• 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.

Perpetual motion machine examination rules, please.

10 months on and still waiting.

Forget about a PMM; it's all about a PBP*.


M.


* Perpetually Boring Person.
 
Holy Crap! My step-son was apparently composing a letter and pasted it here? Mods please delete post #574 and accept my apologies. Will be changing passwords too.
Thanks.
 
Hey Moochie,

What's shaking? I don't plan on posting in this thread too much again but I couldn't help noticing your dilemma and thought I'd help you out. If you think back to where you were before you came here and got bored you might recall that it was a deliberate effort on your part to actually come here to be bored. Notice how it was all you?

You don't have to answer this rhetorical question but I feel I have to ask it. If it's that dang boring what ever possessed you to come here in the first place? What in the world were you thinking??

Gene


Brian,

That's too funny and way too much information!
 
Kaarjuus said:
Are you kidding? You can patent anything these days.



What happened to the patent holders of the laser? From what I understand, several people were working on lasers simultaneously and it was a race condition on who had the first rights. The principle of lasers had been known for decades, so there was a lot of grey area, and Gould was unlucky.

So this does not apply for a patent that comes out of nowhere and shows a truly working perpetual motion machine.

What about the delayed windshield wipers?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Gould had documentation that proved him first. He DID eventully win, I'm not sure how much, or how much he got to keep..... as for delayed windshield wipers, Bob Kearns patented them in 1967 and offered them for sale to all the major car makers, who turned him down and then started selling them in their cars. He fought for years and eventually won, but most of the money went to lawyers. He died last year.

I repeat - filing a patent on a simple device with universal appeal is not likely to make you rich, at least not for many, many years of legal battles. And by the way, the government can block any patent for national security reasons, and require you never to reveal it. Guess what they would do with a PM patent that worked........
 
Topspy said:
I repeat - filing a patent on a simple device with universal appeal is not likely to make you rich, at least not for many, many years of legal battles. And by the way, the government can block any patent for national security reasons, and require you never to reveal it. Guess what they would do with a PM patent that worked........
Click to expand...

They'd give it to engineers like me to use in their projects! Plenty of new ideas are developed in government-funded programs, even non-secret projects, but none of it is patentable. The Company does get proprietary rights, though, but the ideas can be used by other companies if the government feels like it.
 
There are two ways to patent a pmm. One way is to patent it not claiming perpetual motion. You could do that with a patent for a toy or novelty or something that increased the efficiency of some sort of motor.

The second way would be to patent it as perpetual motion. You would need a working model to do that.

If you were to patent the principles of perpetual motion you would become richer than gates. His wealth was acquired off the backs of most everyone on earth. I like the idea of getting a little reward for the idea and letting the markets go from there. Randi is about the only person I've come across that offers a reasonable alternative to the patent system. I have very strong reasons for thinking that Randi is a humanitarian. If I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t say it.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
Hey Moochie,

What's shaking? I don't plan on posting in this thread too much again but I couldn't help noticing your dilemma and thought I'd help you out. If you think back to where you were before you came here and got bored you might recall that it was a deliberate effort on your part to actually come here to be bored. Notice how it was all you?

You don't have to answer this rhetorical question but I feel I have to ask it. If it's that dang boring what ever possessed you to come here in the first place? What in the world were you thinking??

Gene
Click to expand...


I frequent the forum in case someone actually has something real to offer. Needless to say, it is an exercise in futility, though not unexpectedly so.

You don't disappoint me because you are, in fact, a disappointment, if you follow my drift.

Say, maybe this is the basis for a PMM of thoughts?

:D

M.
 
Hello Moochie,

I guess I’m bringing it on myself having offered a solution to the personal problem you first shared but now you want to take this discussion of your personal problems to

..a
..whole
..notha
..level…

You come here time and time again hoping above all hopes that you won’t be bored yet without fail you are. Can you see the pattern? You’re doing the same thing time after time yet you’re expecting different results! Dude, you’re crazy!!

You might know that the first step in any recovery is first admitting the problem and I give you props for being so bold as to go there. There are probably institutions (like Bellevue or Mandeville) in your area that are qualified to help. Although I’m not a qualified professional at least I’ve given you some idea of where you can go.

You hang in there Moochie. Help is available.

Gene
 
Hello Thing, my old friend.
You come to taunt me once again? :)

Some people might be a little annoyed at you bumping this thread up from the bowels of JREF Forum hell. I am making progress. I can draw at a crude level but much better than people that never try. A problem I'm having is bringing what I visualize mechanically to paper. Right now I'm in the middle of making a sculpture with no moving parts so I can get an idea of what it looks like aside from how I see it in my minds eye.

