Chas Campbell Motor

[Bessler007]

All that and I just notice Ralph nailed the real point with one word:

and so is the alleged promised return.

alleged. yep. I wouldn't count on Eric or AERO.

[P-Motion]

Allen, DrWhat, OO7, and James,

I agree with your above responses (with the exception of James.

I posted this for general review, I am not in any means endorsing it. I attempted to read and understand there disclosure statement and am not any wiser than before.

I agree that when such a device is discovered that need only be self-sustaining, one will have not have a problem seeking capital venture resources. I do not feel that 1 or 1.5 KW be required other than to allow someone to ride on your shoulders.

A self sustainer that is not capable of producing any surplus output power would be of great scientific significance. one could make millions mass producing small ones for novelty devices. To my thinking it would be comparable to re-inventing the wheel, or as one member put it , "stepping on the moon"...

Ralph

Ralph,
In the public sector, quite often the inventor does not profit. A corporation or person with more means than you can improve your design and cut you out of the picture.
Even at Boeing, an inventor signs away the rights to a patent as with most corporations.
That's not a new concept. And yes, businesses do it all the time.
Also, the USPTO will not patent a perpetual motion device as it is considered useless. So for novelty sake, it is the manufacturer that would profit.
The inventor does get the satisfaction of having learned how to accomplish it. Basically, your one man against the world, David against Goliath ideaologies would fit better.
Of course, even an olympic athlete can make millions form winning a Gold Medal. Endorsements :)

[AB Hammer]

P Motion

Thats not totaly true. I have been in touch with the patents office and they said you will have to prove it works and then it can be patented.

Here is a couple of patent gravity devices.

[Fletcher]

Hi Alan .. I'm not sure if you are implying that these two work - they don't - but patents were granted for them at one time or another before stricter 'demonstration' requirements were called for to halt the flood of patent applications for 'unworkable' ideas, unsupported by a POP - that was a result of the scientific communty's sceptism [the expert advice] that gravity PM could not work & the fact that in the past everything that moved or wasn't tied down had a patent applied for it, which used up time & resources in the patent office.

If you are interested a member called Jim Williams researched this whole area in some depth - do a search using his name & you will find the relevant thread, patents & discussion about various patents & their erroneous claims.

[AB Hammer]

Greetings Fletcher

No they don't as far as I know, but they where patent in 2001 for the 4 arm one and 2006 for the 8 arm one.

[rlortie]

Edit: Slow IP= D.P.

[rlortie]

Alan, and Fletcher,

Fletch, I believe that Alan's key words are you "Must Prove That It Works. If I or any associated members that I am involved with, come up with something that works. Our game plan is to build a small briefcase model that can be set upon the examiners desk!

Any Patent Attorney worth his salt can refer to The U.S. Patent #4151,431 which involved three years for the Patent and Trademark Office of Board of appeals to overturn the U.S. Patent office and the application review officer.

The application was first rejected by an examiner who rerrered to the device as a true "Perpetual Motion Device"

A precedent was established with Patent #4.151,431 That covered an application date of Dec. 6,1973 (#422,306) until patent grant on Apr, 24 1979.

A physical demonstration to the Board of appeals was all that was required to reverse the examiners rejection.

References Cited; Documents 4,074.153

Ralph

[rlortie]

Allen,

Regarding the two patents you have posted above:

I believe that if you read the description, somewhere it will state that it is device/machine augmented by gravity or a gravity enhanced power booster. I do not believe that patents were granted with true perpetual motion or a gravity motor was implied or intended. A play on wording maybe, but fruitful in getting a patent.

Ralph

[AB Hammer]

Yes Ralph

I have noticed that and will use it if needed. Thanks

[P-Motion]

Greetings Fletcher

No they don't as far as I know, but they where patent in 2001 for the 4 arm one and 2006 for the 8 arm one.

Alan,
A persons' budget also has something to do with things.
In a way, it is an expensive gamble unless you can afford to lose that kind of money trying.
It's my humble opinion that the patent office will accept a working model as proof of inventing it incase someone claims they've been working on the same design but has nothing filed with the USPTO.
Internal paperwork can always be stamped for any date soemone wishes.
They'd (USPTO) probably require something substabtial as it would seem to be claim jumpuing and would be a bad precedent if they allowed it.
I have come to realize one thing though.
If I am going to enjoy building a prototype that I am hopeful of working, if all I get for it is the satisfaction of doing it, it will not happen by posting in here.

[KAS]

In the UK, the Patent Office does not accept PM devices of any sort.
Even if you plonk a continually spinning wheel right under their nose.

It just a (jobs worth) self denial process.

However, the US accepts such devices if it can be proved by a working prototype. This is interesting because the UK and the US Patent Offices has just signed an agreement to merge their vetting systems.

This could be a land mark break through because it means that a patent filed in the US has to be accepted in the UK.

Hooray! Thank goodness for the US system for making the stiff collared, narrow minded UK office wake up and smell the coffee, or should I say Earl Grey tea!

Kas

[jim_mich]

I think both the UK and the US will initially reject a perpetual motion device on the grounds of unworkability. That is they will make the assumption that it will not work and therefore the claims are untrue. This saves them from 'wasting time' in an attempt to understand the patent application. The inventor then must then put forth the effort to prove that the invention actually does work. Although it is the policy to just reject the application I don't think there is any law stating that a perpetual motion device cannot be granted a patent.

Of course both sides must agree on the meaning of perpetual motion. The scientific concept of perpetual motion where energy output is greater than energy input will prevail and prove that perpetual motion is impossible. Therefore the patent cannot be called a perpetual motion device.

On the other hand the classical meaning of perpetual motion is a device that once set in motion continues to move while outputting energy without any conventional input of energy. The energy input is assumed to be gravity or some other naturally occurring force. These would have the appearance of a perpetual motion machine but according to science these would technically not meet the modern definition of a perpetual motion device. This is why I prefer the term 'classical perpetual motion' where the device has no conventional observable source of energy input.

[rlortie]

jim_mich,

What "if" one was to present a working proto-type that had a small 1-1/2 volt Radio shack electric motor hooked to it with one "D" battery. That would not classify as perpetual motion even though the applicant knows the motor is not required and could be removed.

Then would it not be easy to obtain a patent by calling it a gravity amplifier or gravity augmenter? This seems to have worked for others who have gained patents. It would be a sight to behold, such a small motor turning a large wheel capable of energizing an auto alternator.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph, I fail to see the point of hooking up a small battery powered motor if the perpetual motion wheel actually works. There were two points I was attempting to make.

One is that the examiners will initially reject the application due to a knee jerk reaction caused by the assumption that perpetual motion is impossible. This is not bad since most patents applications for any type of invention are initially rejected for one technicality or another. The inventor or his attorney then argues the case with the examiner in order to convince him/her to change their mind or else the application is changed to something that the examiner will accept. Or the application is abandoned. The knee jerk reaction is to be expected.

The second point is terminology. Perpetual motion is an impossible situation. More energy is output than is input, which according to modern science cannot be done. If you accept the premise that the extra energy comes from some outside source such as gravity or some naturally occurring force such as inertia then the device is no longer a perpetual motion machine. This is why I like to use the term "Classical Perpetual Motion" because it conveys the concept that it has the appearance that it continually moves without any energy input. This would be because the energy input is not a conventional fuel or observable power source. Instead it is a free natural phenomenon of nature that occurs when certain circumstances are met. Therefore one needs to explain in a patent application why the invention is not a perpetual motion machine in the scientifically sense but rather a perpetual motion machine in the classical sense.

[pstroud]

Chas Campbell Gravity Motor - How it Works

Youtube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67n40cD7AFw

(Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just sharing info)

p