06-12-12, 06:23 AM #61
Thanks Acquesous LD,
I would have given the exact details of my engine instead of the analogous example.What rubber band will do?
Not only exact details,even a photoshoot and video of the exact engine and even might have sold official patent license to use it online.
Question:Why analogy?I didnot wanted to give example/analogy of water resistance in bowl OR example of Overcommable Powder resistance.I wanted to be straightforward.
Answer:The problem is the Patent regulations.
I am not a lawyer but I want to protect someone from copying it and obtain a patent before me for my invention.Why somebody else patent my idea in his/her name by stilling my idea and get Credit for my invention.
Patent law says"A patent document is published in Official gazette for public Opposition and further legal processing ONLY if the idea is novel AND it is never and not at all published anywhere else."
This is perhaps the only reasion that I have given valid Analogy like of overcommable water resistance downwards with deeper explanation with help of concept of "Creep".
Anybody who says that creep doesnot exists has not studied material science textbooks.
Sttresses and creep are one of the most fundamental theories in Engineering.
It is really shame to know that most people here have not heard about mechanism of creep and do not know that gravity is Continous.
06-12-12, 08:39 AM #62
To Aman Shaw:
Don´t worry about problems of disclosure of any patent on an engine that continuously* gets energy from a gravity field. The patent office does not even send such claims to an examiner. - They just immediately throw them in the trash can as that violates conservation of energy. All "over unity" device (get more energy out than you put in) claims are just discarded, (but your application fees will not be refunded).
So they can quickly trash can silly claims is why the application must state the claims at the beginning. - Not even the reception secretary will read the application if it is claiming to get net energy out. Her job is to route non-silly applications to the proper examination section, or in your case, the "circular file" on the floor next to her desk that the janitor will empty that evening.
The energy in a gravitational field remains constant so long as the mass distribution does. You can get energy (do work) when you lower a mass in the gravity field, but of course, you must do at least** that much work to restore the starting conditions. To complete the engine´s cycle.
* Or even intermittently in part of an engine cycle gets more energy out than put in during the completed cycle of the engine. I.e. is an "over unity" machine.
** In practice you ALWAYS put more energy in than you get out as their are friction losses.
Last edited by Billy T; 06-12-12 at 09:02 AM.
06-12-12, 09:02 AM #63
Aman, it is a bit difficult to understand what you are trying to say, but you seem to have a very basic misconception about creep which leads you to a further misconception about gravity.
You seem to think that creep occurs due to increasing stress. That is not necessary - creep occurs under constant stress, the creep is time dependent. For a constant stress the creep increases over time.
Since you incorrectly think that creep requires an increasing stress, and creep occurs with gravity you incorrectly conclude that the PE of the material must be increasing.
06-13-12, 01:24 AM #64
Not only exact details,even a photoshoot and video of the exact engine and even might have sold official patent license to use it online.
06-13-12, 02:47 PM #65
06-13-12, 04:26 PM #66
Yes you are not supposed to be able to patent something that does not / cannot in principle** do what is claimed for it, but inventions need not have any utility.
During my search I found a granted invention, made shortly after WWI. It was an airplane with cylindrical (Plano convex) glass wings. Flat side on the bottom so it probably could fly.*** Inventor suggested it fly over and along the enemy trenches at the focal length altitude when sun was shining. Claimed it would at least blind, if not set on fire, the enemy troops hiding in the trenches. A well thrown rock, not to mention a bullet, would crash it. Invention had ZERO utility, but he got his patent!
* I solved, in a practical way,**** the fundamental problem of efficient thermal use of solar energy. Solar energy almost has a "catch 22" - If the temperature is very high for good Carnot limited conversion efficiency then the back radiation of IR makes net energy collected only a small fraction of the incident solar energy. Read how I solve this problem in my US patent 4,033,118 (mass flow solar absorber)
It gets very hot absorbing 100% of the incident solar energy and has nearly zero re-radiation loses! I expected it to be used for reversible endothermic chemical processing as that solves the energy storage problem as well. (Why I contacted energy related chemical companies like Shell.) I gave as an example the thermal disassociation of gas SO3 into SO2 and O2 with later re-oxidation of the SO2 for heat release at about 1000C as I recall. (Both sulfur oxides stored as compressed liquids.)
** Perpetual motion inventions I think do make it past the receptionist to an examiner (who will quickly find some point with friction) as they are not impossible in principle - just in practice (except for super conducting currents, especially, if an when slightly higher supper conducting temperatures are achieved).
