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
@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
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
@Hans
Very good questions. I have some ideas and will post them tomorrow.
United States Patent 7,095,126
EDIT:
Quote from: wattsup on August 24, 2007, 04:09:14 PM
@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.
@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.
@Hans
I don't know exactly how JQ managed to have his patent. I think you can have any patent and you have one year to produce it otherwise you can lose it. So maybe a young smart lad gets an idea so great, he patents it first, then tries to do the development afterwards. Otherwise I and us all would have heard about it before. If you ask me, it's not ready because of lack of finances.
In my view, forget fig.1, and in fig. 2 the main flaw is the 5:1 gear and inertia wheel. Granted this will create greater mass rotation. And if he reads this I will tell him, for free, that the inertia wheel is on the wrong shaft or wrong side of the gear. You are therefore giving the inertia to the wrong side. As shown, the generator will use the inertia to stop the Prime Mover (PM).
The PM should have the inertia turning at 6000 rpm, wow, turning the gear 5 to 1. That mass and rotation will (ok hopefully) gain in energy above the wattage consumed by the PM. The gear will transfer the energy to the generator. The generator drag will now have to pass the gear and the inertia wheel to reach the PM. This advantages the PM side. High frequency of mass to low frequency of motion. Your car uses the same principle. To work on such devices, I estimate you have to have $150K in the bank just to play. Expect your first 4-5 trials to be part of the learning curve. Ouch.
I am convinced that serious energy will come from such apparatus in the immediate future, but I have lifted such set-ups and they are heavy, noisy often piercing db levels. The only place to have them is in an enclosed cemented wall with a thick door.
The answer for OU is not one thing, its a mix of all methods. There is motor, control, motion, inertia, transformation, concentration and hopfully afterwards some wild music. Either that or we'll all be plasma charging our garbage for the rest of our lives.
Gears, inertia wheels and motion are extremely powerful transformers of energy, but the craft is expensive, slow, because of gear designing and fabrication commissioning delays and heavy so it takes time to develop. There are gear diameter and angle issues, pitch issues, material issues, and so on. But once the right mix is found, such devices will be the quickest to expand in usage because the components are all available. No special learning curve. Just replicate quickly and use.
At best, the maker will sell gears and users will use local motors and controls. This IS on the horizon. But, like locomotives, they will be big, heavy, but very reliable and powerfull.
As for where the OU energy comes from, it is around you all the time. It resides in every space.
One example of energy.
Can you calculate how much energy it would take to propell a human weighing 180 pounds at 67,000 miles per hour, over an 80 year period. That's how much energy is expended on you and on me by being on a plantet that moves through space at that speed. Mother Earth indeed expends alot of energy to keep us alive.
Now imagine that every OU device in the world is also travelling at the same speed.
It has been proven that a magnetic field will curve space inwards and energy particles that move in a straight line will be attracted to the field as they pass by them. Like attracts like. So we have the Earth as one huge dispersed magnetic attracting a wide area of particles inwards, then we have magentic fields of our invention with more concentrated magnetic fields attracting those attracted nearby particles.
Now we know that the fastest thing known to man is the speed of light. What happens if the sun dissapears in an instant. Well in 7 minutes the light will stop on Earth and in 7.1 minutes the electric charge will stop reaching Earth. But why then would the Earth immediately change course and speed out of orbit into space at 67,000 mph or more. In fact all planets in the solar system would immediately lose their orbit. Not in 7 minutes, but instantly from Mercury to Pluto in a flash, out of orbit. What is this energy that is holding the solar system together that is so fast, so strong that it makes the speed of light look like a weakling turtle. This is the energy in every space. It goes above and beyond my comprehension at this time.
Just know that whenever you are standing silent you're moving through space and changing space and re-newing space.
I don't want to start a war of words or differences in symantics. The above is simply how I see it, at this time. If you asked me this 30 years ago, I would have probably answered "from Rock n Roll".
One thread on this forum called Universons may have a better answer. The patent holder is of the most credible stock and his explanations of energy give it more credence than I could ever do here. He has a web site that has parts in English but mostly French. Still, the inventor has managed to treat the subject in the most clinically acceptable manner possible with sound science and experimentation that may hopefully put a formal face on this energy once and for all. Academia is going to have one hell of a time absorbing this one.
The last post in that thread is here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.msg45788.html#msg45788
The patent US2006076781A1.pdf is attached.
Best
G'day wattsup and all,
Please don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of over-unity per se as a matter of principle. If you have a look at my web site http://www.keelytech.com you can see where I stand on the subject.
I feel that resonance is the main key to solve the problem.
What I am saying here is simply that the way outlined in the patent is NOT the way to go about it. We are here talking about PROVEN technology that is very well understood. It does not introduce a new element into the equation.
I would be the first one to admit that many current theories about matter and energy are full of holes and need research.
By the same token the scientists and engineers of today (and yesterday for that matter) are not complete idiots. We would not have the technology we enjoy if that were the case.
In this patent I smell a scam.
The US patent office is adamant that it will not issue a patent for a perpetual motion device. Many patent applications have been refused for that reason alone! In fact the mere mention of the word over-unity in the text is enough for a patent application to be rejected.
So why then did they make an exception in this case??
Further NerzDishual just posted the patent application. It is dated the 13th April 2006. I had not seen this document before. The patent proper was granted on the 22nd August 2006, that is less than 5 months later!!!!!
