The Patent Application Process - UK

[AB Hammer]

Chris

Well it is more proof of what I always say.

It is not always the journey's end, but what you learn on the way.

Good going

Alan

[triplock]

Alan,

Currently NASA use the ARGOS system here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2DNbC_ljHs

The major drawback with this is that they own the IP to this type of Gravity Equalizer, so they have a strangle hold on the market place.

There are peripheral astronaut training establishments that are forced to use NASA's set up for a fee, which comes out of the training companies' o bottom line.

I'm hoping to jump into that gap created through lack of competition and market this IP as a viable alternative.

Finally, this link shows the more typical spring to mass approach to simulating reduced gravity. Although its as clunky as hell, the University of New Mexico got a $750,000 grant to improve on it from NASA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzt0nA5RD-c

Is mine better than that ? I'd say yes tbh

Chris

[triplock]

@All

I am now attempting to translate my ideas into a 'working wheel'. I hate to use the term wheel as you automatically thing of a circle, which, strangely, is not the action path imho.

Anyway, I've taken a slightly different approach with the spring to mass gravity equilibrator so as to make the embodiment of the mechanism truly bi-directional. This has entailed some mirrored duplication, pendulum sway and ratchets but it is hoped you'll agree that the transition at the change of direction of the drum is pretty seamless. Basically its a bloody watch or planetarium.

As you can see, the supported mass, within the confines of the drum, and irrespective of that drum's direction of rotation and orientation, remains 'weightless'.

It is now, imo, a short hop to create OB drive from that 'light' radial displacement of the driver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsDSBOw34aM

Chris

Christopher Harper-Mears :- Passive and Revolute Gravity Equilibrator

[Tarsier79]

All I see is a circle moving in another circle.....again.

[triplock]

Tarsier,

Clearly the mech has to be hidden for the moment. That's no different to some others here.

The important hurdle that I've overcome is radial mass displacement within a rotating reference frame without Height 4 Width having any impact. THAT is a critical step forward, and as I understand it, I am the first ever to achieve it. Just saying.

Its a nice smooth movement though isn't, and the blue mass remains effectively weightless throughout :-) Its a good buzz to create something viable and innovative.

Chris

[Fletcher]

Because forces are in equilibrium (mass v's spring tension for example) then you can move things around within certain range limits, like the pantograph bedside lights that adjust position & hold it.

IINM in this case Chris your devices achieve the same thing effectively - so there might be some interest in the robotics industry or for seismic measuring machines etc - it does make me wonder if you devices could be used to detect gravity waves existence ?

Anyway, as I understand it, it takes some energy to translocate the mass, but no bias in either the x or y plane, & now the z plane.

I'm wondering how you are going to get the mass to exert force to cause rotation ? - meaning that if/when you detach the mass to do work the opposing force is now not equalized (equilbrium disestablished), so it's hard to visualize a reset mode - I'm sure you've thought thru this & have an answer.

[triplock]

Fletcher

As you say, the mass sits within a PE Neutral system, which you clearly understand. The spring(s) force is indeed equal and opposite at all times. There is no bias or preferred rest position within a globalised environment.

The energy required to displace the supported mass only has to be sufficient to overcome pivot point friction and air resistance only. In fact, in practice, these types of passive gravity equalised systems are too sensitive. They will go scatty if impacted accidentally ( sound familiar ?), and so are de-tuned slightly so as not to give false readings.

The good thing about this spherical set up, in terms of sensing seismic activity, for example, is that they are sensitive to the direction of activity.

Final, if you may recall, I said something nearly a year ago. I want to repeat it again now. Imbalance can only come from balance. - That's balance of forces, not weights.

Chris

[Fletcher]

The good thing about this spherical set up, in terms of sensing seismic activity, for example, is that they are sensitive to the direction of activity.

Yes, that was what I was imagining in 2D or 3D scenario - inertia of the mass causing mass movement & being recored as seismic activity like a richter scale.