Over unity devices are impossible in principle. (They violate conservation of energy.) If that is claimed, the reception secretary just discards them, That is my understanding from 30+ years ago speaking with her. I spent several very interesting days doing my own patent search.
*** The army recognized the utility of airplanes for war and did not want the Curtis Wright company to get patents, when they made plane that could fly. (The famous one tested at Kitty Hawk could not fly - It never did - not even the replica made 100 years later with modern fuel.) Army, not wanting to pay for license, claimed they flew first, but in secret. Fortunate for Curtis - Wright, they got hold of a photo of the army´s plane, with its plano-convex wings, FLAT SIDE UP! Army thought wings should "skim over the air" like a rock over water! The wright brothers were careful scientists, with wind tunnel testing etc. They deserve great credit for applying the scientific method to engineering problem - but not for being the first to fly. Curtis was a "motor-cycle nut" who had a motor with the HP to weight ratio needed for flight that the wright brother did not have.
**** Wavelength selective filters (transmit sun light but reflect IR back to the absorber) had been patented, but they are total impractical. If placed over the 100s of square meters of primary collectors they can survive but cost 50 or more times more than the collecting mirrors do. If placed in the concentrated sunlight near the absorber, they can be smaller and affordable, but crack when sun emerges from a cloud or if rain starts to fall when they are very hot due to internal absorption etc. If very hot, they of course are also radiating energy away.
AFAIK, my invention is the ONLY solution to this fundamental problem. I mathematically demonstrated how well it would work in two separate papers published in Applied Optics which are referenced in the patent. The papers do not mention that they relate to a solar absorber, as patent was not yet granted when they were published.
Last edited by Billy T; 06-13-12 at 06:00 PM.
06-13-12, 05:37 PM #67
Hi Billy, "utility" is patent legal-speak for "able to do what it's supposed to do." 35 USC S. 101 states that an invention must be "useful" to deserve a patent. The PTO calls this the "utility requirement," and interprets "useful" to mean "able to work." Of course, there is no guarantee that the examiner will do his job correctly, so it's possible for things to slip through. The WWI-era patent that you mention would have been granted under different laws; how the PTO (and courts) interpret the utility requirement has changed over the decades.
I don't know how things went 30 years ago, but today any application will go to the examiner for examination, no matter how impossible, silly, or insane it might be. Sadly, they must all be examined - it's what you buy for your application fee. I have never recieved an application for a pmm or over-unity machine, but I have seen some bafflingly-insane stuff...
06-13-12, 05:54 PM #68
06-13-12, 06:53 PM #69
06-13-12, 08:54 PM #70
It's definitely an interesting job, although how interesting any given day is depends on what you're searching for that day. Some days are better than others.
It's interesting to see so much cutting-edge technology (much of which is still a closely-guarded secret), but it can be annoying not being able to tell friends/family about what you work on. Sometimes you grant a patent and think "This is brilliant, I can't wait to see this implemented/on sale/whatever!" but then the technology never goes anywhere...
06-13-12, 09:14 PM #71
Do you know what was one of the most economically rewarding inventions of all? Years ago when people wrote with "fountain pens" filled from small bottles of ink, everyone was annoyed by fact is was impossible to use all the ink in the bottle. Some guy put a small diagonal piece of glass in the bottle near the top that let you use almost all the ink. He got 1 penny for every bottle sold! He soon became a multi-millionare! Every one bought a few ink bottles every year.
06-15-12, 09:48 PM #72
Howdy.....Hello.....Net-ftl, non exhaust thrust-faster than light. So an apple falls onto the earth, allow that apple to fall to a different place. Allow that different place to feel the apple and attract it.
06-16-12, 05:39 AM #73
I will come back soon,I have my engineering semister end exams running which has made me very very busy.I wanted to answer all quiries but let these exams finish off......Day after tomorow, I have elective exam on "Product design and manufacturing".
06-16-12, 05:51 AM #74
The potential energy increase is used allmost immediately.Such process is opposite process to something like Quassistatic process.
The only thing I am concerned is Frictional and back EMF losses which is an engineering problem.In ideal Reference condition,the concept is correct.
If anybody can give here any suggestions in choosing proper well efficient Electrical components,it will be really helpful or else I have to consult electrical engineers for suggestions on ultra efficient generators and motors.
To reduce losses,I have to select proper motors,generators,etc.
If the potential energy increase in my concept is opposite to a process similar to Quasistatic process, then that means increase in P.E. will be tending to zero at each point position of downward displacement.
Such a opposite process is only possible for one downward side overcommable resistance and not possible for a Fixed rigid resistance.
Last edited by Aman shah; 06-16-12 at 06:01 AM.
07-04-12, 10:56 PM #75
It is not necessary that creep occurs only due to stresses generated due to application of weight or self weight.
Thermal stresses can also cause Creep.
However,let us limit our discussion to only about Creep due to stress generated on account of applied weight.
Really do not exactly/confirmly know if anyone else other than me has succeded in development of Gravity powered engines,but that does not rule out the possibility of a Gravity powered engine.
However,there is a particular way to make a Gravity engine to make it work.A gravity engine will not work by itself.
You need to supply some External electrical energy to lift heavy element upwards in such a way that more (Approximately double) gravitational energy is consumed(taken in) than that of electrical energy input to lift heavy element upwards.People falsely stupidly think that there is more energy output than input.
But that's absolutely Not Correct.
Basically more gravitational energy (allmost double)input is consumed by the engine than that needed to lift the heavy element,in reality.Different scientists might have different versions of gravity engines but the most basic thing about more gravitational input will not change.
Last edited by Aman shah; 07-05-12 at 02:51 PM.
07-05-12, 02:45 AM #76
This will be how many forums now to which you have submitted your worthless idea? How many times have you repeatedly been told it will not and can not work? How many times have we spoon fed you the explanation?
Notice to which sub group they immediately moved your "idea" (just like several other forums).
If they know what's best for them, they will ban you (like the other forums have) before you clog these boards with spam.
When will you understand the problem isn't with us, it is with you?
07-05-12, 02:48 PM #77
Let them ban.No problem.
That will not change reality.No need to talk with donkeys who do not have ability to understand reality.If there is any misunderstanding by me myself, I am ready to correct myself,but simply nonsensical nonscientific statements which are made without understanding the discussed concepts by me here would not prove me wrong.
For example,you need more energy to push more mass and less energy to lift less mass at same speed,upwards.And I appreciate that frictional and back EMF losses has to be minimised.
Now if anyone do not have ability to understand how much energy is needed to move how much weight and why I have used rotary motion rather than Sliding vertical motion;;;then his/her attempt to prove me wrong is absolutely Nonsense.
And yes,I am not supporting any idea on Perpetual Motion Machines.It you want to know why,please read and understand my whole post.You are thinking that I am supporting PMM just because you haven't read and understood the post with Flickr example properly before commenting such nonsense thing.
Last edited by Aman shah; 07-05-12 at 03:03 PM.
07-05-12, 11:57 PM #78
So let me give you a practical, real life experiment that you can conduct that will hopefully allow you to understand why this will not work so you can stop clogging up this forum with your nonsense. Find yourself a 3 or 4 story tall slide, it can be a curly slide since you seem to think that that will make a difference somehow. Slide down said slide. You are fine right? Now, go to the top of said slide, but instead of sliding down the slide, jump off the side. You are not fine right? This is why your idea is crap. You will get the most energy out of a straight up and down fall because you are not losing energy to friction as you do with the slide. Since Issac Newton we have known that you cannot get more energy out of gravity then it takes to lift the object in the first place, end of story.
07-06-12, 10:52 AM #79
It is almost as if you are not even reading any of the responses. You are just cutting & pasting your responses from the other forums.
Every single forum you post this garbage on either moves the topic to their junk science/pseudoscience/fantasy sub-forum or they outright delete because posting perpetual motion/over unity machines violates their TOS.
And yet, you still insist the problem lies with us and not with you.
07-07-12, 04:29 AM #80
Hi,Donkey,Sorry,again your comment has not convinced me.Neither you have understood why I have uses half cycle motor and half cycle generator by using Commutator,neither you know anything about stresses and what is overcommable resistance.
Last edited by Aman shah; 07-07-12 at 05:01 AM.
By Darkelfv in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 09-11-13, 08:11 PMReplies: 38
By quantum_wave in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 01-27-12, 02:32 PMReplies: 17
By Frank M DiMeglio in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 12-15-11, 10:36 PMReplies: 185
By SnowsportsSid in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 02-17-11, 05:12 PMReplies: 1
By frylock in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 04-13-08, 07:36 PMReplies: 7