Since when is the US Patent office THAT prompt. Someone really hurried this one through, it usually takes two years or more from application to patent.
Think about it.
Hans von Lieven
@Hans
OK. I read through your site very quickly and there are some really nice informations there on resonance, etc. Good work. I am sure some here will find some relationship with resonance work done here. Actually someone may want to replicate the turbine.
NerzhDishual has provided the "Patent Application" above.
Specifically to the patent in question I am attaching the actual patent document and when you review them, there are some differences to the application. In the diagrams the only change is the addition of a pointer line from the item #30 to the object.
Then when looking at the "Field of the Invention" the application states;
"The invention relates to a system that generates electrical power and in particular to a system that generates several times the amount of power required to operate the system."
whereas in the patent this same section states
"The invention relates to a system that generates electrical power and in particular to a system that substantially improves the efficiency of generating electrical power."
Also on both docs you can see the provisional applcation date as being June 3rd, 2004 and file date of June 3rd, 2005.
I did not compare the rest of the docs line per line as this is needless, since this first comparison spells out that the initial application used terms that the patent office deemed unacceptable, most likely given the fact that the patent office themselves consider the device to not be of an OU nature.
Simply changing a few lines here and there made it pass the test of patentability.
I don't think there is any "conspiracy" per say. From June 3rd 2004 to August 22nd, 2006, you have a two year period which is considered pretty normal for patents.
Now the fact remains that I have never seen or heard of anyone who has seen this device in action. So the fact remains that if the inventor had no device that functions per this patent, then the patent is useless, and the reason for patenting the device in the first place seems lost.
So after a year from the patent date, still there is nothing seen on the market or elsewhere on this device from this inventor? I can think of some reasons.
1) It does not work as I would have expected considering the design.
2) He changed the design and has to re-patent it under a new design.
3) He was told to keep it quiet (MIB and all)
4) He was hired by some other corporation to patent this and block the technology because they strongly believe that someone somewhere will eventualy crack the design barrier and push this type of device into fully functional mode.
I feel that Numbers 1 and 4 are the most plausible. Reason for #1 is obvious but here's my reasoning for #4.
If I was to patent such a device, in order to not attract any undue attention, I would not have patented the whole system. I would have only patented the gear and inertia wheel combination stating only that this combination requires more power but produces greater motive power in a smaller package. Meaning you require less motor and more wheel. Or for whatever other reason, I would not have mentioned anything about free energy, etc. This way the gear/wheel is patented and you can then use it any way you deem fit.
To patent this specific device means you either have this device on hand or you plan to make it or you simpy plan to block others from making it, holding any potential maker in litigation for who knows how long.
But in essence what this action proves is some people out there are REALLY CONVINCED this device WILL WORK eventually.
Regards, wattsup
G'day wattsup and all,
Sorry wattsup but on the patent application it says: date of publication APRIL 13 2006, not JUNE 3 2005, which is the date it was filed.
Besides, on the granted patent it does describe a perpetual motion machine in the first paragraph.
And your paragraph 4 is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Hans von Lieven
@Hans
The publication date of the application itself should have no bearing on this. It's just the date they published the document. The real dates to consider are there and the spread in time is OK.
Here's a picture of one of my test benches as per the figure 1 of the patent. Will not work, No way. As for the figure 2, have not tried it cause such an investment is too great and chances of success to slim to warrant.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3063.msg45592.html#msg45592
But I do get your point. Something smells not right, but I don't think there has been any expediency on the patent offices' part to push this through quickly or something of that nature. But again, powerful business interest have their way around the system and there is nothing actually that would surprise me.
Maybe I'll give the inventor a telephone call and see directly, from one OU'er to another.
But can I ask you this. Why all the interest? Is something cooking?
wattsup
I believe the problem is that the patent office is so overwhelmed with applications that they have people approving patents that would still approve them if they read them upside down. I believe the patent office is a joke and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It's just a cash cow for the government and patent attornies.
Butch LaFonte
@Hans and all
OK, I spoke with Jesse McQueen this afternoon. He is a very nice sounding person and he was pleased that I called him regarding my e-mail and regarding the overunity.com thread.
He said he will be passing through the site to see what's go'in on.
The discussion lasted a good 20 minutes of which I asked him alot of questions regarding his devices, status of the devices, how he managed to patent the device, etc.
Some of the discussion I cannot talk about simply because he asked me to keep it under wraps for now.
But in essence, he states that Figure #1 has some errors in the drawing since he only saw the patent when it was finished. Even some of the claims have errors in function.
Originally, he had the verbiage in his application as a greater output than input producer, but the patent office explained they will not patent anything that is perpetual motion and suggested that certain things be changed in the verbiage.
Also, there was no special treatment in time factor for patenting the device. He had originally asked his patent attorney to patent this worldwide, but his attorney went ahead and only patented it in the USA.
As for the device, there is no device right now since he is waiting to conclude things with some investment groups to permit the R&D and bringing this "eventually" to market, since devellopment will be costly, all as I had figured, current lack of money and this type of R&D costs money. So even though he holds a patent, he is still some ways from having the device working as per spec and I can sense his reservations of going too public, too soon.
I asked him if he had a time limit from the patent office to produce a device. He said no, that he had 20 years coverage and removing the last three years leaves him with 17 years coverage left.
