Another claim to a working device...

[zoelra]

Grimer

I just checked out the link you posted. How could they have been able to patent a free energy / gravity device in the US, I thought these were not allowed? Well that could be hope for the rest of us. Of course, maybe the rules are different for big companies.

[Tarsier79]

Grimer, did you look at the patent PDF on the link you provided?

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7958726.pdf

This is not the same device they are building here. It could be the sequence of photos is the milling part of the machine. If the design in the above pdf is the device to drive this mill, I would not want to be him when the investor finds his machine is less than efficient.

Add, he could be adding single bouyancy mechanisms to the bottom of each arm.

[iacob alex]

..... uses the "legs" (same articulated mechanism ) ,you can see at :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAVv0uM0UvI

.....but not for walking.

As you can notice , it's a small size DIY Kit.

Al_ex

[path_finder]

Dear Alex,
Do not forget the Theo Jansen's mechanism, once started, is powered by the wind.
By what RaR-Energia does replace the wind?

[Grimer]

Grimer

I just checked out the link you posted. How could they have been able to patent a free energy / gravity device in the US, I thought these were not allowed? Well that could be hope for the rest of us. Of course, maybe the rules are different for big companies.

They probably called it something else.

Alternatively, since they claim to have a smaller version they could have demonstrated that to the patent examiner in which case seeing is believing and they could hardly have refused a patent.

[Grimer]

Dear Alex,
Do not forget the Theo Jansen's mechanism, once started, is powered by the wind.
By what RaR-Energia does replace the wind?

The gravitational wind as I keep telling people.

Unfortunately the Gestalt switch from seeing gravity as an attraction to seeing it as a repulsion is just too great for most people to make.

[iacob alex]

Dear P_F !

The conundrum of the gravity "wind" that puzzles us is related to the mass /falling mass as a "marker" of this accelerated "flow" phenomenon.

The gravity wind is half-real and in the same time half-allegory ,a figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another

The gravity wind expression is helpful to imagine something ineffable...so , incapable of being described in his essence.

By the way:gravity fall is as a particular ,gusty , accelerated wind...

Al_ex

[Furcurequs]

Grimer

I just checked out the link you posted. How could they have been able to patent a free energy / gravity device in the US, I thought these were not allowed? Well that could be hope for the rest of us. Of course, maybe the rules are different for big companies.

They probably called it something else.

Alternatively, since they claim to have a smaller version they could have demonstrated that to the patent examiner in which case seeing is believing and they could hardly have refused a patent.

Could you repost the link you are referring to? ...and is it an actual patent or just an application?

I'm not sure if we have yet seen a patent on this thing or even a published application for a patent on this thing, if I've already seen them all.

From what I understand, in the U.S., if the patent examiner(s) believe(s) that the claimaint is essentially claiming to have the design for a "perpetual motion machine" - as in it would gain its energy from a source or in a way not currently recognized by science - then he/she/they can require a working model. ...and so if the claimant actually has a working model then he/she should be granted the patent.

If the claimaint can convince the patent examiner without a working model, that can apparently still happen, too.

There have been cases where bogus claims have slipped through and patents granted, anyway, also.

So, a patent alone doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or the other.

For now it seems all we really have are the Ribeiro's own claims.

Dwayne

[jim_mich]

From what I understand, in the U.S., if the patent examiner(s) believe(s) that the claimaint is essentially claiming to have the design for a "perpetual motion machine" - as in it would gain its energy from a source or in a way not currently recognized by science - then he/she/they can require a working model. ...and so if the claimant actually has a working model then he/she should be granted the patent.

From tha past:

As far as me trying to get a patent on a gravity motor is concerned, I have, after much thought, reached the conclusion that to do so would be a bit dishonest. IF I ever figure out Bessler's secret, then I would only be presenting something he already invented. It would not truly be my invention and I would feel guilty trying to pretend that it was. Bessler's inventions now belong to the world in my opinion.

Ken you are wrong; there is no dishonesty involved. Since Bessler never disclosed how his wheel worked then it cannot be used as prior art. As far as patenting goes, it's as if Bessler's wheel never existed. If some closet inventor were to invent some new great invention, but never told anyone about it then it would be like it was never invented, even if people had witnessed the invention in action. This has happened in the past. Radio (voice transmission) was demonstrated by an inventor some years before Marconi invented wireless telegraph. It's unknown exactly how he did it since he never revealed his secret after people accused him of witchcraft. There are even rumors of radio (not voice) existing way back in the middle ages.

So Ken, if you (or anyone) were to discover how to make a PM wheel, there is no way to determine if it is the same as Bessler's wheel since we don't know what Bessler's wheel was like. Since there is no record of how to build a working PM device, and since there currently in no known working PM devices, then any PM device that works is patentable. Of course the PTO will not believe you without a working model as proof or possibly a very good clear believable explanation.

Basically it boils down to the fact that an invention must accomplish something other than act as a paperweight. If you state in a patent application that your invention will turn perpetually with no conventional input of energy then it had better darn well do as you say, else you have committed fraud.

There are three type of patents in the USA.

[1] Utility Patent
[2] Design Patent
[3] Plant Patent

A design patent covers thing like the shape of a Coke bottle. A PMM is not a plant, even though Bessler talked about it acting like it was alive.

So a PMM patent would be a utility patent and not a design or plant patent. "Utility" come from the base word "use". A patent must be useful; it must have a utility or use. If you state that the "use" is to turn continually then that is what your invention must do in order to be granted a patent. Since the patent office people think that perpetual motion machines are impossible, it becomes your responsibility to prove that your PMM is useful by proving that it works. Usually an examiner can look at a drawing and see if an invention will be useful and work as stated in the application. But when presented with a drawing of a PMM it may be very difficult to determine if it will work or not. The examiner will lean towards saying that it won't work. Then is becomes his word against the inventor. A simple solution to this stalemate is to present a working example of the machine. Otherwise the patent office will reject the application on grounds of lack of utility (usefulness). This is why the PTO examiners are advised to ask for a working model of any perpetual motion machine.

First, let's get one thing straight concerning perpetual motion and the US PTO (US Patent & Trademark Office). The PTO will reject perpetual motion patents on the grounds that they don't work. They don't reject them because they are a waste of time/not of value.

If you can prove that a perpetual motion invention actually works, then the PTO cannot deny issuing a patent on the grounds of not working. The proof would need to be very strong, such as by having a fully working model.

Whether or not someone could apply for a patent on the theory of how it works depends mostly on what your friend has claimed in his initial patent and on what was disclosed. Anything that was disclosed in the initial patent application can not be patented.

I don't think that you can sue the government for denying a patent application. All that you can do is sue the government to take another look at the application. I might be wrong about this. I'm not a patent attorney.

Thought a working model was required prior to a Patent being applied for in the States.

Welcome Ectropy, you have chosen an interesting forum name.

One must first apply for a US patent. Then the PTO "may" ask for a model when the invention involves perpetual motion. This is because patents must be "useful" and the inventor must swear that everything in the application is "true". If a perpetual motion invention does not work as the inventor says then the invention is not "useful" and the information in the application is not "true". Since the PTO assumes that perpetual motion is impossible and since sometimes inventions do what at first seems impossible, the examiners will ask for a working model as proof that a perpetual motion machine works as stated in the application. If the inventor cannot prove that it works as stated then the PTO will assume that it doesn't work. The PTO will then reject it on the grounds of "unworkability" and will not issue a patent.

US won't accept PM or OU claims, so ...

Not true! We have been over this topic many times. If you can prove that your PM or OU device does what you say it does (runs perpetually until it wears out, produces more output than input, etc.) and if the application meets all other normal patent criteria then the US patent office is required to issue you a patent. In the case of any perpetual motion claims the proof would normally be an actual working model.

You can not patent perpetual motion. Law.

Why do you think that you can not patent perpetual motion?

If you invent a device that is capable of forcefully moving/rotating forever or until its parts wear out, then there is no law preventing you from patenting the invention. Of course you must be able to present a working model because current science tells the patent office that such machines are impossible.

All one needs do is prove that the machine works as described in the patent application. Claiming that it works when it doesn't work is fraud. The only proof acceptable to the patent office is a fully working machine or some very logical explanation as to why it would work. The logic must be understood and agreed upon by the examiner. If you cannot convince forum members that your idea will surely work, then you have little chance of convincing an unbelieving examiner, except by presenting a fully working machine.

Welcome to the forum!

The USA patent office will not allow a overunity device or perpetual motion device to be patented.

The is false. The USA patent office has no rule, regulation, or law to prevent it from issuing a patent on any working overunity or perpetual motion device. It does have a regulation that allows it to request proof that any application for a perpetual motion device actually works. This proof can me in writing or an actual machine. If it is in writing then it becomes "you say - they say" and they have the final say. So in reality, the inventor of a perpetual motion or over unity device must have a model that works as claimed in the patent application.

But then we get to the possible patent office secrecy order. If the US government thinks that disclosure of your invention is a threat to national security then they can demand you keep your invention a secret. This usually happens with government contractors who develop new weapons and such. But it also has happened to over unity device inventors. The government can claim that any over unity device would disrupt the economy since the government collects large amounts of revenue from petroleum in the form of taxes.

[Grimer]

Two new pictures up. Numbers 34 and 35.

http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

Remember to scroll to bottom of page.

[murilo]

Caramba!
They are doing a clean, nice and professional job!
I would like to be there, really!

[Reticon]

So that behemoth is supposed to generate 30kW? That's at least on par with the kind of scale we should expect but even if they manage 1W they will have accomplished something. Though I've got my money on zilch.

[zoelra]

30 kW

[Reticon]

Oops, yeah, thx, that's still very low considering the size. I don't mean that as a bad thing. Most of us have assumed that a working device would not produce huge output, but any energy at all would change physics forever. Rooting for 1W but doubt it.

[iacob alex]

.... of www.rarenergia.com.br , in my opinion , is the next big episode (after Aldo Costa's huge wheel attempt ), to find a finish for a longtime marathon in search of a "dream machine"...

It seems that , they play , a ponderous but a litlle clumsy multi-articulated mechanism (alike Theo Jansen), as a lot of pendulums in a continuous unbalance ...it's a natural "generous" design.

We ,as humans ,are no more than some particular moving inverted pendulums...the most "evolved" (try to read "simplified"...).

Let's wish them success !

Al_ex