i am representing an inventor that has built an electric motor that requires @ 1000 watts and is producing @200 hp, 650 lb or torque at 1000 rpm/opm. looking for investement money to retain the remainder of the patents. any advice on where and who to talk to would be geat.
Hi,
If there are patents, can we possibly learn about the patent numbers please?
Thanks, Gyula
.
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 04, 2008, 10:38:18 AM
i am representing an inventor that has built an electric motor that requires @ 1000 watts and is producing @200 hp, 650 lb or torque at 1000 rpm/opm. looking for investement money to retain the remainder of the patents. any advice on where and who to talk to would be geat.
If you have a working prototype, you can get $1 Million that does not need to even be paid back and does not require the inventor to give up any equity. Simply take the Randi challenge.
http://www.randi.org/ (http://www.randi.org/)
Once you win that, you will get instant world-wide publicity, and securing additional funds will be no problem at all.
All this, of course, hinges on whether or not you can prove overunity in a controlled setting.
Be cautious with Randi,
you have to sign rather bad contracts then to get involved with him...
He also seems to get every right on your invention then
and could also put it in a safe and will never get published...
He could have open sourced it, started a nice looking website building a community sharing his invention and accepting donations and build up from there.
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 05, 2008, 10:10:37 PM
Be cautious with Randi,
you have to sign rather bad contracts then to get involved with him...
He also seems to get every right on your invention then
and could also put it in a safe and will never get published...
How do you know this? I have read accounts of people submitting to the challenge, and there is no record of anything like this.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on April 06, 2008, 02:48:12 AM
Quote from: hartiberlin on April 05, 2008, 10:10:37 PM
Be cautious with Randi,
you have to sign rather bad contracts then to get involved with him...
He also seems to get every right on your invention then
and could also put it in a safe and will never get published...
How do you know this? I have read accounts of people submitting to the challenge, and there is no record of anything like this.
So where are the inventions left?
who heard of them?
helmut
.
I'm guessing this is based on the peripetia thing... is that the name?
not sure what that is, but that is not who I am representing.
I will have time later today to descripe how the machine works in basic terms.
Cameron
just so I am clear with all readers of this thread. this is by no means perpetual motion. that is impossible. our motr uses a standard home depot generator with the gas motor removed. our prototype that is nearing completion will power the generator, only 5 hp needed for that, and still have @ 200 hp left with over 600 lb of torque running at @1000 opm.
almost every motor produced today torques and leverages from the center. people, please start thinkng (this is so clice') outside the box.
one of the patents we have in place radially mounts the motors around a center core and "orbits" around the center.
this prototype is available to see and demo. it shows a linear progression as input goes up, opm goes up the same %. no other motor does this. all convential thermal dynamic motors need double the energy to increase 50%. our working prototype that is built now can demonstrate a 50% increase in input, we get a 50% increase in opm/rpm and so on.
this prototpye is only a fraction of what our "primary" one is going to produce. 2 motors using @500-750 watts, = @200 hp, 650 lb of torque at @1000 opm.
Cameron
750 W input and 150,000 W output.
Thats 1:200 ratio of input to output....hmmm
Have you got pictures and a video to show us.
Regards
Rob
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 07, 2008, 11:18:32 AM
just so I am clear with all readers of this thread. this is by no means perpetual motion. that is impossible.
That is a nonsensical statement. You claim up front that the device is "way overunity". If it is way overunity, as you say, then simply plug the output into the input and you have perpetual motion. If you do not have perpetual motion, most likely the device is not "over unity" in the accepted meaning of that phrase.
@ShrunkenAlas,
'OverUnity' is a very usefull(?), controversial, and indeed provocative term but is definitely
a misnomer.
Some of us(?), say that: "'Over-unity' is an oxymoron that should be removed
from the vocabulary of the alternative science community."
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/thermo.html (http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/thermo.html)
Obviously, BTW, you are not part of this 'community'.
The more appropriate terms should be "COP > 1".
As you, of course, know, fridges or heat pumps have a COP > 1 (about 2-3, even more).
The operator, gives one unit of NRG and the device gives back 2 or 3 units of NRG.
The environment is, naturally, participating.
COP >1 does not mean that you can get these devices running 'by oneselves'.
In these very cases this environment is well understood.
In others cases the 'environment' is not still apprehended.
With (disguised as) obtuse minds as your, this is not close to append!
Beware!
Our very distinguished ShrunkenAlas
Under a pleasant exterior,
Has a viperish tongue.
Sorry, next time I will try a shabby Limerick...
