Definition of "Gravity is conservative" ?

[nicbordeaux]

Another purely rhetorical question, I'll spare you starting another thread...

You can not patent perpetual motion. Law. Even if you turn up at the patent office with a working PM device, it's no go.

A continuously revolving wheel would be deemed PM, even if it ran down after x hours because of a energy removing device driven by it ? Or even because of minute synchronisation issues.

In the case of a non wheel device which ran 30 seconds producing some decent juice in the visible form of light, then stopped for some seconds whilst it reset under the force of gravity (think seesaw, a seesaw must come to a stop if only for a fraction of a second, before the return stroke), if all the parts came to rest at a state of precarious balance before the reset started, it could not be deemed perpetual motion. Therefore, it would be deemed patentable ?

And if the "seesaw" type device had some part on it which continues spinning even though it serves no discernable or major purpose, we'd be back at the "It's PM, no patent" step ?

[ovyyus]

You can not patent perpetual motion...

Years of nutty PM inventors constantly applying for patents on unworkable devices might make anyone a little jaundiced :D

[jim_mich]

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.

[nicbordeaux]

Agreed, Bill, although it seems a counterproductive policy moneywise. All you need to do is allow PM wanabes with sims or sketches to apply, but set the fee sky high. The income would be enormous. Budget deficits worldwide erased in a few months.

Well Jim, were it not thee whom a few weeks back stated "but with patent laws as they stand" ? OK, your opinion is that you have a working model, you turn up at the patent office and they see it's PM and accept to grant you patent ?

Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Patents

[jim_mich]

Patent laws of most countries say that if I (or you) disclose an invention before applying for a patent, then a patent can not be granted. Thus I must limit myself as to what I post here on this forum. United States patent law allows one year to file after disclosure since they grant patents only to the original inventor. Most all other countries grant patents on a first to file basis, thus they can not allow the one year limit. So if I want a patent from any other country then I must obey their patent laws and not disclose before filing an application.

As I stated, there is no law against PM patents, except that the invention MUST work as stated, else it is fraud and the application is not truthful, which voids the application and any patents that issue.

At one time the USPTO would not accept PM applications because they did not want to take money knowing that the application would be quickly rejected. Now they take all applications and then reject them on the grounds that they are unworkable. It is up to the inventor to prove that the PM machine will work before a patent can issue. The patent fees are small compared to most attorney fees.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Will you at least agree the our planet has been in a state of perpetual motion for millions of year, and that Gravity has play a big part in keeping it that way, I would like to know where you stand on this.

Our planet has been in motion for millions of years, that seems fairly obvious (unless you believe a deity created it less than 10000 years ago). But is it in a state of perpetual motion? I would say not. At least not the PM we're discussing.

If we spin up a massive gyroscope and set it free in space it might continue spinning for many millions of years because losses acting against it's motion are very small. But eventually, without further input, it will slow down and stop as it's stored momentum is eventually spent driving those very small losses over very long periods of time.

A large mass that can stay in motion for a very long time might seem like an example of perpetual motion when it is actually an example of a conservative system restrained by very small losses acting over a long period of time.

Bill I tried I really did sorry you do not see it...

See what? Please be specific.

Hi Bill,

reading your above post, you do not consider that gravity has done any work to sustain the Earth's orbit ( millions of years of motion), where the way I see it, gravity has been paramount for the Earth's movement, and there is a very large amount of kinetic energy used to stop the Earth from leaving its orbit, so gravity is inputting to the system constantly! how do they plot planetary movements? I believe they calculate the pull of gravity's in the system, if there is a pull then there is kinetic energy!

I am not to worried if you believe in my works because in time I will prove them, what is clear is that I am wasting my time, and you are wasting your time in these fruitless discussions.

With respect Trevor

Edit, just to remind you what we are discussing here, Definition of "Gravity is conservative" ? which must include the mechanics of the solar system.

[ovyyus]

...you do not consider that gravity has done any work to sustain the Earth's orbit...

Correct. Just like the magnet on your frig door isn't doing any work holding your overdue electricity bill in place.

No discussion is completely fruitless.

[Jim Williams]

Nicbordeaux

Jim_Mich is correct. Show up at the Patent Office with a working model and the patent will be granted. USPTO even has a class/subclass, (415/916), for perpetual motion, just waiting for an invention.

The inventions listed in 415/916 only resemble perpetual motion, but are not such. They are firstly patented under their own class/subclass, which is of their actual use and secondly "look like" perpetual motion enough to be listed.

Jim W.

[FunWithGravity2]

FWIW

I have made my opinion known before but i will reiterate again in the current venue.

It would seem counterproductive to patent a "perpetual motion" machine. I don't believe that arguing perpetual is worth all the trouble. The machine should have a new and novel use of some arrangement and that would be what you woudl want to patent. That and any potential alternative embodiments of the mechanism that would perform the same or similar tasks leading to the same outcomes. You would also want to fully understand the reason that the reactions were occuring within/between your mechanisms and hopefully be able to paint a broad enough but well defined claim on the principle that would hopefully encompass MOST future reiterations of the design.


