Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Graham Gunderson?s dragless generator patent, Lenz law violation !

Started by hartiberlin, July 27, 2006, 04:45:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

acp

QuoteSince development is still much slower than it might be with additional funding, all estimates are subject to change. Adequate funds might be en-route. If, and when, they arrive we will be able to accelerate development.

ha ha ha..................

modernsteam

Quote from: Nali2001 on January 26, 2007, 07:05:49 PM
Nice one. No need to tell you they are not cheap I think. So with that core you could test this Graham Gunderson system. Just start drilling those holes... ;) and hope it works.

Yepp!! US$105, plus shipping, plus US$41 UPS brokerage. I bought one for a replication I'm attempting.

Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC.

patentdude

If they are indeed real & independently verifiable, MPI's claimed developments are exciting.
But I do wonder if MPI's patent application is valid, since in my understanding to get a patent one must disclose sufficient information to enable one skilled in the relevant art to practice (i.e., make) the invention, but it appears that a lot of skilled engineers on this forum have been unable to reproduce the device and/or are uncertain how to do so based on the patent.

A patent is a type of quid pro quo:  the inventor discloses to the public how to make the invention in return for the government's grant to the inventor of a time-limited monopoly on the invention.  In the U.S., unless the inventor satisfies his part of the bargain by meeting numerous statutory (i.e., legal) requirements,  the patent won't issue or will be revoked on challenge: 

"In order for a patent to be valid, the requirements of 35 USC section 112 of written description, enablement, and best mode have to be met. . . . The written description requires that the inventors show full 'possession' of their inventions by describing them in words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. . . . To satisfy the enablement requirement, the description also has to teach how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation."  ((Biotechnology Law Report, October, 2003, p. 473-74.)  So, if skilled artisans can't create follow the MPI patent to create a working MPI device, I wonder if the inventor has satisfied the written description and enablement requirments?  (That's a question for an attorney to answer.)

In short, the MPI patent application must claim that the device does something.  The question is:  given the amount of apparently unsuccessful experimentation documented by those posting in this forum who have apparently tried but failed to create the device disclosed in the MPI patent, is the MPI patent valid.?  As one noted author said, "there's the rub!"

Overtone

Hal, all,

The core is a special type of Metglas. The holes MUST be drilled electrically and the core then reprocessed by the manufacturer.

This first Patent Application on this invention will be followed by a second in the future. As shown, even when done correctly, it will only go to 99% efficiency. To exceed unity (the first prototype had an output more than 100 times the input at an extremely low power level < 1 watt) other, not yet disclosed, information is necessary.

Seeking a solution to the complexity of manufacturing this design happily led to the breakthrough family of generators that we now call GENIE (Generating Electricity by  Nondestructive Interference of Energy). GENIE is now patent pending. It so far appears much easier to manufacture various GENIE designs and therefore the design in the published Patent Application is on hold.

Sorry, beyond what appears on our website: magneticpowerinc.com no further details or information can be made available, except to qualified parties who sign a NonDisclosure Agreement.

Mark Goldes


Paul-R

Quote from: Overtone on January 28, 2007, 01:10:52 PM
I meant to say that given what we have learned since the original patent application was filed, any attempt to build this device, by an individual, is extremely unlikely to succeed!
...unless, of course, that individual were to be smarter
than yourgoodselves, in which case he or she might develop
ideas that improved upon your work. And of course, this has
happened, as well we all know.
Paul.