perpetual motion Experiment

[frzmaw]

Dear all,

I have done a successful experiment for perpetual motion but the cost is high because it is slow and use big magnets.

I need ideas about how to get any benefit from it because it cannot be used to produce electricity since it is costly.

Thanks

Frz maw

[John Cuthber]

No you haven't.

[doG]

prove it

[frzmaw]

Sorry, I had to say continuous motion because it does not produce motion from nothing but converting energy from one shape to another and I am working to reduce the cost, please give me suggestions to my question to support me and I will remember any help

[John Cuthber]

This is going to work a whole lot better if you actually tell us what you have done.

If, for whatever reason, you can't tell us then this thread isn't going to achieve much.

[doG]

You haven't created any continuous motion machine either. We're waiting to see some.substance to your claim.

[Unity+]

Sorry, I had to say continuous motion because it does not produce motion from nothing but converting energy from one shape to another and I am working to reduce the cost, please give me suggestions to my question to support me and I will remember any help

I translated this to:

 

"Guys I have made a revolutionary discovery. However, it is a secret because every government in the world will want it. Now, just give me your money without any proof that I have done anything at all."

 

Even the smallest scams were better than this.

[Windevoid]

Sorry, I had to say continuous motion because it does not produce motion from nothing but converting energy from one shape to another and I am working to reduce the cost, please give me suggestions to my question to support me and I will remember any help

So then, is it a perpetual motion machine, or just another type of electric motor or heat engine?

[swansont]

Dear all,

I have done a successful experiment for perpetual motion but the cost is high because it is slow and use big magnets.

I need ideas about how to get any benefit from it because it cannot be used to produce electricity since it is costly.

Thanks

Frz maw

!

Moderator Note

In keeping with the rules, you need to explain your device, and how you have shown it's over-unity/perpetual. No explanation, or evidence, and there is no thread.

[Windevoid]

!

Moderator Note

In keeping with the rules, you need to explain your device, and how you have shown it's over-unity/perpetual. No explanation, or evidence, and there is no thread.

I don't think frzmaw is claiming over-unity.

[Phi for All]

I don't think frzmaw is claiming over-unity.

 

Whatever the claim, frzmaw is asking us for advice on how to improve a machine we know little about. It's slow, it uses big magnets, it needs to be more efficient, and it allegedly converts "energy from one shape to another". We can make guesses or we can ask frzmaw for some more information.

[frzmaw]

You know that I can not explain the design until I have it registered officially or filled for a patent.

although I had a patent for another project which needed several years to be issued .

I am not asking a help to improve but whom to contact who may be interested like research center or else.

[Windevoid]

You know that I can not explain the design until I have it registered officially or filled for a patent.

although I had a patent for another project which needed several years to be issued .

I am not asking a help to improve but whom to contact who may be interested like research center or else.

Well good luck. No one accepted, and perhaps no one even believed, much at all when I told them about my design publicly on the internet. (I'm still not sure mine definitely would work, but my research heavily suggests it would).

[Bignose]

If you have truly done this, then write a journal article explaining what law of physics all the rest of us have gotten wrong all the rest of these years, and submit that article to Science. Once it is published in such a reputable journal, you will receive a great deal of attention and funding.

 

Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim. The laws of physics as we know them today are supported by a tremendous amount of evidence -- that's how they became laws. That's why there is tremendous skepticism in your claims here; skepticism I share BTW.

[Windevoid]

If you have truly done this, then write a journal article explaining what law of physics all the rest of us have gotten wrong all the rest of these years, and submit that article to Science. Once it is published in such a reputable journal, you will receive a great deal of attention and funding.

 

Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim. The laws of physics as we know them today are supported by a tremendous amount of evidence -- that's how they became laws. That's why there is tremendous skepticism in your claims here; skepticism I share BTW.

If you have truly done this, then write a journal article explaining what law of physics all the rest of us have gotten wrong all the rest of these years, and submit that article to Science. Once it is published in such a reputable journal, you will receive a great deal of attention and funding.

 

Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim. The laws of physics as we know them today are supported by a tremendous amount of evidence -- that's how they became laws. That's why there is tremendous skepticism in your claims here; skepticism I share BTW.

I did that once. They threw it out before peer review.

[Bignose]

I did that once. They threw it out before peer review.

Yeah, and when you discussed it with us here on the forum, we showed several of the elementary mistakes you made.

 

This is why I included the phrase "Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim."

 

You, Windevoid, failed to present almost any evidence, if the amount you've presented to this forum is any indication of what you did in your paper.

[Windevoid]

Yeah, and when you discussed it with us here on the forum, we showed several of the elementary mistakes you made.

 

This is why I included the phrase "Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim."

 

You, Windevoid, failed to present almost any evidence, if the amount you've presented to this forum is any indication of what you did in your paper.

The data was here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75769-is-current-electricity-theory-wrong/?hl=%2Bfree+%2Benergy+%2Belectricity

 

Although it now seems the capacitor may have been a thermistor.

[John Cuthber]

Windevoid,

What you said here " They threw it out before peer review. " isn't true.

The editor, who is one of the peers threw it out because it was dross.

Not least among the problems was that you have no idea what you are talking about hence "Although it now seems the capacitor may have been a thermistor. "

At best, you are just making a fool of yourself here. You are certainly not adding to the thread.

[Windevoid]

Is "dross" just another word for "I'm not looking at the claim, get it away from me." because that's not science.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Windevoid, this is not the thread for your grievance, phase do not thread hijack.

Please do not detail this thread further by replying to this modnote.

[Daedalus]

You know that I can not explain the design until I have it registered officially or filled for a patent.

although I had a patent for another project which needed several years to be issued .

