Across the pond sharing?

[jim_mich]

Lets say someone has a runner with power. ( I don't )

He knows the principle will work on many different wheels.

He is not an engineer.

He wants to protect his investment.

Now what?

Does he hire an engineering firm to work on all possibilities while his first patent is being processed? Paranoia would set in.

Does he have the engineering firm explore parts for patenting?

I've read and re-read the highlighted portion and keep coming up short as to understanding what is being said?

If you have a principle that works, then the number of wheels that it works on makes no difference. You patent the principle. Any wheel that uses the principle will be covered by the patent. Then you or who ever does the actual manufacturing and sales of the wheels can design the wheel any way they want using you your patented principle. No one else (in the countries where you have a patent) may use the principle without your consent.

You can patent a perpetual motion machine. Or you can patent the method of producing perpetual motion.
What is the difference?

When you patent a machine you describe the machine. You say it has weights and levers and ropes. But some bright engineer may come along and figure out how to do the same thing using weights and gears and rods. He has designed around your machine. You are screwed!

When you patent a method you figure out how and why your wheel works. You patent the method of using the principle of perpetual motion rather than a patent on a perpetual motion machine. You cannot patent scientific principles but you can patent the method of what is needed to take advantage of the principle so as to make any wheel work. You claim that weights on a rotatable structure or wheel are caused to swing or move along a path describe as blah blah and yada yada. You don't tie anything down to a particular design or shape but you do tie it down to how, why and what circumstances are needed for your wheel to work. You explain in the patent application the method needed to produce the results of perpetual motion.

Of course you need to tell why your wheel works as it does. This means you need to know where it gets its extra energy. To use Bills words, you need to know what is its legitimate energy source. In the description part of the patent you show one or more designs that implement the method.

Then if anyone makes a wheel of any design that uses the method that you described in your patent you can force them to stop or to pay you for their use.

I'm quite sure that there will be only one basic method of perpetual motion. If there were many methods then we most like would have found at least one by now.

If you discover the method then you can hire one or more good mechanical engineers to design wheels for you. You might go on to patent design improvements so that when your 20 year patent life expires you still have certain design improvements that are covered. If someone else patents a design improvement then they cannot use it because their improved wheel would still contain your method of PM. In turn you could not use their improvement unless they let you.

Or maybe by that time your PM wheel company is so big that you just ignore them and use their improvement anyway knowing that they don't have the money to fight you. But then they hire a lawyer on contingency and he sues your ass and wins and you loose your company. Ah, the peril of doing business. If you're always honest and truthful you will win in the long run.

I rambled on and on much too long… It about 12:30 in the morning. Time to crawl into bed.

[justsomeone]

Thanks Jim. Sometimes I wish I could punch your greeny again and again.

[Fletcher]

Justsomeone .. Jim has been resoundingly saying this for years & I totally agree with him - get a method patent - the example often given is the Wright Bros - they patented a method of wing warping to give controlled flight - the principles of flight were already known, but not how to successfully control the elevation & direction [pitch, roll, & yaw] - wing warping became the standard method in all airplanes until a frenchman patented & used ailerons & then this became the industry standard - till then though the Wright's had all bases covered.

Rather than having a team of engineers designing new wheel variations using your principle I would hire them to explore ways of getting around your 'method patent' & patenting those - becomes a law of diminishing returns after a while, what with every back yard builder building their own out of interest - variations would become viral unless there truly is only ONE principle, & you've got that covered.

[nicbordeaux]

There is another business model. Let us suppose that Steorn is for real (I did say "suppose" I think ?), that the principle once discovered is so devastingly simple it could be applied in any imaginable number of ways, and the guys haven't to boot the remotest idea of exactly why the thing is working. Steorn is just a random example, take any name you want.

Well, supposing all that, the model is to drag out the release process for as long as you can, make as much buck as possible attracting investors, be deliberately vague, misleading even... Talk show, write book, movie, clueless groupies...

[DrWhat]

nic the FIRST thing Steorn can do is to show something that works! With a concealed mechanism or not!

[Fletcher]

The energy source for the self sustaining wheel that can do appreciable amounts of external work must be defined - how else can you protect your method if you don't know why & how it does it ?

That may take a greater understanding than current maths & science has & it may be a bigger challenge to the back yard inventor than the actual experiments & build.

Steorn could be using the old adage "fake it till you make it", or at least, until someone else makes it for you [or explains it for you].

[FunWithGravity2]

"The energy source for the self sustaining wheel that can do appreciable amounts of external work must be defined - how else can you protect your method if you don't know why & how it does it ? "



Why? if the method is patented why must you know why the method works?

Dave

[justsomeone]

Quote:

The energy source for the self sustaining wheel that can do appreciable amounts of external work must be defined - how else can you protect your method if you don't know why & how it does it ?

No need to state the obvious! You will be able to look at the blueprint and know how it works.

[Fletcher]

Because your original question wanted to know whether you should waste time & effort with engineering firms looking for variations of the mechanical principle - your POP hardware would be the mechanics [the equivalent of a car & engine] but what was the reason it was PM i.e. the energy source [the fuel] ?

Patent fuel production & you control the auto industry regardless of who makes cars or what technological changes occur short of moving from gasoline.

