PM as an invention, still top of the black list.

[John Collins]

I clicked on an advert on my website to see what was on it http://www.inventorshelpline.info/email ... S_GOOGLE_1, selected my country and was presented with a list of sixteen inventions that they would not consider, 'Restricted Ideas Not to be Submitted'. Guess what was number one, ahead of military weapons and pornographic devices? You got it - perpetual motion devices.

Although I understand why they reject even considering PM, I think it demonstrates what we are against if an organisation which seeks to assist inventors is so prejudiced that it won't even accept submissions about PM. Of course they are patent attorneys looking to make money not a philanthropic organisation without prejudice.

JC

[ken_behrendt]

John...

Once someone finally gets an undeniably working device, he can sue any Patent Office that refuses to grant a patent on it as a perpetual motion machine. A court will then order the device tested by a third party and the Patent Office will, if the third party agrees the device outputs more energy than it consumes in its operation, be forced to grant the patent. These so-called "Black Lists" are only a minor inconvenience, IMO.


ken

[ovyyus]

John, as you stated in your book, a working gravity driven engine would not be classed as true PM because, by definition, it is not a closed system. I think the patent office quite rightly discounts any design that attempts to create energy from nothing, which I think we (mostly) all agree is impossible.

Of course it is presently almost impossible to convince any conventional scientific adherent that gravity can act as a primary energy source, which I think fully explains the patent office position. But a working demonstration is pretty hard to argue against no matter what your belief base might be ;)

[Jim Williams]

john

In my experience ovyyus is correct about the Patent Office and PMs. Gravity is considered an outside energy source and therefore not a true PM. The Patent Office may and probably does require a working model of any invention claiming to be a PM. I don't think it is a coincidence that while the Patent Office has never granted a patent on a PM, it has granted a number of patents on gravity motors. USPTO has a class/subclass solely for PMs but has never granted a patent originating from that class/subclass.

[John Collins]

Thanks Bill and Jim. I only meant that PM as a generic title is still number one on the black list. In my experience whether you call it a gravity wheel or PM or something else, it all gets lumped under the one title - PM -and that is still the bête noire of new inventions.

JC

[ken_behrendt]

John...

I wonder how a patent office would react if an inventor showed up with a working gravity wheel and said, "Of course my invention does not create energy out of nothing...it merely converts the rest masses of its weights into the kinetic energy it outputs."

I think this would allow one to patent the device...but, of course, it would have to work. The patent office can not deny that mass and energy are equivalent because, to do so, they would have to say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was invalid. They could also not deny that the working device was, indeed, outputting energy in excess of what its operation consumed...especially, if this was independently verified by a testing laboratory. Since that theory is considered one of the cornerstones of modern physics, the patent office would be between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". I think the inventor would get his patent quickly and these devices would suddenly find new found respect among the scientific orthodoxy.


ken


BTW...how's your model coming along that uses the decoded design from the Bessler literature?

[PIMAN]

It seems to me that the whole patent process does little to protect the inventor. It is perfect for filtering any and all inventions that can in any way be used by the military industrial complex in the never ending pursuit of global obedience, though. PM would definitely fall into this category. The military is chomping at the bit to get their hands on an endless portable power source and would spare no time in swiping an invention and shutting our tiny little mouths under the guise of "national security". Anyone not willing to play ball might just have a heart attack or drive off a bridge by accident. They are the wolf in sheeps clothing. I say screw the patent. If money is the concern, how does winning every Nobel Prize category sound? How about an honorary doctorate in physics, math, and science along with a 10 year schedule of paid speaking appearances at every major university on the planet. Not to mention the profit from your best seller: "Perpetual Motion for Dummies" and numerous talk show engagements. This is all without selling a single unit. I repeat. Screw the patent.

PIMAN

[ken_behrendt]

PIMAN...

I agree with you that there would many opportunities for financial reward for the person who finds a design for a working perpetual motion machine...even if he does not have a patent and does not mass produce it.

However, even without a patent, to reap these financial benefits one must be able to prove that he did, in fact, first conceive of the idea. Just as soon as anyone announces that he has a working design, a whole host of others will emerge from the woodwork claiming that they actually had the idea decades ago and can "prove" it. Most of those making such claims will offer weak or fraudulent proof. Some, however, may, in fact, have previously found the design and can offer strong proof, but never announced it.

I think the credit for discovering a working gravity wheel should go to the person who first publicly announces it and provides details of its construction.


ken

[winkle]

John, as you stated in your book, a working gravity driven engine would not be classed as true PM because, by definition, it is not a closed system.

i find myself in disagreement with this statement

pm was never claimed to be energy from nothing

the authority in this field Mr. Bessler said

Special trials have demonstrated for eyewitnesses that this mechanical wheel is a self-rotating system of several heavy bodies and will be as long as the bodies remain heavy and the universe exists.

where and when has it become a requirement that it be done on the miracle basses of creating energy from nothing

pm would not claim to be a miracle producing machine just an endless supply of free energy

as for myself i belive the energy laws to be valid and there will never be energy produced from nothing in any fashion

there will always be something that the energy comes from and that something will never nothing

in my opinion the day any man can make anything from nothing he will have taken on God like capabilities

i don't expect to see that happen

[John Collins]

The easiest way to answer you Winkle, is to go to google and write 'define perpetual motion'. This is what you get:-

'Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.'

There are many others but the words 'without any external source of energy', are the key.

I agree that in Bessler's time energy was not claimed to be energy from nothing, but when our esteemed Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz 'discovered' the principle of conservation of energy he 'proved' that as no one had ever built a PM machine they could be regarded as impossible because they were classed as a closed system. That was around 1847 I think, a long time after Bessler built his machine and proved that his was not a closed system ..... in my opinion.

JC

[winkle]

well i did the goggle search and found nothing pertaining to the pm machine i was refereing to

there is a world of info on pm machines of the 1st 2nd and 3rd kind but nothing on the one i was speaking of

a pm machine of the 4th kind

in the hope that i might be able to agree with you will you explain to me one more time what gravity is and how it works

found this on goggle

Perhaps the most unusual thing about gravity we know about is that, unlike the other forces of nature, gravity is intimately related to space and time. In fact, space and time are viewed by physicists, and the mathematics of relativity theory, as qualities of the gravitational field of the cosmos that have no independent existence. Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!

must we also eliminate space and time from a working perpetual machine in order for it to be pm


also found this which does not seem to agree with Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz pm theories

Conservation of energy

His first important scientific achievement, an 1847 physics treatise on the conservation of energy was written in the context of his medical studies and philosophical background. He discovered the principle of conservation of energy while studying muscle metabolism. He tried to demonstrate that no energy is lost in muscle movement, motivated by the implication that there were no vital forces necessary to move a muscle. This was a rejection of the speculative tradition of Naturphilosophie which was at that time a dominant philosophical paradigm in German physiology.


found this somewhere can't remember where

The noun conservation of energy has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes


found this in webster

webster
Main Entry: conservation of energy
: a principle in physics: the total energy of an isolated system remains constant irrespective of whatever internal changes may take place with energy disappearing in one form reappearing in another

i suppose in my mind everything inside the wheel does remain constant

i am not aware of any other field of endeavor where gravity must be

eliminated before success can be said to be success

as far as i am aware gravity is everywhere all the time and no one really knows much about it
it could be just hanging around like the air around us

just my opinion but gravity is legal in a pm wheel until someone proves it is not

if anyone says it is not legal just ask them to prove it

and i now ask for that to be proven

one more time how does gravity work