Now when I think of the extreme learning curve to devellop such a device, I can only wish him the best of success in his endeavours. It won't be an easy task.
::)
I shant say a word.
G'day all,
Isn't it funny hat after all this we are at exactly the place where I started from. The guy does not have a working device, yet he does have a monopoly over any over-unity device involving the generation of electricity that anyone might invent over the next 17 years by courtesy of the US patent office.
If that is not a scam, can someone please tell me what it is??
Hans von Lieven
@Humbugger (You probably knew I would say this so here goes).
Hum, you already said 5 words, so why stop there? lol
You're certainly not known for one liners.
Actually those five words say alot.
So please indulge us with your comments. Ouch.
Also, did you happen to visit Hans' web site on Keely.
http://www.keelytech.com
@Hans
Why a monopoly? It would be a monopoly if they had a working device that brought in the money. No device, no money. You're just in a deficit mode. Plus at the level of development reached thus far, I would say they have at least 5 years before they can have a glimpse of any success, due to so many trial and errors that will cost lots of money and time. Believe me, I know. Also, for anyone that has a working device, all you have to do is add something in this line and bingo, the patent is no longer infringed upon. If the inventor cannot produce, and someone else does, is it possible they can also refute the existing patent and claim some type of obstructionism. I don't know. Don't forget, there are errors in the patent.
But I would ask you again, why all this high level interest? OK Hans, what's cook'in. Do you have a device? If so, oh yeh, I asked the patent holder, and he is willing to talk. He confirmed it to me that should someone develop such a device, he would be willing to discuss some deal. So he already did the major dirty work with the patent office, now all they need is the device.
There are some here who have misunderstood the patent # 7095126. There was a working prototype. No there are no waited wheel. The patent office test this patent.
There will be a website where you can get the latest information on this invention. there are mistake in the patent and it is also incomplete. That was my doing. The mistakes was not my doning. there is alot more to this patent than I have releasted. The webstie is Mcqueenmachine.com. The name of the site maybe change alittle but it will be on line soon. Who am I? Jesse Mcqueen inventer of this device.
thank you for your time.
Some of you has misunderstood this device. There are no waited wheels. There are mistakes in the patent. Fig. 1 is a primer example of this. The patent is incomplete by choice. Because there are several version of it. I need to find out which versions work best. The patent office has test this patent and other scientist have reviewed it. NO one has put the part of this invention together in this manner and made it work before now. The inventor is putting together a website in hope that there will be more information available to the public. The site will be call mcqueenmachine.com. who am I? Jesse Mcqueen
Thank you for your time!
Well I see a starter some gears and a genset.. website not functional yet.but we will see.
@jmac
Thanks for joining us here at overunity.com.
So I probably misunderstood some of our discussion. What I understand now is like in the photo, that particular device was made before your patent was issued and is based on your Fig.1 on the patent, which also has some errors in the patent description.
Lots of inventors omit certain details of their patents so as not to give out too much information to the major copiers.
From your pitcure, I see the starter is on a large gear connected on one side to a weight wheel and on the other side to the gear box reducer. Probably 15:1 or more since the starter is turning the the large gear at about 60 to 120 rpm. I'm just guessing here.
Another question, starters are designed for intermittent use so I imagine it is getting very hot or is there something I'm missing?
Did this unit produce OU? And if yes, what type of power was being produced.
Nice one. Can't wait till you get going on some production units.
Hello Mr. McQueen,
this publications could interest you :
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE4022622&F=0
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE10011074&F=0
Enter "Description" and let the text translated !
Have a good day
dL
there are no weighted wheels. the starter you see is to start it not to run it. there are other parts on it you can not see. this one is base on fig 2.
lanca4 WHy not just use a tranformer. thereare very good tranformer out there now.
Quote from: lancaIV on August 26, 2007, 05:23:31 PM
Hello Mr. McQueen,
this publications could interest you :
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE4022622&F=0
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE10011074&F=0
Enter "Description" and let the text translated !
Have a good day
dL
Did you notice the last entries under Legal Status? both say "REJECTION". These two obviously impractical and unworkable patent applications were rejected.
Thanks lankaIV for the link,
This patent does indeed describe a similar device. When I find the time I will translate the document as mechanical translations leave much to be desired and post it here. This might take a couple of days.
My first impression is that the device will not function as claimed and was rejected with justification.
Hans von Lieven
There no mistake in the claim of my patent there are mistake in the descriptions.
If there is no patent then it does not matter. I know there no one in the usa.
G'day Jesse and all,
If the description of your device is defective what exactly have you patented???
Hans von Lieven
If there was someone working on some thing of this nature then they should have aplied for a patent. the phone was work on by to inventer at the same time but Mr. bell finished first.
There are only small mistakes. The patent is the first of it's kind. The first self powered generator.
Hi Jmac!
Is your invention presently functioning? If not, was it ever? If so, how much power does or did it produce for external consumption? Is it made from "off-the-shelf" items that anyone can buy or did you design and build certain key portions of it?
Finally, are you seeking investment money for R&D efforts or is the machine ready to go into full production right now. Thanks for your answers and good luck!
Humbugger
Information: There are a lot of devices out there that claim to be new power source if there is a weighted wheel or a battery power them they don't work. You have to understand physic to understand this. Battery and and weighted wheels are temporary sources of power. If you use one of these things in a energy device as the source of power you will not get a patent.