[FunWithGravity2]

Well and good i i understand the idea, but i have seen discussed the idea that you could not have Patented electricity, could you have?

And WHAT IF its one of the following.

Gravity
CF
CP
Non conservation of momentum

Would not trying to patent them be impossible, now if we say method wise that we apply 2/3 gravity and 1/3 momentum and activate said mechanism at some set point or set of points to induce a positive result from the above forces in a non conservative manner then anyone who uses our formula would be infringing if we defined the parameters broadly enough and they were accepted by the patent authorities.


I personnaly agree with Jim about the ONE possibility, i believe that it is easily patentable as a method and apparatus and as long as both are broadly protected in your claims. I think the major issue all of the previous PM patent holders will have is in the fact that they to narrowly tried to define the energy source and patented their machines based on assumptions about what they thought might happen, that and the fact they never had working models.

Then again if someone wants to try and patent a "gravity amplification device" i would love to be a fly on the wall as you try and prove that. Maybe i'm just biased but i believe the energy idea while it is defineable is not patentable.

Dave

[Fletcher]

If you know HOW your wheel works you will know WHAT the fuel is !

Just like I can describe the heat joules created from burning hydrocarbons that turns the crank that turns the wheels - but I'd need a chemistry degree to competently explain the catalytic refinery process in obtaining that fuel.

N.B. gasoline is produced via a refinery process, probably once under patent - now the barriers to entry would be supply of crude, capital investment in plant of sufficient scale to be viable & outlets under licence to control supply & demand - once again the method of harvesting may be unique or the way you extract heat joules to run your machine requires a certain mechanical process - whilst patenting heat joules wouldn't stand up your 'refinery' method might ?

Electricity is a commodity produced by various means - if you want to use hydro to get electricity or wind for instance then you need a generator to produce it - that's your Cf,Cp,g, & momentum example coupled to your mechanical harvesting design which you could patent.

N.B. show me any engine that doesn't run directly or indirectly on a source of fuel converted to heat or via a heat differential itself supplied by the environment & I'll start to believe its possible to build a car & engine & see it start itself & drive away without you KNOWING to put gas in the tank - then I'd consider patenting a mechanical application without knowing WHAT the fuel is & HOW it liberates joules.

[FunWithGravity2]

"If you know HOW your wheel works you will know WHAT the fuel is !
"
Yes i see the exclamation.

I am crazy as always,

I am not going to go out on a limb and say gravity, it would be to broad of a term, even though it will be labeled as such by many. I believe it is a combination of forces that are nonlinear and when combined at the right times become a completely non conservative system. I have been struggling with this concept of defining the energy source for months and i would not want to force myself into a corner and say for certain that it was this or that.

Or..... is it that simple, can i just call it gravity, if it only works in a vertical enviroment then it must be right? If the gravity If you know HOW your wheel works you will know WHAT the fuel is !
then gravity must be it.

If it was the momentum, CF/cp then it should work laying down right ?

I am sorry, but i thought everyone said get something that works first, you never said define the energy source. :)


dave

[justsomeone]

Dave said:

If it was the momentum, CF/cp then it should work laying down right ?


What a great statement. It should even work better since it would not have to fight gravity. Well said Dave.

[jim_mich]

Example of patent claims for an internal combustion engine...

I claim a method and means of harnessing heat to do work comprised of the following:

A confined space.

A surface within the confined space that is movable thus allowing the volume of the confined space to expand and contract.

Any means whereby the motion of the movable surface is converted into rotational movement of a shaft.

A motion storage device on the shaft to smooth the rotation.

Two valves in the walls of the confined space.

Any means for alternately opening and closing one then the other of the valves in sync with the rotation of the shaft.

Any means for mixing any burnable substance with an oxidizer substance thus producing a burnable mixture.

Any means for conducting the burnable mixture to one of the valves.

Any means for igniting the burnable mixture after is enters into the confined space through the valve.

After initially starting the shaft to rotating then continuous forceful rotational motion is produced by a series of events as follows:

- Rotation of the shaft causes the movable surface to move in such a way as to cause the volume of the enclosed space to expand.

- The expansion causes a vacuum to form inside the enclosed space.

- The valve connecting to the burnable mixture is opened.

- Burnable mixture is sucked into the enclosed space.

- The valve is closed.

- The shaft continues to rotate causing the volume of the enclosed space to shrink compressing the burnable mixture.

- The burnable mixture is ignited by any means of ignition and starts to burn.

- The heat of the burning mixture causes pressure.

- The pressure pushes the movable surface causing pressure on the shaft.

- Pressure on the shaft causes the shaft to forcefully rotate.

- Rotation of the shaft replacing rotational energy that was used to compress the burnable mixture plus supplies extra energy capable of doing work.

- The second valve opens up.

- The enclosed space contracts pushing the burnt gasses out the second valve.

The cycle then repeats continuously as long as a burnable substance is supplied to the device.

I wrote these very quickly so it is probably not very well written. But it shows that once you understand how your invention works you can begin to write a patent that might cover all possible variations.

PS. I'm out of here for the next 24 hours. Road trip!

[FunWithGravity2]

Method of creating a force in a vertical rotating reference frame, comprising.......

Hows that



Dave


good night