I don't get to this board very often but I see where there has been several o.u. devices patented, but never see any news of production or the usual media hype. Is it simmply because these things don't work, the inventors have been bought-off (or have been reduced to parts of the landscape somewhere), or what? ??? ???
Do all countries who have patent law, have a rule against perpetual motion machines?
good question
i patented my idea partly to see what would happen.....would someone try to buy you out for example...or maybe i wouldnt be able to patent.Since i have patented ,only in one country , it has been hard to get any interest.The problem is i dont have a working model although i have tested the basic component workings.If i had the funds i would get it made.......in the mean time im a do it yourself person probably like many here.
I tried to patent a educational toy for math a few years ago. Even had interest from a multi-million pound plastic molding company who paid for prototypes and assessment - the idea was knocked back because of insufficent expected turn over. Then there were objections to the British Patent application so I withdrew it. It was identified as a logical step on to an existing patent and a difference in presentation is not patentable, because of it's novelity I was advised to spend more money to try a patent in the States, because different rules apply.
Spent thousands of ?'s, never again...
I still have not seen any thing like it on the market, all my stuff it's designed for early learning.
Perhaps the opportunity will open for me in the future...
Ant
http://www.metacafe.com/channels/ant+burr
My own experience with patents, although not in the OU sence, is that it is an overall slippery and unwanted process that one is force to take simply because of greed.
We have a method to selectively grow a microalgae strain in conditions that normally were deemed unsuitable, and thus we grow our algae very cheaply and extensively. We would have loved to not patent it and keep secret, because nobody wants to give away the circus in a patent application and let everybody know what it took years and lots of bucks to develop. But we are forced to patent it just because if you don't, somebody else could and then sue the hell out of you.
If you read through my comment, all you see is greed in action. The darn bucks that we spent and the ones we expect to gain by selling our algae with a fat margin.
That is we humans. Greedy bastards.
Pity the energy equation...
e=mc2
The sun, our solar systems largest mass and the speed of light.
The biggest the fastest...
I believe through my study that the energy equation should be
energy = c(sum of mass)2
c
Explanitory video within a month...
In words, energy equals see the sum of mass squared over see.
Maybe we would become more aware of the consequences of our actions.
A prefix of times two can be placed at the top and a prefix of times four can be placed at the bottom of the equation under special circumstances.
energy = 2(c(sum of mass))2
4c
Interesting play on words...
Ant
http://www.metacafe.com/channels/ant+burr
Sorry I just had to ask. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but... Why don't you cancel the two c's? ;D
Here is the speed of light using
energy = c(sum of mass)2
c
sum of mass =
start number 42,827,470
end number 42,827,518
Any straight line added any which way = 299,792,458
Thought you might be interested in a magic square constant calculator, so it's attached as an excel file.
Input Start number then enter. The cells within the spread sheet change giving the magic constant.
It's an incrementing whole number calculator for
c(sum of mass)2
c
The 72 is the smallest magic square that contains the speed of light, although the non magic square 22 also fits the value of the speed of light.
Because of the implications I will not complicate it here, that's what the video will cover. In the meantime I am open to discuss my theories with anyone interested...