I have had one running. At this time we are working on working out the bugs. I believe I will be getting all the capital that I need very soon.
On the first one there was about 40% use able power. But on the one in the picture there was about 90% use able power. The generator is rated at 12kw we had about
9.8 kw use able power. But we had low voltage on the motor and damaged it. this problem has been solved.
@jmac
There sometime are inventors that get a patent. Then a corporation will come in to buy out the inventor and the inventoin outright only to mothball the invention so it does not get to market.
What are your views about this and what do you think will help you in making sure your desires are granted, since in many cases, the money guys will want at least 51% of shares leaving you in the minority.
Hello Mr. McQueen,
Reply#22:
"only one transformer (!)"- are you selling this idea ? Really nice and so simple !
Enter in the "search"-line,overunity.com, with "Black man invention",
you are "AFRO" and I am "AFRICAN" !
Reply#26:
The U.S.A. is an ordinary WIPO-member,
and when outside this member-estate a publication about a free energy machine
exist,automatically this invention defines technical standart- also in the U.S.A. !
Example: Filling date 24.05.2005
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE102005023927&F=0
This man developed the background-technology 1967 !
A good night
dL
There was people wanting to buy my patent for very large some of money but I was told by a good source what they was going to do with it.
It will go on the market as soon as the R&D is complete. In about one to two years.
Well I guess we will see in 1 to 2 years then...ahem chas...
lanca4 The patent looks sound.
You can watch the progress on mcqueenmachine.com which will be on line soon.
Dead link.
@Aardaerimus
His web site is not up yet.
@Hans
Thanks for pointing out this patent.
Also for the quick name-changer. hic. hic.
@gmac
I think alot of us here would only like to wish you Full Speed Ahead.
So, here are a few words of advise from an OU friend.
1) Just do us one favor, come by.
2) Make sure your plans are in triplicate with one copy always in trust. Always make back-ups.
3) Designate a trustee.
4) Have a plan B - What if your investors don't work out......
5) Have a plan C - What if your device does not work as planned......
6) Have a plan D - Stick around here once in a while......
It may be that open source will be the only way this succeeds. Who knows?
7) Call Oprah....... lol
And if all fails.
8) Call Dr. Phil. lol
No really, keep well and all the best.
G'day all'
To all of those who think that one can gain over-unity simply by coupling a generator to a motor I would like to show that this idea is not exactly new. Robert Fludd, also known as Robertus de Fluctibus ( 1574 - 1637 ) published many such perpetual motion devices. Generally they took the form of a waterwheel and a pump of some sort. All he really needed to do was to pump a little more water than the waterwheel needed to drive the machine. Pity it didn't work. Even that does not stop people designing Fludd type machines today in the hope to revolutionise technology and create abundant clean free energy. A noble goal. Unfortunately a difficult one.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with Fludd, who incidentally was a doctor and eminent scientist of his time, here are two of his designs for a Perpetuum Mobile.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffludd1.jpg&hash=cb17ee76bf85e5e01557d8a1ba2915432ef65f2a) (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Ffludd2.jpg&hash=ae7ae1d036f9a06487c8bd8e045f87a8c734433b)
Have fun,
Hans von Lieven
I have seen a large number of these devices. When you study then you should get a picture in to the mine of the person who built it. MY opinion of most of them is that they are ingenious but they fall short. There have been a lot of invention that was said to be impossible but if you believe what is written in the bible you know nothing is impossible. People make rules and law about science but god makes all thinks possible. Jesus said the flesh is weak because it is the spirit that is in charge.
There was an invention in the 1970's that at first I consider to be perpetual motion. It was simple and it work very well. You can still see it from time to time. I studied for it years because this inventor did with water what no one had done. I could see him sitting in his shop thinking for day or maybe years. His mind perfecting his idea. This idea was too many people perpetual motion including me but the patent office has rules. It was not classified as such. My hat is off to the inventor who did the little bird that dips his head in the water. Does anyone know why it was not consider perpetual motion?
A lot of you look at my invention and see perpetual motion but you are mistaken. Just like I did the little bird. If my patent was perpetual motion it would say so in the patent. And if you studied it before you made presumption you would find that it does not use more power that it produce. It work very well but I believe that some you do not understand how.
Quote from: jmac on August 27, 2007, 11:43:04 PM
My hat is off to the inventor who did the little bird that dips his head in the water. Does anyone know why it was not consider perpetual motion?
Hi Jesse,
it is just a heat engine running only as long the bird?s head can evaporate the
water in the glas.
When the water is evaporated away, the bird?s movement stops, so
no perpetual motion.
But I agree, it needs very low amount of water to work...
and the principle can be optimized...
The patent office reject the perpetual motion claim because they consider water a fuel.
It took me a long time to figure that out.
G'day all,
The bird also needs heat to evaporate the water on its beak. That is what really drives the little heat engine.
Hans von Lieven
Form what I see about this invention is that it is not the heat that is the energy. It is the evaporation of the water that is the source of power. Fossil fuel are converted in to heat that is the source energy that we use from them. But in this invention the source is some thing that naturally occurred in nature. No part of the invention produces heat. It is the evaporation of the water.
Information on Patent # 7095126.
