It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Generator ‘Breaks The Laws Of Physics’ and that's why it can't be patented?

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
People should not think of perpetual motion machines that do work when they think about producing energy. I think that this thread has established this already. When we think about producing energy we should instead think about machines that produce CHEAP energy. There's no such thing as a free lunch. We've been told that since we're kids. But it's true. HOWEVER, some lunches are CHEAP!!! Finding effective methods of energy production is what this is all about. Producing energy is a job. We all know that there're good ways and bad ways to do a job. A good worker is an effective worker. Cheap energy is effective; same deal!

Another thing is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed. This means that there will always be the same amount of energy in our universe. When we burn up all of the trees to make energy we have to find a way to burn up something else when the trees are gone. Same deal with everything else. This forces us to constantly change so that we can burn new resources for energy. We can't do the same thing forever! Can't burn coal forever!

We keep thinking that perpetual motion machines that produce energy will answer our problems. But the mistake is assuming that non-perpetual energy producers AREN'T ALREADY answering problems!! We DO NOT need free energy to solve problems!! Worker productivity has skyrocketed in the past 200 years! One person is able to do more than ever before. We could, if it was desired, destroy our planet's habitability by detonating our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Never before, that we're aware of, have we ever been able to even come close to killing most life on this planet. We're able to rocket into space, as well. We could not have done this by jumping, no matter how strong our legs got through evolution. Jumping just won't get us there! We had to get smart! We had to find better ways of producing energy that can do work for us. The march of progress is enabling us to overcome bigger and bigger problems. This has enabled us to increase the earths carrying capacity. It will eventually enable us to live wherever we want to live, thus allowing us to have trillions of our species, if desired. If this is not an example of answering problems, then what is? Sure, it's not the ULTIMATE ANSWER, but it doesn't have to be.
edit on 24-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
If Searl patented his flaky machine this guy should be able to patent this too.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Like JiggyPotamus pointed out:
This guy has basically invented a fancy motorized flywheel and claimed in his patents that it's a perpetual motion machine. Which it is not. It's more of a semi-perpetual momentum machine. And now that he's gone to YouTube claiming conspiracy, he's screwed himself in the foot. He'll more than likely never get his patent, which he could easily gotten in the first place. (had he worded his patent application right)
edit on 9/24/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
NEWS FLASH: Inventor creates perpetual motion device powered by the suns energy!

Ofc, the device will wear out no doubt because of friction. Probably in a matter of years or centuries or, at best, thousands of years. I'm sure that earth changes (everything on the surface eventually gets buried and recycled over millions of years) will inevitably kill it. If it's not killed yet (haha), then the sun will eventually kill itself and the device will be left without a source of energy to convert. THEN it will be over. Ok, I know it's not perpetual, but it's the closest thing to it!

I know, this won't sell books. Maybe if I were a rogue, a real vile bad man...

But I can see them, the dumb people, saying "Oh look! It just keeps going and going!"
edit on 24-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


In case you haven't noticed, we already have the technology to eliminate a vast percentage of the "jobs" humans do now via robotics and automation. What you are suggesting is simply attempting to perpetuate to status quo.

In your post directly above this, it sounds to me like you are saying it isn't worth even attempting by using entropy as a reason.


edit on 24-9-2011 by Quantum Logic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That supposed 'free energy' device looks remarkably like the fraudulent proposals put forward many times going back at least 500 years so, to me, we have evidence of the patent office taking their jobs seriously in preventing something like this getting recognition.
Yes there are hundreds of years of fraud in perpetual motion machines.

And when they "need funding", watch out! Keely ripped investors off for millions.

The patent office did issue some patents on supposed perpetual motion machines a long time ago, but they have since implemented a policy that requires a working model of a perpetual motion machine, in order to issue the patent. For most other devices, that aren't perpetual motion machines, they will issue the patent without a working model. That is the distinction the US patent office makes. I don't know where some people get their fantasies and delusions from, but many of them don't match reality.

US patent office policy:

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.[13]

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.
As you can see, they've had enough issues with perpetual motion to address it specifically.

You can presumably get a patent for a perpetual motion machine, if you have a working model.

The problem is that nobody has a working model, including the guy this thread is about.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
H should call it a 'magic trick' fool your friends energy device.
Get it patented as a 'Toy' or trick then go build up from there.

edit on 24-9-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Want more examples? Here you go.
www.rense.com...
www.panacea-bocaf.org...

www.martinfrost.ws...
I had another website with a bunch listed, but I got a new computer and cant find it now.

edit: Also www.scribd.com...
edit on 9/24/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/24/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


"Because it is claimed it produces more energy than it consumes, it is considered to be a perpetual motion machine which is the holy grail of scientists the world over."

I can't produce any numbers, but I have serious doubts that perpetual motion is the holy grail of scientists. To the contrary, any scientist that accepts the laws of thermodynamics (which must certainly be almost all of them) wouldn't waste their time. By the way, perpetual motion is different from working on novel ways to extract energy from the environment.

On the other hand, building a Perpetual Motion Machine has occupied the time and talents of untold hordes of non-scientists, backyard tinkerers and inventors. These devices are generally NOT suppressed. The STEON Orbo device comes to mind. It got a lot of press and every opportunity for success, nor was it ignored by scientists. A jury of 22 independent scientists and engineers looked at this for two years, and unanimously agreed that it did not produce energy.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I didn't read ALL pages of this but I know how patents work and to be honest you can patent pretty much anything, whether it works or not .. so the title is wrong in that regard, the patent officials aren't scientists, they aren't engineers.. they don't test patents, you don't even have to have something built, you can go patent plans for a theoretical device, or a description of a process.. patents are very easy to get, you can even patent something that's already been patented in many cases.. until someone challenges you and proves a pre-existing patent is already there.. the patent system is a mess..

This thing breaking laws of any kind, physics or otherwise.. won't prevent it from being patented ..



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Er.. so what? I don't care for definitions because people don't speak that way.

But that is actually the problem here. Physics is a language, just like Mathematics or Law. Words like theory, law, motion, energy, work have a very specific meaning. And if you "don't speak that way" there is no point of discussing physics at all. Because it would be a talk at cross purposes.


It's the philosophy behind that persons science that is where the problem lies. One scientists science is different from anothers only because in reality it's all just a philosophy.

Here you are wrong. There is no point of mixing science and philosophy or even religion. Science is meant to be objective and applicable independent of the person, time and location. That is the most integral part of science and scientific method. It would not work at all if it was up to scientist/engineer to interpret it as he wishes.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBruddah
The design just doesn't seem feasible for it to work... But the real problem is that if it does work then why can't they get a patent? Why would they make a machine that uses perpetual motion illegal to build?


Because the oil companies say so.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Never heard of energy from gravity before, but now i have seen this it seems so obvious.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Ya know I have always believed a perpetual motion machine was possible as it was just a matter of engineering the transformation of energy in a loop. The problem is that it makes a great conversation piece but doesn't "create" anymore energy than is put into it...this is where the laws of thermodynamics say "waaaaait a second..."

The second you start "harvesting energy" from the machine to power anything other than itself...it will stop once that energy is consumed. and Thus no longer be "perpetual motion" I believe a perpetual motion machine can be engineered to power itself (almost indefinitely) but not power anything else.

Perpetual motion however is possible you see from the smallest part in the non-decaying spin of an electron to the largest part...the universe itself. How to utilize that energy is where the problems are...



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Another "spinny rotatory magnety thingy" free energy device?


2nd line: see my sig



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11I11
Never heard of energy from gravity before, but now i have seen this it seems so obvious.


You have never heard of the Hoover Dam?




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I was looking at this thread and it got me thinking..... I started using good old Google to do some searches on perpetual motion and power generation and it made me think even more.

Basic grade school science.... Two magnets, opposites attract but like sides REPEL. Using the repel of several magnets may create MOTION and in motion we have ENERGY. I am going to the hardware store tonight to get me some magnets!



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by jude11
 


If he was a real scientist he'd first publish his new hypothesis to the scientific community rewriting the law of energy. Otherwise he's saying I know it can't happen but it happened and I don't know why..
Not necessarily. Consider the English longbow, or any bow for that matter. The physics of ballistics were not figured out until centuries after the bow's invention. That did not stop man from hunting and killing with it. Consider also the bumble bee. For a long time physicists said "it can't fly like that", but it still did. Scientists are not always right, and unlearned men create things every day.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJDigitalGem
I was looking at this thread and it got me thinking..... I started using good old Google to do some searches on perpetual motion and power generation and it made me think even more.

Basic grade school science.... Two magnets, opposites attract but like sides REPEL. Using the repel of several magnets may create MOTION and in motion we have ENERGY. I am going to the hardware store tonight to get me some magnets!
True, BUT with permanent magnets equilibrium is reached where the attracting likes are in balance and the unit stops moving. Now, put your permanent magnet generator on a wind mill or a water wheel and you have "free electricity", as free as it gets anyway.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Where does the electricity that animates the body come from?
Once again burning sugar. This is why you have to breath and eat from time to time.



Get up off the couch and tell me that motion is not work...

With work I mean the physical definition of work and not the one in your head. The physical definition of work is not motion, period. Look it up. If you want to bash physics try to understand it first. If you are not willing then this is the wrong forum.

edit on 24-9-2011 by moebius because: fix typos


Glad you think you have it all figured out... however atoms don't burn sugar. Breathing and eating is just gathering more perpetual motion machines (atoms) to the form.

Look it up where in your science text book?
It is most often those who think they understand physics so well who understand it the least stuck in thier little box of orthodoxy. That is why we are still using 150 year old technology for transportation...

But like I said I am just some guy in the internet so what do I know...



edit on 24-9-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join