The method I've used to consider ideas in the past was to make a drawing first. Then I'd construct a model of a part of it and if it seemed promising I'd construct an entire model. I've made way more parts than complete models. With this present idea I can't even get to the point where I see it well enough to make a part.

I'm not expecting any empathy but if you've ever tried to prototype something you must realize it ain't that easy. I am working on an impossible task so I expect it might take me a little longer. Although I might not share the details if I can't get anything significant from this current collection of ideas I will admit defeat publicly. I've always had the policy of not sharing the details. This present idea is a collection of several past failures yet configured slightly different.

Gene
 
AgingYoung said:
This present idea is a collection of several past failures yet configured slightly different.
Gene
Click to expand...

If you're unable to construct a working device, you could assemble all the pieces and call it "Several Configurations of Failure". Some art collector is bound to snap it up for the pathos alone ;)
 
AgingYoung said:
Hello Thing, my old friend.
You come to taunt me once again? :)

Some people might be a little annoyed at you bumping this thread up from the bowels of JREF Forum hell. I am making progress. I can draw at a crude level but much better than people that never try. A problem I'm having is bringing what I visualize mechanically to paper. Right now I'm in the middle of making a sculpture with no moving parts so I can get an idea of what it looks like aside from how I see it in my minds eye.

The method I've used to consider ideas in the past was to make a drawing first. Then I'd construct a model of a part of it and if it seemed promising I'd construct an entire model. I've made way more parts than complete models. With this present idea I can't even get to the point where I see it well enough to make a part.

I'm not expecting any empathy but if you've ever tried to prototype something you must realize it ain't that easy. I am working on an impossible task so I expect it might take me a little longer. Although I might not share the details if I can't get anything significant from this current collection of ideas I will admit defeat publicly. I've always had the policy of not sharing the details. This present idea is a collection of several past failures yet configured slightly different.

Gene
Click to expand...

Been a while

Im assuming instead of making clay models or similar your going to present a CAD based diagram with fully functioning measurements and the like? You know...like how an engineer might do it?
 
Engineers use a variety of tools.

3D printingWP
Unlike traditional additive systems such as stereolithography, 3D printing is optimised primarily for speed and low-cost and ease-of-use, making it suitable for visualising during the conceptual stages of engineering design when dimensional accuracy and mechanical strength of prototypes are less important.
Click to expand...

What does...
  • fully functioning measurements and the like?
mean?

Gene
 
You know what I mean, I just dont speak the correct 'lingo'. I should be corrected though to speak more clearly. I meant a correctly measured diagram with a high degree of accuracy. This in turn will show other physical constraints and allowances and can then be verified properly by qualified people before any refining of physical material is undertaken.

Use whatever program or means is necessary but in my mind, its a better way to show you know what your talking about. It would also possibly allow you to remove ideas you can see wont work a lot quicker. It will allow you to take it to people who can review it and see where you are going wrong.

If your worried by someone stealing your idea, try to get it patented or even have them sign a contract, prepared by a lawyer.

Please note, im no engineer and this is purely speculative opinion on how to make your 'work' easier. Ideas if you will.

For the record I still think its fruitless and you should just get a degree in engineering and actually build real things. Its more fun when you know what your doing and more rewarding I am sure.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
For the record, I've worked as an engineer. Yet I find searching for perpetual motion much more fun. People who proclaim gravity based perpetual motion to be impossible base their opinions mostly on a single reason; the energy gained from a falling body equals the energy used to raise the body. Most neglect to consider inertial momentum. Those that look at inertia see that energy gained from deceleration equals energy gained from acceleration. Again a no win situation. But how do we explain how 300 years ago Bessler made a wheel turn continually and do work of pumping water, lifting weights and driving a hammer mill? Yes, Bessler was called a fraud because people didn't believe (and still don't believe) it could be done. But a careful examination of historical records shows a high probability that Bessler constructed four (and possibly as many as seven) working gravity powered perpetual motion wheels.

There's no proof that a gravity powered perpetual motion wheels cannot be built since it's impossible to prove a negative. There's historical proof that Bessler built a wheel that seemed to turn in a perpetual manner. Bessler offered his head as a guarantee that his wheel worked and wasn't a fraud. So one must make a personal decision as to what to believe. If a PM wheel is not possible then Bessler and Karl (the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel) were both lying and Bessler's wheels were frauds. On the other hand maybe a PM wheel is possible using some previously unrecognized method whereby moving weights "gain energy from their own swinging" as Bessler said. Are we so arrogant as to think we know everything there is to know concerning engineering and physics? If such a gravity powered wheel be possible then I feel it a shame to not search for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom