed a couple of patents I had found applicable and they found a couple of patents I felt did not apply.  I called the office to complain and they referred me to their patent attorneys, James Ray & Associates in Pittsburg.  It is a shop of ten patent lawyers and I talked to the boss, Mr. James Ray.  We got on very well and he complimented my disclosure, telling me it was the best one he had ever seen and he had been the head of the patent department at US Steel for 31 years!  He worked with top-notch engineering committees.

This was a red flag to me as it was highly unlikely and probably hyperbole, but I said, “You said the magic word, ‘committee.’  My father always said if you want to screw something up just turn it over to a committee of college professors and he was a college professor.”  Mr. Ray laughed and I thought I could work with him, but I would keep him at arm’s length.

Mr. Ray apologized for the quality of the search, but expressed that we should continue as he believed in the concept and said, “It will be an easy sell.”

During the month it had taken for the search I had done some revising and adding to the concept so I told him I wanted to rewrite the disclosure.  That took a few weeks and I sent it to him directly.

A few weeks after receipt Mr. Ray responded that they wanted to partner with me, “…doing all legal work…” as their part of the bargain and explaining to me that they would also take care of the foreign patenting and I knew that could be a major expense so I agreed and we executed an agreement.

Months passed and in due course I got calls from Mr. Ray’s secretary asking for $8,000.  I asked to speak to Mr. Ray, but he was not forthcoming and after one conversation I initiated it seemed appropriate to dissolve the partnership so I sent him a letter with that declaration, but he has never responded.  This could be a problem, as we will later see.

          
I then set to work preparing a filing document after reading more patents and in this phase discovered something interesting and shocking:  25% of all issued patents are prepared by inventors and they are perfect in concept and language, never having mistakes.  Attorney prepared patents in my area of expertise, all had mistakes in concept and language with some of the latter fatal flaws in court, in my view.  With the patent as the document at issue the case for or against is predicted on it, there should be no exceptions.

          
Continue to Disclosure.

Table of Contents