US Patent Office Has Granted Patents for Perpetuum Mobile

[shruggedatlas]

withdrawn (misclick)

[argona369]

What about the ?broadness? of a patent.
I.e., someone says they have a free energy device. patented of course.
It has a coil of wire and a magnet bobbing around ?somewhere?
inside with a mess of other parts.

Someone else then invents a ?Real? free energy device,
It too has a coil of wire and a magnet bobbing around in it, but
none of the ?other parts?.

The first person says ?hey the bobbing magnet and coil part is the free energy source?
So your patent infringes on mine.

yes or no?

Ps, I think there?s lots of ?free energy? patents with coils and magnets.

[ken_nyus]

I am trying to reproduce this recent patent, and from my recent FEMM simulations at the end of the thread, it should work:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2963.0

[ForeverBlissed]

What bothers me about the patent is that it is so broad it actually covers some of the way an SEG works.

If you look at http://www.searlsolution.com/evidence2.html or download the PDF paper at http://www.searlsolution.com/documents/russianseg.pdf and read it, you will see that V. V. Roschin and S. M. Godin used a similar magnetic configuration when they did their verification experiments at Institute for High Temperatures, Russian Academy of Science when testing John Searl's SEG.  (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY and http://youtube.com/watch?v=46gRnzI2os0&mode=related&search= for a prototype that was used as a testing mechanism in April of this year)

It is known that John Searl uses a 'magnetic wave effect' imprinted on his SEG plates and rollers.  This coupled with his high frequency current superimposed on top of the standard direct current while magnetizing his neodynium magnets produces a similar nnn-nns-ssn-nss-snn wave effect that appears to be taken advantaged of in the patent mentioned in this thread.

But I say 'screw patents'... bring on the SEG! 

It's time has come.

FB

[Omnibus]

Thanks a lot for your reply. For once, to meet an intelligent person to discuss these important matters.

First off, my country is the United States and, therefore, I?m most concerned with the system there.

I already said that I don?t believe that the US Patent Office would agree that it would be used to protect nonsense. On the contrary, I think that a US patent is something serious and no one should take it lightly if there is even the slightest trace of fraud. Especially when not just any claim but an earth-shaking claim such as a perpetuum mobile which isn?t real is to be protected. I?m sure there must be a way to require from the Patent Office to withdraw its protection if this particular claim cannot be sustained by the ?inventor?. If he can sustain it all power to him, otherwise it would be a travesty of the system to concede that such situation is normal. It puts into question the integrity of the whole system and in this respect I don?t think that such ?inventor? is only hurting himself. This hurts my interests as well as yours. Never mind how expensive it may get, a system must have protective fuse against fraud. Keeping an army, police, prisons etc. is also expensive for us the tax-payers but these do exist to maintain the integrity of a country. Other US institutions also take their business seriously and, I guess, the US Patent Office should be one of them.

I wonder what you mean by private scientific journals and organizations who want to share proven theories. As far as I know all countries, US included, have academies of sciences and governmental institutions deciding ultimately the fate of scientific matters. Private enterprises doing business with science are only extensions of the core organizations which are governmental. If the British Royal Society doesn?t have the final say on important matters of science and allows private cuckoo-organizations to take over with bogus theories this will ultimately weaken the country and its rival, say France, will celebrate. I don?t think the British ruling class will be happy with that. It most certainly won?t and that?s the reason there?s British Royal Society, not a sect or a private think-tank, deciding on what is or isn?t in science. This was just an example.

I?d like to find out how the truth will prevail both in Science (which also has similar problems) and in the US Patent Office which should not be in disparity.