• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Clean Unlimited Energy

KingMerv00 said:
In the US (and Japan I believe) your invention can be publicly known for one year before you lose patent rights. You don't have too much to worry about if you give a few details here.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert on law, but I'm under the impression that if he published the details it could actually strengthen his claim to a patent right. Don't patents go to the claimaint that can prove early production of the concept (as opposed to who filed first)?
 
Last edited:
allmee1 said:
I have a couple theories for perpetual motion.
What would be good software for testing them.
Free software would be better.
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound like an ass but were you drunk or something when you had these ideas? Who just comes along with some 'theories' for perpetual motion and then asks for the software to test the ideas? I can't help feeling you don't have any prerequisite background knowledge for such a task. I mean, do you even have any idea what SORT of software you'd need? Any idea how to use it? What are you expecting really?
 
allmee1 said:
The first one i designed was a device that users water.
The second users only metal
The third is similar to the second but hopfully patentadle.
To patent it globaly would cost a lot which i dont have.
Click to expand...
Wow, three different methods of perpetual motion... and you can't afford a patent?

Personally I have 74 methods of building an antigravity machine capable of faster than light travel, but I can't proceed with it as I have lost my pen and cant be bothered to look for it.
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Let's recap the inviolable laws of Perpetual Motion machines:
1. They can't build a machine because they have no money
2. They have no money because they cant get investment
3. They cant get investment because they cant telll anyone the details of their machine
4. They cant tell anyone the details because they have no patent
3. They cant patent it because they have no money
4. The cant show anyone a working example without telling them the method because they havent built a machine

If only we could hook up a generator to this cycle... :rolleyes:
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I'm not an expert on law, but I'm under the impression that if he published the details it could actually strengthen his claim to a patent right. Don't patents go to the claimaint that can't prove early production of the concept (as opposed to who filed first)?
Click to expand...

America works under the first-to-invent concept while most (all?) other contries use first-to-file. You are right to say that, in America, an early publication could be used as evidence of early invention.
 
Ashles said:
Wow, three different methods of perpetual motion... and you can't afford a patent?

Personally I have 74 methods of building an antigravity machine capable of faster than light travel, but I can't proceed with it as I have lost my pen and cant be bothered to look for it.
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Let's recap the inviolable laws of Perpetual Motion machines:
1. They can't build a machine because they have no money
2. They have no money because they cant get investment
3. They cant get investment because they cant telll anyone the details of their machine
4. They cant tell anyone the details because they have no patent
3. They cant patent it because they have no money
4. The cant show anyone a working example without telling them the method because they havent built a machine

If only we could hook up a generator to this cycle... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


HILARIOUS! A+ job on this post lololololol
 
Indeed humorous. Any disclosure of an idea prior to obtaining a patent could invalidate the patent. What might seem like a lame excuse to some is an actual fact of the matter.
While there are many different grounds on which a patent can be invalidated, the most common one is that the invention is found to be not novel or obvious in the light of the prior art. As the claims are used to define the scope of protection granted by a patent, this can only occur if the patent's claims are not novel or obvious. So, to get a patent invalidated, the first step is to locate documents that can be considered "prior art" against the patent's claims. Prior art basically means any disclosure of the contents of a claim, prior to the application for patent.
Click to expand...

If someone actually had a working device yet didn't have a patent and contracted with Randi to prove the idea they would forfeit any possibility of patenting the device. If someone explained their idea in a public forum prior to entering the Randi they could pretty much forget about entering the Randi. They would most likely be forfeiting any possible economic benefit from the idea.

Some have mentioned that anyone solving this problem would get a Nobel in physics. There are people selected that nominate for the Nobel. You would have to be nominated to be in the running but then of all the people nominated you then have to be selected by a committee. It's not a given that you will win a Nobel in physics if you were to solve this problem. Nobels are as much a political reward as they are one of merit. The last I checked a Nobel recipient gets a medal (no chest to pin it on is given) and $10 million.

allmee1,

There are several simulators you could use to test any principle you imagine might be a key to the solution. wm2d is one. I think it's virtually impossible to use a simulator to model perpetual motion yet not for the reasons cited. The problem is although reality might be an approximation, the steps between each frame of reality are so close most simulators don't accurately approximate it.

Even with the approximation of mass in motion in reality you're not faced with rounding errors. In the real world forces are precisely distributed as they are. In a simulation you have rounding errors (up or down) that accumulate in short order step by step. It's the classic idea of a grain of rice today, two grains the next day, four grains the third day and you get twice as many grains as you have in each successive day. After 30 days you'll have more rice than China. That's a compounding error that doesn't happen in reality.

For those two reasons I don't think you can use most simulators to model perpetual motion. You can use a simulator to take a look at your idea or principle and see how it behaves over a very short duration of time (or rotation).

Gene
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
Indeed humorous. Any disclosure of an idea prior to obtaining a patent could invalidate the patent. What might seem like a lame excuse to some is an actual fact of the matter.
Click to expand...

Disclosing an idea will not automatically invalidate a patent application in America. I am not certain about other countries.