Final, if you may recall, I said something nearly a year ago. I want to repeat it again now. Imbalance can only come from balance. - That's balance of forces, not weights.

So you have an inertia system in mind.

[triplock]

Lol Fletcher, you are an inquisitive one ;-)

Of course inertia will have an impact, shall we say.

As you correctly supposed in your RBGS thread, PE neutrality lies at the heart of the matter. Sir, I salute you for that reasoning.

Chris





First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher,

i made the same conclusione RE: the articulated lamp the first time CHM displayed his ingenius patent and immediately found numerous examples of prior art and patents that antiquate his novel idea IMHO and im sure any reasonably inteligent company. The patent process seems to have changed in most companies where if and when major patents are filled it is only by a breakthrough has been made and a wish to protect an ALREADY commercially viable idea is fundamental. I do not beleive companies are perusing patents hoping to find the next genius idea they can buy. I firmly fall into the realistic camp that yourself and Daxwc are in regarding the process so i must also be crazy.

http://www.google.com/patents/US4494177

http://www.google.com/patents/US6732988

Those patents and their lists of prior art pretty much put CHM in a position to spend more money defending his patent than benefiting from it if he was ever to decide to go after someone that had a similar design they put into use. And here are a few "gravity equalizers" as they say that seem to have much greater R&D since they are well in use. There are literally hundreds of these designs.

http://www.lightwalkerlaser.com/en/tech ... cookieu=ok

http://www.toolbalancerarms-3arm.com/

http://www.equipoisinc.com/

http://www.lcdarms.com/products/LCD_Rad ... 01-14.html

I would love to believe that our illustrious CHM has out witted all of these hundred years of patents with his "novel"idea, but i fear that he has been granted yet one more unenforceable patent. The patent authorities are more than happy to charge you a fee if your feel your IP is so ingenious, but as noted their anre no "patent police" good luck defending a poorly researched and non "novel" new idea. But if that collection of "patents is your goal i suppose we have a "Weiner".

D

[triplock]

FunWith2Balls

I'm not quite sure what purpose your post serves. As I said at the very beginning, this topic isn't about the perceived morality or protectabilty of patents, rather the procedure.

I was prepared to start deviating from that main topic by answering the best I can the questions Fletcher put to me.

If you have nothing constructive to add, please take your dripping vitriol else where.

Looking at the links you posted, it's clear you know nothing of the subject matter. Overall, I just fail to see your point and why you would go to the time and effort to mount this attack on me. All a bit said really, and slightly disturbing tbh.

By the way, my name is Chris or Triplock, not CHM.

Finally, why not post an idea you've had outside of wheel research so that we can judge you . Please do not include banging a pendulum onto a wheel with a rusty nail.


Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Chris,

Final, if you may recall, I said something nearly a year ago. I want to repeat it again now. Imbalance can only come from balance. - That's balance of forces, not weights.

I have been saying it for years, well not in them same words, more like, " you have to make a wheel balanced and use the force imbalance".

[triplock]

Trevor
Well you're right mate.

Can u keep an eye on my back as I think FWG2 is going all 'Arnie' on me :-D

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Chris,

If I am watching your back who will be watching mine? right lads form a circle, lol.

Edit, I just thought about it, we need more men!

[FunWithGravity2]

Christopher Harper Mears you have got to be the new dumbest person on the forum. Best of luck as it seems you are completely blind to your own arrogant ignorance of your pathetic nature you are doomed to be the only perpetual thing, a failure over and over.

Anyone that thinks this idiot has any clue of how to patent something should get their head examined. Im waiting to see his ingenious "miniature electric stove" that will surely be a new take on the "lightbulb" Not having the basic common sense to know what to patent does not make you a patent genius. Also buying the $49 "patent at home" quick kit doesn't either.

You are the new Trevor, enjoy your limelight as the forum punching bag.