I am not asking a help to improve but whom to contact who may be interested like research center or else.

 

I would like to point out that, at least in the United States, the USPTO has made it policy to refuse the granting of patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model.

 

Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:

 

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.

 

And, further, that:

 

A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.

 

The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination. Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.

 

The USPTO states this directly on their website:

 

What can and cannot be patented?

What can be patented – utility patents are provided for a new, nonobvious and useful:

• Process
• Machine
• Article of manufacture
• Composition of matter
• Improvement of any of the above

Note: In addition to utility patents, encompassing one of the categories above, patent protection is available for (1) ornamental design of an article of manufacture or (2) asexually reproduced plant varieties by design and plant patents.

What cannot be patented:

• Laws of nature
• Physical phenomena
• Abstract ideas
• Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office .
• Inventions which are:
  • Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
  • Offensive to public morality

Invention must also be:

• Novel
• Nonobvious
• Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
• Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

 

As for contacting someone, such as a research center or lab, to help with your invention, I do not believe that you will find anyone willing to participate without you paying them a very large amount of money upfront without any guarantee of success. For scientists and engineers, they would be placing their career on the line to support your claims, which I highly doubt you will find someone willing to do without a good reason. This leaves you with severely limited options. None of which will help you very much in the long run.

 

Your best bet is to actually share your research / idea with us here at SFN. Not only will you get expert advice from those who are willing to share, but also explanations as to why your invention will or will not work. I fully understand your reluctance to share your ideas. If you truly have something interesting, then you risk exposing your ideas to the public without any form of protection from theft of such ideas and inventions. However, I can assure you that when it comes to claims of perpetual / continuous motion machines, we have seen and heard just about every ridiculous claim out there.

 

Furthermore, I hope you understand the intricacies of filing for a patent. If your device is functional, you will want to file a utility patent and not a design patent. The utility patent is expensive where a design patent is relatively much cheaper. There have been companies that trick inventors to file design patents only to file the utility patents for themselves. As explained by the USPTO, the difference is as follows:

 

A recently issued PTO patent document is one of six types,generally described below. See U.S. Code Title 35 - Patents, fora full description of patents and patent laws.    *     Utility Patent-  Issued for the invention of a new and          useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of          matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof, it          generally permits its owner to exclude others from          making, using, or selling the invention for a period of          up to twenty years from the date of patent application          filing ++, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.          Approximately 90% of the patent documents issued by the          PTO in recent years have been utility patents, also          referred to as "patents for invention".    *     Design Patent-  Issued for a new, original, and          ornamental design for an article of manufacture, it          permits its owner to exclude others from making, using,          or selling the design for a period of fourteen years          from the date of patent grant.  Design patents are not          subject to the payment of maintenance fees. Please note          that the fourteen year term of a design patent is           subject to change in the near future.    *     Plant Patent-  Issued for a new and distinct, invented          or discovered asexually reproduced plant including          cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found          seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a          plant found in an uncultivated state, it permits its          owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling          the plant for a period of up to twenty years from the          date of patent application filing ++.  Plant patents          are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees.    *     Reissue Patent-  Issued to correct an error in an          already issued utility, design, or plant patent, it          does not affect the period of protection offered by the          original patent. However, the scope of patent protection           can change as a result of the reissue patent.    *     Defensive Publication (DEF)-  Issued instead of a          regular utility, design, or plant patent, it offers          limited protection, defensive in nature, to prevent          others from patenting an invention, design, or plant.          The Defensive Publication was replaced by the Statutory          Invention Registration in 1985-86.    *     Statutory Invention Registration (SIR)-  This document          replaced the Defensive Publication in 1985-86 and          offered similar protection. Please note that the America          Invents Act (AIA), which was signed into law on September           16, 2011, repeals provisions pertaining to statutory           invention registrations and the issue of these documents           will be discontinued.

 

Because I mainly work in the casino gaming industry developing software and hardware for electronic games, I have lots of experience researching and filing patents. You will also want to procure a patent lawyer that has several years experience. You would be amazed at how many patents are poorly written, which allows a skilled patent lawyer to work around and circumvent the language of the patent. Of course, you can file a provisional patent that will give you one year of protection and allows the term "patent pending" to be associated with the invention. It is also the cheapest form of protection that one can obtain from the USPTO, but is also limited to just one year of protection:

 

Since June 8, 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has offered inventors the option of filing a provisional application for patent which was designed to provide a lower-cost first patent filing in the United States and to give U.S. applicants parity with foreign applicants under the GATT Uruguay Round Agreements.

 

A provisional application for patent is a U.S. national application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. §111(b). It allows filing without a formal patent claim, oath or declaration, or any information disclosure (prior art) statement. It provides the means to establish an early effective filing date in a later filed non-provisional patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a). It also allows the term “Patent Pending” to be applied in connection with the description of the invention.

 

A provisional application for patent (provisional application) has a pendency lasting 12 months from the date the provisional application is filed. The 12-month pendency period cannot be extended. Therefore, an applicant who files a provisional application must file a corresponding non-provisional application for patent (non-provisional application) during the 12-month pendency period of the provisional application in order to benefit from the earlier filing of the provisional application. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §119(e), the corresponding non-provisional application must contain or be amended to contain a specific reference to the provisional application.

 

With that being said, I wish you the best of luck with your endeavors.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Daedalus

[swansont]

I don't think frzmaw is claiming over-unity.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

The point is, and you would do well to pay heed, is that he needs to explain his claims. Simply stating them is insufficient, as per the rules of speculations.

 

Do not hijack the thread further with responses in the thread. If you have a response, use the report post feature.