While there are many different grounds on which a patent can be invalidated, the most common one is that the invention is found to be not novel or obvious in the light of the prior art. As the claims are used to define the scope of protection granted by a patent, this can only occur if the patent's claims are not novel or obvious. So, to get a patent invalidated, the first step is to locate documents that can be considered "prior art" against the patent's claims. Prior art basically means any disclosure of the contents of a claim, prior to the application for patent.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is not entirely accurate. In America, you have a one year grace period from the time you publish information about your invention before it is considered public knowledge, and therfore not novel. Also, "public knowledge" means that it is known those skilled in the art or the art most closely related to the invention. In this case, that would be mechanical engineers or possibly physicists. This website is not a broadly distributed and probably wouldn't meet the definition of a "publication" since it is not aimed at those skilled in the art.

If someone actually had a working device yet didn't have a patent and contracted with Randi to prove the idea they would forfeit any possibility of patenting the device. If someone explained their idea in a public forum prior to entering the Randi they could pretty much forget about entering the Randi. They would most likely be forfeiting any possible economic benefit from the idea.
Click to expand...

Again not true in America.

Edit:
Here is the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted:

National patent laws provide various definitions of what constitutes prior art and in which situations. For example, not all countries recognize oral disclosures as prior art, and others provide grace periods during which the inventor may publish his invention without the publication counting as prior art against his later patent application. Additionally, the Paris Convention provides so-called priority rights, which give an inventor one year to file patent applications after he filed the first one, without endangering the novelty of his invention.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AgingYoung said:
Any disclosure of an idea prior to obtaining a patent could invalidate the patent. What might seem like a lame excuse to some is an actual fact of the matter.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. But I'm under the impresssion that only "prior art" from someone other than the inventor is a problem for the inventor. IOW only evidence that proves someone else actually invented it is a problem.

At worst he might start a year clock ticking if this conversation rises to the level of a "publication" or "practical reduction" of the invention but it's not clear that a general website would constitute a publication and seems obvious (to my non-legal mind) that mere discussion couldn't constitute a "practical reduction".
 
AgingYoung said:
Nobel's are as much a political reward as they are one of merit.
Click to expand...
Thus guaranteeing an invention as popular as free energy would win a Nobel, even if the science behind it was not actually ground-breaking.

So what do you want to do? Get rich, or get famous? Jonas Salk gave away the patent to his vaccine for polio, to make sure everyone could afford it. He gave up a lot of money, and in exchange will be recorded for all of history as one of the most generous human beings ever. (Heck, Jesus only cured a few cripples - Salk prevented millions!)

Plus, you can bet Salk got the babes. In truckloads.

Here's another tip: Randi will pay you $1 million if your prototype works. Add that to the $10M for the Nobel, and you've got a decent fortune, eternal fame, and the gratitude of the entire planet.

What more do you want out of life?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Thanks for the input. But I'm under the impresssion that only "prior art" from someone other than the inventor is a problem for the inventor. IOW only evidence that proves someone else actually invented it is a problem.

At worst he might start a year clock ticking if this conversation rises to the level of a "publication" or "practical reduction" of the invention but it's not clear that a general website would constitute a publication and seems obvious (to my non-legal mind) that mere discussion couldn't constitute a "practical reduction".
Click to expand...

Not true. An inventor can accidently invalidate his patent if the information becomes public knowledge before he applies. You cannot patent an idea that "everyone" already knows about.

Just so I don't get my butt in a sling:

Everything I say refers to US patent law. I know nothing about the laws of other countries.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv,

Does that immediately invalidate his claim or "merely" trigger the beginning of the year long grace period?
 
allmee1 said:
I could show the designs but i have not a patent, and will lose
any hopes of patenting it.
I would like to patint it globaly.
any ideas?
Click to expand...

I designed one too! Want to see my design? As you can see, this configuration should put out enough energy to power the television and a small city's powergrid!


 
KingMerv00,

I forgot to mention once the lawyers start lawyering the waters get real muddied. That's their job.

Most are very sure anyone making the first pmm is going to be insanely rich. I don't think that's how it will pan out. Inventors have had their ideas ignored for quite a period of time or stolen.

My main point is, 'why take that risk?' I can't see any benefit.

Gene
 
Yahzi said:
What more do you want out of life?
Click to expand...

I want you to stop howling at the moon!

Gene

ps: I have a strong (psychic?) intuition that someone is going to attempt to counter a point I made. They're name begins with 'J'. When dropped from most any height they tend to land on their feet. If you rub some strawberry jam on their back they might hover over the ground indefinitely. No, not for obvious reasons....
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
KingMerv,

Does that immediately invalidate his claim or "merely" trigger the beginning of the year long grace period?
Click to expand...

He's a basic timeline:

1) Bob imagines a Perpetual Motion Machine (PMM).

2) Bob persues this invention with diligence.

3) Bob gives some details of his invention on randi.org.

4) Bob applies.


Bob officially becomes the inventor around #2. The court would look at the facts to determine when. All others are barred from ever getting a patent from here on out.

Bob might start the clock on his grace period at #3 he might not. To start the clock, the court would have find that this forum is both publicly available and that the information disclosed would have to allow those skilled in the art to construct and use the invention.

The court has a very low bar for "publicly available". Now that I think about it, this website would probably qualify. I remember reading a case where a single copy of a thesis in a school library qualified as "available".

Can I stop saying "in America" now?

Edit: The clock on that John Lennon PPM has now started.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom