Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

[bajac]

@Forest...Ah.. You are asking me to disclose our trade secret.. Not possible. However let me give one simple explanation. Obfuscating some thing and disclosing it at the same time is very easy. See in the Ramaswami device we have described P1 and P2 as serially connected and the polarity is maintained as NS-NS-NS..

Please advise if this is clear or not. I will then tell you how to obfuscate. Say it now and then I will tell you.

Figuera went a step further and indicated that it is properly connected and the connection may be serial or parallel if I remember correctly.

Now I have a big advantage over the rest of Learned friends of the forum. What is that? I know well that I do not know any thing and so I have to test and learn. What I have learnt is that if some thing works in serial it need not work in parallel.

@Bajac; There is no ambuiguity in the patent. It is clear and it is written for Person skilled in the Art. Who is a Person Skilled in the Art? He does not exist. He is a fictitious person. But he knows every thing and reads every thing and can immediately understand every thing. So if different documents teach different concepts and those concepts have been combined for the first time in an invention, the patent application for that can be rejected because the Person skilled in the art can combine all the prior art literature and say it is so obvious to me. This is the Section 103 objection in USPTO and 50% of the patents refused are fefused under this section. Most of the time, once an examiner takes a 103 objection they would not relent and would refuse.

I beg to disagree with you in my humility. I would request you to read the patent again

This is quoted from the Alpoma net website..http://www.alpoma.net/tecob/?page_id=8258

I hope I have answered all questions. I sincerely apologize to Bajac in advance if any of my statements cause any hurt but I have no intention of hurting you or any other member of the forum.

NR,

I do not want to give the impression that I am a touchy type of person. I think your comments look honest and I do not see any harm being made because your comments always refer to technical issues. It is your right to disagree with my views!

Sincerely, I have problems understanding your lengthy posting, and normally, I do not agree with about 75% of your statements. However, it does not mean the your statements are wrong. It is just an act of having different perspectives for capturing an image or a concept.

I wanted to ask you why you are saying that citations against section 103 are objections. My understanding is that the Office citations under sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) are always rejections. If you are cited against 102 or 103, you will not get a patent unless you can overcome the examiners rejections. You will normally get a patent when the examiner objects on your application. Objections are minor errors or mistakes that are usually easy to correct. For example, misspelling a word, etc.

In one of my patents, I fought the examiner for more than a year trying to overcome a citation under section 103, which is the most common rejections provided by the patent office. During that period, I had like six office action letters rejecting the claims. At the end, I was able to convince the examiner and his supervisor about the merits of my claims. Examiners will try to reduce the scope of the intellectual property that you are claiming in a patent. However, if you feel you have the right, you should fight for it.

In another patent, after responding to an office action rejection, the office held the award of the patent for about a year for public consideration. After the public scrutiny, the patent was awarded.

I paid about $8,000 US dollars to a patent lawyer for my first patent. When the lawyer sent the first draft of the patent application, I modified about 80% of the content. Then, the first office action letter containing a rejection was received, I fired the lawyer and continued the prosecution on my own. I had a lot of arguments with the lawyer because I accused him of not giving me the size of intellectual property that I was entitled to. In my email, I told the lawyer that he was providing "picture claims" with a very small scope of intellectual property. I considered that it was very easy for the competition to design around my idea and use it without paying royalties. The answer from the lawyer was that he writes the claims so they can be accepted by the examiner. In other words, even though I was paying thousands of dollars, the lawyer was not working on my interest. If you look at what the lawyer submitted as a draft and the final awarded patent, you will notice a difference of about 95%. The final patent was much stronger and difficult to copy.

It got to a point that I suspected of patent lawyers being paid by big companies to provide independent inventors with very weak patents. It would in the interest of a company with manufacturing and marketing resources to exploit the novel concept or idea not being claimed by an independent inventor without paying royalties.

It is my 'personal' impression that lawyers have a particular trait, lawyers can write a lot and be understood little.

Bajac

[JohnMiller]

@hanon
That is one more proof that we have two signals being:
- exactly inverted
- do not go into negative voltage (ondulated DC)

My simulation results show very similar behavior (free program SIMertix). As I operated only one contact at a time (no idle timing in-between) the signal is not nice sine. This might be because of lack of tuning values of R to load inductances. Anyway basics are not to be disputed any more.

I prepare to test the 1902 patent in order to check for results:
- opposing poles / non opposing
- w and w/o air gap

I feel those results will give a lot of learning effect for all.
Unfortunately I am very restricted in time and therefore no short timeline available. I will prepare isolated current measurements in order to come closer to flux behavior. I will come back if I have the setup in place.

[RandyFL]

Hanon,
What type resistors would you use for the two resistor array... I had bought enough for one resistor array of eight 100 watt 3 ohm resistors and three 100 watt 1.5 ohm resistors before my absence and before the info was taken down from the Kelly website...

And... are you using the rotary device, 555 circuit or the arduino...
If anybody states that they are starting to use the raspberry Pi2.................................................................................

All the best

[JohnMiller]

Recently an Arduino program was posted in this forum. I hooked it to the scope and it does well. I can encourage all non programmers to use Arduino. If we have the program it can be downloaded quite easily omitting any specialized know how.

This program resembles the signal shape by PWM sequences. We need fly back diodes in prallel to coils. They will support continuous flow of current.
I will use two of theses drivers with opto isolator (110V / 10A with input AC or DC). They can be hooked to µP directly.
http://www.ebay.de/itm/201087634645?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

I chose it because of simplicity and the chance to vary the frequency. This enables to research: (1) different signal shapes, (2) behavior at increased frequency (10KHz) and (3) resonance if adequate.

I know that there are a lot of objections related to this approach but it shall be tried. There are a lot of discussions on what is true or viable - direct approach. But sometimes it is most convenient to choose the indirect approach: test what is readily available and exclude what is not working . Surviving setups will be the winner and give the chance for more refinements and even more learning.

[NRamaswami]

Bajac:

Thank you very much for the post. Yes in USPTO it is Non Final Rejection and Final Rejection..Congratulations if you have got through 103 rejections. very good work.  We have a problem. If we draft a patent that can be accepted by the Examiner client may feel dissatisfied that his IP is not fully protected. If he is not getting the patent client will again be unhappy. No large company cares about small Patent lawyers and small inventors. As a trait Lawyers are very very loyal to their clients and their cause. I hope you will understand this small post. Most Patent Lawyers try to obtain a patent for as a client explained to me as long as he has a patent he can get finances to launch his product in the market. So he does not care whether IP is protected and to what extent. Secondly 98% of the patents are not commercialized. Most are filed to block competitors from obtaining patents. If you have a Large company has an enemy, that company and its Lawyers have hundreds of thousands of methods to handle you. Have no doubts about that. Always the initial claims and final granted claims are different. Another problem for a person like me is that we handle multiple technologies and we are not domain experts. Inventors are the domain experts. If what your lawyer wrote and what you wrote after that are different there was a big communication gap.  I wish you good luck with your patents.

I only write facts that we have observed. So nothing here for me to post things that I do not know and if I do not know I state it upfront.