1. Energy can not be created or destroyed but it can be change in to other forms.
In my invention the energy is being collected from the atmosphere. There are electrical
charges in the atmosphere that when the are concentrated they become a use able source of power. This is done by a generator head. As long as the generator head has the right toque and rpm it will collect and concentrate electric charge from the
atmosphere. Generator head are not producers of energy. Ben Franklin said that his small static electric generator was a collector of electric charges.
From this point energy in my invention is simply changed from one from to anther in the manor that is needed to a accomplish my goal.
2.You can get out more energy than you put in.
If you study my patent you will see that the power from the generator head is greater
than all power used. The level from the generator head is never exceeded.
I enjoy good critics. They give me goal to over come. It is said that IRON SPARPEN IRON, good critics sharpen me. If there are any critics of my invention let me know
what you think.
G'day all,
I just received a letter that I would like to share with you. The author is obviously very familiar with the inner workings of the US patent office and the various techniques employed by patent lawyers. I am leaving personal details of the writer out for obvious reasons, suffice it to say that it was not sent to me anonymously.
Conspiracy? Not necessarily! I feel that it is indicative of the
problems within the Patent Office. While this is a short, not
complicated application, the examiners are under extreme pressure to
examine x number of patents/week. Rumor has it that they sometimes pass
stuff that shouldn?t be passed just to keep their quotas up as the
quotas are what determines their raises, etc. If they can make their
quotas, get their raises on time, and last 5 years, they can leave the
patent office with a law degree paid for by the government, and go to
work for the companies that are submitting patents. Patent attorney?s
are the highest paid attorneys.
That final paragraph is something the lawyers put in to try and ?patent
the world?. What is actually prosecuted is their list of claims. The
examiner will take each claim in turn and try to find a prior art
against that claim. They try to use no more than 2 prior arts to throw
out the patent application. This prevents the applicant claiming that
they took the claims out of context. General and vague, to be sure. That
is why there are so many lawyers in court over patent infringements.
But, the vagueness can work against them as well as being too general
and vague can cause the judge to throw it out.
What I?ve been seeing is applications that demonstrate something that
already exists, but with different terms/synonyms and wording designed
to confuse the examiner. This makes it extremely difficult to find prior
art via keyword searches. You might see one app with 5 or 10 page long
claims, another with 100 claims, I have seen some over 300 pages long.
This does help them get their patent accepted, but it is a double edged
sword. It makes it harder for the patent examiner to protect their
patent against the next application. But, it was worded by a lawyer
whose job is to get the application accepted. Defending it will fall to
another lawyer or will represent another source of income for the firm
that wrote the app. The ultimate victim is the guy who invented it.
There is even a new group of applicants the examiners call Trolls. They
use computer programs to take old patents, reword them, and submit them.
They might submit the same patent, in various forms 6 or more times.
Some have hundreds of patent applications in all fields, some of which
the inventor can have no personal knowledge of.
The examiners are currently pushing for a recognized dictionary of terms
as set forth by some standards agency, such as IEEE, ACM, or others.
Patents that coin new terms for common jobs could be ejected for not
conforming. A new ruling coming into effect limits the number of claims.
Little is known by the examiners yet of exactly what the new wording
will be. The fear is it will result in long claims. The problem with
changes to the patent system is it is controlled by Congress, who
responds to pacs. Another change in the coming is for all applications
to be public and available for public comment prior to their enactment.
This is being fought by smaller companies as they are afraid of their
ideas being revealed.
Finally, the laws of energy can?t be changed. The original writer is
correct in that about 70% efficiency is the best such an arrangement can
achieve. The loss is due to heat and friction. So, using the generator
to produce usable power for distribution and also feeding back into the
system to keep it going is impossible. It wouldn?t even work shoving all
the power back to sustain the system, all due to that 30% loss. As a
side note, the most efficient electrical device is the transformer.
In summation, my initial reading of the patent leads me to believe it
shouldn?t have been granted. But, all hope is not lost. Future
applications will have the opportunity to be worded such that they can
be granted, or they can go to earlier patents, or even published work,
and show in court that this application is bogus. As always, the true
cost of a patent is not getting it, but defending it.
Make of this what you will
Hans von Lieven
He has not seen complete detail of my patent. There are still thinks about it left to be
revealed. The losses of power are accounted for. These will be a lot of comment made but the best ones will come very soon with the release of prototype.
When getting in a bull fight make sure you are not the bull.
G'day Jesse and all,
I wasn't aware that I was in a bull fight, all I am saying is that so far I have not seen anything that gives me reason to believe that there is something solid in your project. You are asking us to take your ideas on faith alone. Sorry, science does not ( or at least should not ) work that way.
If you want us to accept that you are tapping into some sort of outside energy, give us at least an indication just how that is achieved.
Not out for a fight, simply trying to clarify matters.
Hans von Lieven
Interesting to note that the discovered laws were discovered at a time when people knew less about what was.
Also, it's interesting that someone in a patent office would spend such effort writing such a thing. Names should be provided, otherwise wouldn't one be called a possible engineer of patent office reply's?
The bull commit was about the rumor. I am not going to discuss rumor. My name is Jesse L mcqueen. Jmac is just a name I use online. No, I'm not looking for help. I have two scientist to go to if I need help. If you say you need see a prototype that is what I plan to do. Why are they not on the market? Because money can be very use full. I hope to please all your curiosity and I know Talk don't please my curiosity so I understand that it don't your. The only thing I can do on line is talk. Soon you will be able to take a good look and some of you will still not believe.
Hi Jesse:
You might want to rethink your ideas about finding money here. What you will find is a lot of bumpy roads. If you have a flame suit, you may well want to dig it out as well. Best thing to do is just build it on your own and then show it. Takes a lot longer but you know what you have. I have three things in the works and will be funding it all myself.
thaelin
mcqueenmachine.com is online. It is an information site only with link to other site. This site is still under construction. If you would like too please visit us.
G'day Jesse,
Sorry, but none of the links quoted on your website work. something wrong with the html code I suspect.
Hans von Lieven
I will take care of it asap.
G'day Jesse,
Thanks, works now.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: mramos on August 28, 2007, 07:28:32 PM
Jesse,
I'm with Hans.
When I saw the patent quite awhile ago, I just moved on (FYI: I am the EE type).
If it was issued in 2006 why is no one selling this unit or where is the prototype?
Maybe tell us what we are missing so we can believe?
Guess we have to wait for a prototype/product (not patent) that WORKS.
Best of luck.
Also are you MAC or Mc Queen? Are you here seeking help with your idea?
Hi. I would just like to point out for everyone who does not know.... Free Energy is controlled. By the Governments and Oil Companies and of course the string pulling Bank (Federal Reserve) who support and profit from both. They do not profit from your independance. Free Energy gives you a control. A control which also supports great changes. Great changes are not what our 'World Powers' want. They need as much control of our energy supply as possible.
Free Energy has been here for thousands of years... Economic and more powerful engines have been developed to run on water.... 1986 was my first encounter with such a vehicle. 21 YEARS AGO!!!!???? But nowadays, these Ideas are bought and suppressed. Pattents plans are altered or just hidden from view. The best of these technologies are guarded. Free Power Inventers who don't sell their ideas, are ridiculed, or have 'accidents'. I have seen an incredibly powerful electric motor with low input and incredibly high power output, (Up to 85 HP) which I intended to use in my car as a complete replacement of my petrol engine. The company disapeared shortly after inventing it....
WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A WATER/ELECTRIC RUNNING CAR IN 2007?
Because of MONEY, and those who print it.
Interesting discussion Guys,
Here's my comment and I'll make more after I read the patent.
@ Vista is Dead
The biggest roadblock to free energy isÃ, Ã, REALITY, the way things work in nature and our limited understanding.
@ all
We've tried for ages to get at it, but have you ever thought thatÃ, CONSERVATION OF ENERGY is a blessing in disquise?
In a closed system you will do ok with a limited amount of energy, assuming you can convert it from all forms to all other forms.
You turn on a lightbulb in a room, and the light hits the walls and gets absorbed and turns into heat.Ã, You take that heat and turn it back into electricity and power the bulb once again.
Another example is moving from point A to B and back to A.Ã, Ã, You invest some energy into kinetic energy, supply enough along the way to overcome friction which turns into heat, and recover the heat and cycle it till you reach the destination at which point you recover your kinetic energy back.Ã, Ã, So you don't have to waste any energy in transportation, when you return to your starting point.
Just two simple IDEALISTIC examples to illustrate the point.
However, can you spot the weak link?Ã, Ã, Ã, That's right, converting from ambient heat to electricity.Ã, Ã, Ambient heat or temperature is a sink with lots of energy but we don't know how to get to it with efficient methods (we use difference of temperature to do it and the maximum theoretical efficiency is the Carnot cycle)
But there is lots of energy around, if that can be a confort to you.Ã, Ã, LOLÃ, :)
Anyway, I'll take a look at this patent and see what it is.
EM
G'day EM and all,
Quote from: EMdevices on September 12, 2007, 10:31:24 PM
In a closed system you will do ok with a limited amount of energy, assuming you can convert it from all forms to all other forms.
You turn on a lightbulb in a room, and the light hits the walls and gets absorbed and turns into heat. You take that heat and turn it back into electricity and power the bulb once again.
Another example is moving from point A to B and back to A. You invest some energy into kinetic energy, supply enough along the way to overcome friction which turns into heat, and recover the heat and cycle it till you reach the destination at which point you recover your kinetic energy back. So you don't have to waste any energy in transportation, when you return to your starting point.
Just two simple IDEALISTIC examples to illustrate the point.
Even if you could manage that, what is the point. There is NO GAIN.]
You are correct in saying there is heaps of energy lying around out there, The trouble is getting to it. So far resonance seems to be the only avenue that looks promising from a standard physics point of view.
Unless, of course you believe in "Lead out Theory", in which case the Chinese are getting ready to pounce on us when they see fit. According to Lawrence Tseung that is. They have had that technology since 1996 and that is why they are spending billions of dollars on conventional power systems from the West. :-)
Hans von Lieven
I had a look at the patent Hans, and I have to agree with you.Ã, What's going on?Ã, Ã, I guess the patent office is hopeing to make an easy buck these days, change of strategy perhaps? Bring on the nonsense, we'll give you a $2000 picture to put up on the wall and feel proud !!!Ã, LOLÃ, :DÃ,Â
Anyway, I wonder if Jesse uses the 5:1 transmisson because he thinks it multiplies POWER.Ã, Sorry bud, not the way nature operates.
Speaking of resonance,Ã, I have high hopes for it,Ã, it could be the vehicle that will help us get at that ambient energy.
EM
Jesse,
i you wrote somehting about directing part of the load (wires?) in such a way as to eliminate the EMF pushing against the current. Does this lower the overall resistance in the circuit thus giving you a powergain?
I am i understanding this right?
G'day all,
Has anyone noticed how Jesse has become very quiet? His website is full of meaningless rhetoric and short of data.
When I first saw the patent I thought it was a scam, I still haven't seen anything yet to convince me otherwise
Hans von Lieven
@Hans and all
I have spoken with Jesse over the last weeks and can tell you that he is presently overseas to meet with his partner to produce his final demo and set-up manufacturing, etc.
This kind of device does not materialize by itself. It takes alot of work and alot of finances to come up with a commercializable (is that a word?) product..
I just made an 85 amp - 600 volts bridge rectifier for some tests I will be conducting next week on another device similiar to Jesse but different enough to not step on his patent. It will be producing 240VAC and I will be switching it to DC for re-use. We'll see how it goes..
But Jesse, having the patent he now has in hand is light years ahead of the game.
Once they are ready to manufacture and supply equipment they will surely hit the market and we will hear about it.
Jesse, if you read this, I want Canada and am ready.
But wattsup, his patent is only a "concept patent" he does not show what he is doing. I am still waiting.
Hans von Lieven
Closer examination of his patent documents reveals a concept which effects the output somewhat signifigantly.
it concerns the back-EMF created by the electricity flowing through the wires.
he reroutes a portion of the load (possibly the lamp?) in such a way that the EMF from the load counteracts wth back-EMF feeding the source - the equations for that were downright nasty so i didnt figure the numbers, but it would make sense that the removal of the back EMF would lower the power-drain of the drive motor, requiring less energy to sustain the system.
aside from that all he has is a stup-up gear to drive the generator(s), from a powered source. Any one of us can connect 2 identicle motors in this way and the result is the same, no OU. But if you remove the back-EMF from one, this changes the equation, because now one motor requires less energy than the other is creating.
Perhaps, if it can be done. I yet have to be convinced that this is feasible.
Hans von Lieven
@mramos
I'm producing 240 VAC, then converting to DC to run a 240 VDC 3hp drive motor to do some more testing. Per diode loss would be about 1 volts at 50 amps or 200 watts total. I have found that AC is easier to generate then DC, but DC is easier to drive then AC. So will be trying this mix with the least conversion apparatus possible. Hence the bridge.
g'day from australia.
Take a better look at my patent, concept no.
What's up You are just finding out what I did It just took me longer.
I am working on the prototype now. I don't have time to give you details. Just had a little time to check in.
Hello Hans von Lieven,
in North South Wales,Dundas, Brady Street 20 lives a Mr. Avetik Barsamian
His phone number from the whitepages.au is (02)88125390 or (02)96139796
his motor/generator publikation
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9408385&F=0
Fascinating,
This patent was issued in 1994 ! I wonder what happened to it. Another dud??
Hans von Lieven
WTF?!!? Laughing and crying at the same time........
I was clearing the clutter of the many "OU" etc. files on my computer and reread this most ridiculous patent I've ever seen! I came back to read this thread........ - WTF?!?
It claims "OU" in several places - in clear wording - and yet it was granted in Aug 2006!! Not 1886!!
The drawings are a joke and show nothing of how the device creates "OU"
I understand the workload at the USPTO had increased dramatically without the corresponding increase in fundings - but to grant Patents so absurd as this diminishes the good faith of the American system!
Hans - I agree that Patents so broadly claimed and unsupported can create an obstacle as it could require additional resources ($$$) to nullify the bogus claims granted.
_ _ _ _
Sorry Mr. McQueen, but:
The McQueen website is a joke. I noticed he's soliciting $$ - $85 to start then $40 a month. ???
The "photos" section show a picture of a field and him standing next to an airplane. Where are photos of the device?
The posts by Mr McQueen and the grammar contained therein reflect a substandard grasp of the English language - indicating (to me) the improbability that he has discovered/created the most amazing device ever in the history of mankind!
_ _ _ _ _
This Patent is one file I have enthusiastically deleted!
Sorry to be harsh - but this really struck a nerve! Again - WTF!!??! ??? :o :'(
I agree, I don't know what the patent office was thinking in granting this.
@capthook
WTF is right. There are only 6 pages on this thread and all the explanations you need are right there. So..................
If you look closely, you will see that you were reading the patent "application" and not the patent.
Quote from: wattsup on March 03, 2008, 09:30:05 PM
@capthook
WTF is right. There are only 6 pages on this thread and all the explanations you need are right there. So..................
If you look closely, you will see that you were reading the patent "application" and not the patent.
Wrong !
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fscam.jpg&hash=c5b70a3744ce7373d3598afdc4618f0ee2a23f61)
As you can see it is a full patent. If it had only been an application I would not have made such a fuss about it.
Hans von Lieven
Huh? Application?
I download the GRANTED patent - and READ it. And it appears most of the posts in this thread also reference the GRANTED patent. In fact - I don't see a single reference to the application.
One thing GREAT about the USPTO is they make searching and retriving patents easy to do. Heck - google patents is the easiest - as the files are .pdf rather than .tiff.
Quote from Jessie Mcqueen post #52
"Information on Patent # 7095126.
1. Energy can not be created or destroyed but it can be change in to other forms.
In my invention the energy is being collected from the atmosphere. There are electrical
charges in the atmosphere that when the are concentrated they become a use able source of power. This is done by a generator head."
So - a generator head collects charge from the atmosphere? Huh?
And what "explanations" am I supposed to be finding? Other than the explanation offered that this thing is $hit.
:-\
(edit) I see Hans posted while I was composing my post......
Comment: Yea - what HE said ;D
Quote from: capthook on March 03, 2008, 10:54:32 PM
1. Energy can not be created or destroyed but it can be change in to other forms.
In my invention the energy is being collected from the atmosphere. There are electrical
charges in the atmosphere that when the are concentrated they become a use able source of power. This is done by a generator head."
I am thinking that this is how he got by the patent examiners. He does not claim to be creating energy out of nothing, but rather collecting energy from another source. Therefore, it is not a perpetual motion machine, and the patent office would not require a working demo.
@shruggedatlas
Something like that. When you compare what he had in the application, you will see he changed it in the patent. He told me that it was the patent guys that indicated which sentences in the application that would not be acceptable in the patent. So he just changed those and bingo. lol
I spoke to him several months ago when he came back from Australia where he is working to set-up a mfg plant. All is going well but these types of mfg endeavors take time and cost $$$$. Also, I am sure he is experiencing his share of partnership incompatabilities and many other facets that tend to put brakes on such projects when the inventor must rely on others for financing. Not that he said this to me, but, when you decide to go into business with others, there is the nice concrete planning of the business endeavour and then there is the REALITY that sometimes takes two different roads. More then somtimes.
G'day all,
I think you have been told a lot of crap wattsup.
One of his Australian investors got in touch with me evidently because of this thread. I was told that Jesse McQueen had been here and instead of the promised prototype brought nothing more than a lot of promises and requests for more money.
Not only did the Australians pay for his ticket and expenses, they also had to pay arrears of maintenance payments because the American authorities would not allow him out of the country until this was settled.
I do not think there was any more money forthcoming from here and setting up a factory in Australia is bullshit. No-one would even contemplate seriously to set up manufacturing in Australia for just about anything because of the unfavourable political climate and the high cost involved.
Someone is lying.
Hans von Lieven
@Hans
Live and learn. We can only be as transparent in what we are told by others and relay that information here. The rest is not our problem to corroborate or deny. So the Quest continues....... next.
But, why did you not saying anything about this before? Or asked another way, why are you saying this now?
Sorry, but this thread has been dormant for a long time ( October 3 ) and I didn't want to re-open it just because someone contacted me about it fairly recently. Apart from that, that he is telling people about manufacturing in Australia was news to me.
Hans
I think his website tells it all under the FAQ.
Do you have a prototype? No.
Did you ever have one? Yes, and it worked great but it broke and I need lots of money to fix it. No I cannot explain why I was able to make a prototype on the cheap before, and I need lots of money now, but trust me and send me money.
http://www.mcqueenmachine.com (http://www.mcqueenmachine.com)
It does shrugged, it does
;D
Hans
----- Original Message -----
From: James Hardy
James ? His patent makes little sense, but basically, when all is said, his ?breakthru? is likely to be in the generator/electronics, (most likely the generator), unless he has an O/U motor (Unlikely)..
I?m not sure he even understands what he has here, or if it really works, as claimed.
Fortunately, I am not the one being asked to review his system and test/validate it; as he claims that it is not working at this time (typical response).
His fee structure is totally meaningless, and confusing. If he really had an O/U breakthrough, he should be seeking $1-2M upfront, and running royalties of $100-200/KW of machines built, (which is what I am negotiating with another inventor who has a 50KW device, on behalf of a wealthy investor).
Ted and I would be pleased to act as witnesses, but would really need to do some proper, documented and ?defendable? testing first.
Unfortunately, we are both getting very busy now ? Ted is just heading off to the Tesla conference, and I have 9 major projects to review for the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, by Aug 14, and a scientist here from Russia, working on a superconducting magnetic generator. I also just received a new Mag. Motor in today, to perform some testing on.
Please try to give us plenty of lead time to schedule a visit, and define a test plan and schedule.
Regarding the Generator, it should not take that much torque to get it started, if you start without any load on it. We have access to lots of motors to test it with, and could also use a manual Flywheel to hand crank it to get it turning (as needed with the Lutec system in AUS).
Give me a call when you have a minute, to discuss further.
Jim
Thank you Jim for the link. The article helped me to understand a few things about how to re-write a patent and not to refer to anything which indicates a perpetual motion machine. I also learned that I will need four (4) witnesses or more and perhaps you and Ted could be two (2) of them!
Reading through McQueen's website thoroughly, I am in disbelief. I have tested many motors and none of them have worked. If you have turned a generator in the past you would know that it does not turn easily at all. The force it takes to turn the generator is greater than the motor can put out, causing the motor to overheat. I have tested running directly to the shaft of the generator with the motor and through pulleys. The motor will always overheat within five (5) or ten (10) minutes. This is the reason I went to the water pump.
Quite frankly, as you read through McQueen's website, he is looking for a one time up front fee of $85.00 and monthly fees of $45.00 for funding the machine. My personal feeling is that McQueen is trying to soak the public, rather than going with major investors who want to buy or invest in his patent.
How do you feel about the legitimacy of McQueen's machine? Again, thanks for the info. Be talking to you soon.