Impact is the Key

[smotgroup]

there is a little secret here Jim, just call it a Novelty toy and they can't reject it, never call it a PM.

Jerry

[Grimer]

there is a little secret here Jim, just call it a Novelty toy and they can't reject it, never call it a PM.

Jerry

I like it.

[Jim Williams]

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=034 ... first+page

It's been done. It still doesn't work.

(p.s. - USPTO requires TIFF software to view images)

[smotgroup]

Jim, if you give TMI on a Novelty Toy then yes, it would be suspicious at the patent office, TMI is To Much Information, just don't sound like a crack pot and it will go all right.

Jerry

[Jim Williams]

It went alright, the patent was issued. Then everyone could see. The invention demonstrates it doesn't work like it looks like it would. Guess he fooled them.

[greendoor]

I have mentioned before (recently) that the gravity powered PM solution I am experimenting with actually was patented a few years ago. I can only assume that the patent holder had to provide a working model to get this. I found this out long after I had 'invented' this under my own steam - so I have no expectation of making money out of this particular model. Although I was dissapointed to learn about this patent, it suggests that the basic principle is sound (the math is undeniable when you see it).

What I expect will happen is that somebody eventually will prove this principle, and the doors will be wide open for commercialisation. Just like steam engine, electric motors, etc. There are a hundred ways to skin this cat, and patents aren't likely to stop anyone.

The biggest obstacle is that this exposes some embarrasing faux pas that the scientific community are too proud to admit.

[Jim Williams]

If it's an American patent don't too bad about not obtaining the patent. First of all since you came up with the same invention under your own steam and then found out about the patent, you didn't lose an invention, you gained your own patent you didn't have to go to the trouble and expense of applying for. And that patent expires after a maximum of 20 years, then you and everyone have the same rights to make, use and sell it the same as the inventor now. So it is a delay of 20 years, but after that you have in effect your own patent and full rights to it. Congratulations on your first patent. May it be the one you hope it is.

[ovyyus]

The biggest obstacle is that this exposes some embarrasing faux pas that the scientific community are too proud to admit.

Or, what seems more likely, it exposes a faux pas in your own thinking that you are yet to learn. Either way you win :D

[Grimer]

...
There are a hundred ways to skin this cat, and patents aren't likely to stop anyone.
...

I agree. I have just understood the essence of Pop Keenie's motor for example.

It's a very different route from the Paternoster motor though ultimately they can both be seen as the same thing viewed from different angles.

In the Paternoster the rotation is seen edgewise on as a vibration, or would be if it were allowed to take place and not grabbed at its lowest point to be transferred across to the rising weights.

[Jim Williams]

greendoor - I don't want to mislead you. No perpetual motion patent can be issued without a working model. And no American perpetual motion patent has ever been issued. None. The patent you mention cannot be perpetual motion.

In all fairness I am not a patent expert or an attorney of any kind. I only have my experience from my single patent on which I can rely. But there are things I do know to be true. With the exclusion of rights to make, use or sell an invention throughout the US, which belong to the inventor, everyone owns everything else about an invention from the day it is published. When those rights to exclude expire, everyone owns everything about an invention the same as if they had invent it themselves. In your case you also own that invention you mention because you invented it.

The Patent Office is open to ideas. They make room for a potential perpetual motion machine which not everyone does. They don't exclude anything. All they want is that working model. They're better than me. I exclude gravity. - Jim W.

[greendoor]

Gravity power plants are not perpetual motion. They are an open system that has an external energy input - gravity. I don't know where you get your information from, but a quick google reveals plenty of US patents for gravity power plants. I don't know if all the inventors had to supply a working model or not. I suspect that money can buy anything, and I suspect that some powerful groups have bought patents for methods that they don't want the general public to have rights to. I don't expect them to reveal the core secret in the patent - but the patents could be used to stop any commercial development of a successful device.

Forget perpetual motion from a closed system. This is where I think Jim Mitch and a few others have gone wrong. By looking for magical energy gains from CF or something within a closed system, we are open to being deceived by the corrupted maths currently used for energy. The equations are what they are, but they don't always represent what we think they do.

There has to be a constant external supply of force if we want acceleration.

[Jim Williams]

I among a number of others have used the same argument, gravity motors are not perpetual motion because gravity is an external energy source. And I agree there are a number of gravity motor patents. My post of 6:16pm on 5-16 is in fact a link to a gravity motor at USPTO. I don't know either if any gravity motor application required a working model, but what I do know is that I have looked at most, if not all, of them and so far NOT A ONE OF THEM WORKS.

No, I haven't built any of them and can I say with utter ceratinty that none will ever work? No, not even close. But I did spend months on this board posting them with each one successfully destroyed.

My experience says gravity is conservative and can't be an outside energy source. I would be glad to have you prove me wrong. - Jim W.

[Jim Williams]

PS: With the exception of inventions determined by the government to be secrets, i.e., nuclear weapons for example, if a patent is issued, the patent is published by USPTO. Corporations can't buy silence. Only the government can stop a patented invention from becoming known. I'm sure there are other ways of supressing an invention, but not that way.

[Michael]

Greenndoor that is incorrect, a gravity powered machine is a perpetual motion machine. You look at only the machine and you think that is all of it, but it's connected to an open source. That's not right though, you have to expand the boundaries of what you consider the machine. The earth and it's gravity and the mechanics of what you've made in a gravity machine are the closed system. The machine is just a little bigger than you thought.
Even if the machine used a fuel, as long as the machine gave back more energy than the fuel supplied it would be a perpetual motion machine. Even if the machine used an open source such as the suns energy ( which of course when properly viewed it's actually a closed system with the sun being a part of that system ) as long as the machine gave back more energy than it took from the sun, it would be a perpetual motion machine.

[John Collins]

You put that argument quite forcefully to me privately Michael and no matter how you phrase it I think you're wrong. A quick search for a definition of perpetual motion finds this first one on google (answers.com); "The hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated mechanical device or other closed system without a sustaining energy source."

There are numerous others but they all say the same thing. There can be no access to external energy for it to be a perpetual motion machine and gravity is external to the machine so a gravity driven wheel isn't a PM machine.

As greendoor says, "Gravity power plants are not perpetual motion. They are an open system that has an external energy input - gravity". I argued this point in my book, written in 1996, and I have seen nothing to change my mind since then.

One more thing - why are you so adamant that Bessler's wheel was a perpetual motion machine Michael? What end would convincing everyone that you are right achieve?

No offence intended - just asking :-)

JC