One of the best comments regarding patents was made recently by Getterdone in an unrelated thread, when asked what he would do feel if someone else discovered it, he matter of factly displayed an opinion that is probably held by most even if not said aloud.


LOOK for a way to improve upon it.


My reasons for patenting and being secretive are not to hoard the design and keep it from the world until the coffers are fat with gold, my intention is to protect it enough so that someone else does not come along and improve upon it or circumvent it and patent the improvemt leaving the rest of us in the dark ages with PM 1.0. :)


Crazy Dave

[jim_mich]

Well said Dave!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

...you do not consider that gravity has done any work to sustain the Earth's orbit...

Correct. Just like the magnet on your frig door isn't doing any work holding your overdue electricity bill in place.

No discussion is completely fruitless.

Hi Bill,

so the light inside is the sun is it? are you sure the magnet is not trying to open the door just a little, or is that not relative, LOL.

I thought you knew where the problem is, but you seem to think it is the gravity side of things, well it is not, it is the wheels and weights geometry that is the problem, in as much that you never get a imbalance in the first place, overcome this and you will have a runner, if a wheel is constantly out balanced having one side heavier than the other then it will rotate and gravity will not conserve it, gravity will help it. a bit like a over the top water wheel!

With respect Trevor

Edit, other, not over.

[ovyyus]

I may have been wrong about the fruitlessness of conversation :D

Trevor, when I asked you about providing an experiment that shows gravity is not conservative I was asking about the present, as in right now. Reading between the lines, your answer is that you presently can't provide such an experiment, but you are working on it. See, wasn't that easy.

[nicbordeaux]

Well Trevor, most of us know that you can make a wheel with one side heavy and one side light, hold it in position with the heavy side anywhere higher than the keel point, the wheel will revolve in the direction of the heavy side. Then keel.

So, the issue is not making one side light and one heavy, it is making a wheel with sides which are alternately heavy and light. In a cw rotation, coming from 11, as the wheel hits 12 the now right side must gets weight from the left side. The problem is in the speed with which you can do this, and the necessity to avoid counterproductive reaction forces. This has defeated everybody, but try we still do.

One presumes weight transfer is the solution, as continuously adding weight to one side would be rather a chore. Having said that, if your wheel was strongly magnetic, and you had a steady drip of small steel bearings falling under the effect of gravity to the right side of the wheel, could well be that the right side would be always heavier. And heavier. And maybe at some point there would be so much weight that an inordinate quantity of balls would fall off. Or it might be easier to shift a magnet around than a big weight... but wait, we don't want to invent a PM wheel, that would end all the fun and we would all have to find something else to play with.

What do I hear ? Jim and Steve have rushed off to the patent office ? lol.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

I may have been wrong about the fruitlessness of conversation :D

Trevor, when I asked you about providing an experiment that shows gravity is not conservative I was asking about the present, as in right now. Reading between the lines, your answer is that you presently can't provide such an experiment, but you are working on it. See, wasn't that easy.

Hi Bill,

I am waiting to see your wheel based experiment that proves that it is being conserved by gravity being the only reason it will not work, as I have not seen one yet, the only failed OB wheels I have seen did not work because they where crap designs, and with the rest it was because of the geometry problems.

Until you prove that to me by showing one of these wheels I do not have a case to answer it is not my law is it, (Edit, I will answer it anyway.)

There is two main sorts of out of balance wheels, the out of balance weight wheel that is proving hard to find, then there is the opposite, a balanced wheel with out of balance force, most of my work is on the later, if no one has made a multi lever wheel out of balance then there a very good chance that they balance, as my 32 lever experiment has shown I have seen a hydraulic piston attached to a lever drive a Hydraulic motor so I know the hydraulics will work, I have done the volumes and pressure calculations, with surplus fluid to warrant a bypass in the system, the only thing I need now is for you to prove to me that gravity will balance my wheel just to back up my own experiments, so it is waiting for you to prove me right and back my experiment evidence.

Come on Bill, 64 falling levers, falling on both sides of the wheel 128 falls per one 360 turn, all that kinetic energy to turn a near balanced wheel, when a lever falls that is weight falling + leverage, gravity is doing the distance for me, if you want simple take one falling lever and look at the energy you get from it, you are about to prove to me how balanced the levers reset is, so when you ask me to provide experimental evidence it is mostly the same evidence as what is suppose to prove the conservative force of gravity, you cannot have it both ways!

Regards Trevor

Edit, Bill, when looking at the MT drawings is there one there that truly fails because gravity is conservative or not conservative, or is it design failure, be honest it is design failure.

[ovyyus]

Until you prove that to me by showing one of these wheels I do not have a case to answer...

Trevor, I think everyone making a claim should seek experimental evidence in support of that claim. If they can't then the foundation of their work remains unsupported belief.

In the case of experimental observations showing gravity to be conservative, any genuinely curious student is aware of the long history of this investigation and the many experiments conducted to explore it's effects and the conclusions reached to date.

In your case, there appears no experimental observation which might support your contrary view that gravity is not conservative. I think the job of coming up with such support falls squarely at your own feet. Until then it seems unlikely that your unsupported contrary belief will be taken seriously.