Jesse McQueen's Power Generator

[hansvonlieven]

G?day all,

A couple of days ago there was an item on Keelynet about the Chas Campbell device. I had to refresh my memory as I could only vaguely recollect what it involved. Amongst related devices a US patent number was quoted which I also looked up.

I have never been a keen subscriber to conspiracy theories and suppressed technology, though now I am really starting to wonder.

Have a look at this and tell me what you think.

The patent in question is:

US Patent Nr. 709 5126       The patent was granted in 2006 and therefore is current.

In the opening paragraph it states:

?An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.?
   
This in no uncertain terms describes a perpetual motion device, something the patent office says it will not issue patents for.

WHY THEN DID THE US PATENT OFFICE ISSUE A PATENT IN CONTRADICTION TO ITS OWN POLICY?
[/b]
One could understand it if someone had really and demonstrably built such a device, but that is not the case here. The patent describes a device that has been around for many years, there is no new technology involved.

There were chiefly three areas where this technology was in use.

The main area and possibly the first was to connect an AC motor to the grid that drove a DC generator whose output was used for welding. This was mainly because efficient and reliable rectifiers were not available and this way a good supply of DC current was obtainable that was isolated from the grid.

Other areas were to isolate equipment that was likely to introduce interference into the grid and in areas where 60 cps equipment was run of a 50 cps grid and vice versa.

Today we would use solid state technology in these applications, but before the advent of reliable rectifiers and inverters there was really no other way of doing this efficiently.

We are looking here at a proven track record for such equipment that goes back around eighty years or so and no-one has ever reported over unity in such an arrangement. Quite the contrary.

There are three main areas where losses occur in such an arrangement. There is a loss in converting electrical energy into mechanical energy (I.E. the motor), then there is the loss in the mechanical coupling of the motor and generator (mainly friction), and lastly in the re-conversion of mechanical energy into electrical energy (the generator); not to speak of the minor losses of energy incurred in the electrical connections and leads.

Even with the best of equipment you would be lucky to get 70% of output versus input.

Which begs the question, why would the US Patent Office issue a patent for a device that is KNOWN NOT TO DO WHAT IS CLAIMED.

THE STING LIES IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PATENT!

It says:

?It is important to note that while the present invention has been described in the context of a fully functioning energy generating system. This invention provides significant advantages over the current art. The invention has been described in connection with its preferred embodiments. However, it is not limited thereto. Changes, variations and modifications to the basic design may be made without departing from the inventive concepts in this invention. In addition, these changes, variations and modifications would be obvious to those skilled in the art having the benefit of the foregoing teachings. All such changes, variations and modifications are intended to be within the scope of this invention.?

The claims made in the patent are sufficiently vague and all encompassing as to apply to ANY device that may be constructed in the future that involves the generation of electricity, especially any device that claims over unity. It would appear that the Patent Office has handed the holders of this bogus patent the power to veto anyone who wants to introduce new technology in this area and involve them in lengthy court battles for infringement on this patent.

PLEASE SOMEONE PROVE MY ANALYSIS WRONG, FOR I CANNOT SEE WHERE I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.

Hans von Lieven

[wattsup]

@Hans

I sent the inventor an e-mail and invited him to come on the forum. It would be best to have his information. I do not think there is any conspiracy. The US patent office maybe thinks this is impossible and does not care about it.

I personally think the Figure #1 is not possible, but maybe the #2 has a chance. He is using a 6000 rpm PM coupled to a 5:1 ratio gear toproduce 1200 rpm, then he goes to an inertia wheel, then to a generator that works at 1200 rpm then his output is shared.

We'll see if he wishes to come here and talk with us.

Oh yeh. I found this link;

http://www.whitewomenblackmen.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3999&sid=abe60f3e07cca7bf003b12036c7680fd

[hansvonlieven]

G'day wattsup,

Thanks for the link provided. An interesting document to say the least.

Amongst other things it says:

"The Internal Energy Generating Power Source or "McQueen Machine" uses a battery to initially start the machine. After the machine is operation, it actually generates more energy than is required to operate the machine. Energy actually produced by the machine is used to power the machine. The excess/additional energy generated by the machine is used to power an additional load. This revolutionary machine uses positive electrical charges from the atmosphere to generate power. It was once said that "if we could harness the power of lightning, we would have all of the power we could ever use." This machine taps into that natural power source."

Being only a conventional engineer with standard university training and over 40 years of practical experience I must have missed something.

Can someone please explain to me how it does that and why no-one else in all these years that this technology has been around has reported anything like that?

Please enlighten me.

Hans von Lieven

[wattsup]

@Hans

Very good questions. I have some ideas and will post them tomorrow.

[Rosphere]

United States Patent 7,095,126

EDIT:

@Rosphere
Thanks for putting the patent here but the size when exploded in rather unmanagable to view. It may be better to remove these and just post the hole PDF file on your post.

My intent was to make them available for download, not for viewing on screen.  I had to convert each tif page to a gif in order to upload them.  I do not have the software to make one pdf file.  Now that I see that someone else has made a pdf file, I am removing them.