Le bonjour vous va.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on April 07, 2008, 08:00:16 PM
@ShrunkenAlas,
'OverUnity' is a very usefull(?), controversial, and indeed provocative term but is definitely
a misnomer.
Some of us(?), say that: "'Over-unity' is an oxymoron that should be removed
from the vocabulary of the alternative science community."
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/thermo.html (http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/thermo.html)
Obviously, BTW, you are not part of this 'community'.
The more appropriate terms should be "COP > 1".
As you, of course, know, fridges or heat pumps have a COP > 1 (about 2-3, even more).
The operator, gives one unit of NRG and the device gives back 2 or 3 units of NRG.
The environment is, naturally, participating.
COP >1 does not mean that you can get these devices running 'by oneselves'.
In these very cases this environment is well understood.
In others cases the 'environment' is not still apprehended.
With (disguised as) obtuse minds as your, this is not close to append!
That is a curious position. It is true that with heat pumps and other similar devices, you can have a Coefficient of Performance greater than one. But why discard the term "overunity?" Most of us here know what that refers to, and it means that energy output is greater than all energy inputs. Do you not think people are capable of making the mental distinction?
I am familiar with the "oxymoron" argument, and it states that it is nonsensical to believe that a machine can have an efficiency of over 100%. But that is not what proponents of perpetual motion research believe exactly. More precisely, it is allowed that a perpetual motion machine may be less than 100% efficient, in that there are losses to friction. Nonetheless, a perpetual motion machine, due to some clever design, is able to generate sufficient energy from nothing to make up for the frictional losses.
Back to topic. The original poster did use the term "overunity" and not COP, and furthemore it is clear from the description that the device does not draw energy from the environment. Rather, the novelty of the invention rests with some arrangement of the motors around "the core." So I do not think that this is one of those devices where COP is greater than 1, yet is under unity. Here, either you will have overunity and a COP>1, or you will have underunity and COP<1.
Lastly, COP is not what this forum is about. No one is going to get excited over a waterwheel, with potentially infinite COP. Overunity is what we are all here for.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on April 07, 2008, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 07, 2008, 11:18:32 AM
just so I am clear with all readers of this thread. this is by no means perpetual motion. that is impossible.
That is a nonsensical statement. You claim up front that the device is "way overunity". If it is way overunity, as you say, then simply plug the output into the input and you have perpetual motion. If you do not have perpetual motion, most likely the device is not "over unity" in the accepted meaning of that phrase.
"simply plug the output into the input" is about as nonsensical as one can get... have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? do you understand reactive and real power? how do you plug the output into the input when the ouput power is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the input power? i eagerly await your scintillating reply...
I am starting to guess if making a close loop with a "true overunity device" would be like trying to use a fan on a sail ship to move the sail ship.
ok. first of all, i appreciate all input, apprehenshion, and knowledge. I bow to everyone that is part of this forum. you are all by far more educated than I am. I am, simply a real estate agent in south florida, (i am sure i have been googled.) i respect and am greatefull that this site exists for the reason, at least i think it is for, the search for an alternative source of energy for the plague set upon the world and the worlds reliance on fossil fuels.
atlas- it is clear that you are playing the part of "society". this is fine, i am sure everyone in here can handle the persecution of a society that is not open to the quest for the answer or an answer to the "riddle" of solving the globes problem.
NerzhDishual - i unfortunalty do not know the exact deffinition and accepted terms used in this context. so i thank you on allowing them and i hope this discussion will continue with me making as few mistakes as possible.
atlas wrote- Back to topic. The original poster did use the term "overunity" and not COP, and furthemore it is clear from the description that the device does not draw energy from the environment. Rather, the novelty of the invention rests with some arrangement of the motors around "the core." So I do not think that this is one of those devices where COP is greater than 1, yet is under unity. Here, either you will have overunity and a COP>1, or you will have underunity and COP<1.
i did not say this does not draw from the environment.
i ask a question. if one of us was to have the answer to the riddle, and wants to give it to the world, and be compensated for it by allowing who ever wanted to manufacture,produce and distrubute the "motor" for a license fee or an override of sales but need to acquire the funds to not only patent in the U.S. but also internationaly, knowing that the large firms that handle something of this size only see in $$$. how does one go about this. do we go to a site like this? do you ask the government? as you can see, this is a riddle in a riddle.
fortunatly, for all of us, the investors in hand have the funds and abblility to see ths project to fruition.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 08, 2008, 02:31:15 AM
"simply plug the output into the input" is about as nonsensical as one can get... have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? do you understand reactive and real power? how do you plug the output into the input when the ouput power is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the input power? i eagerly await your scintillating reply...
Power is power and I'd like to know how fundamentally different that can be. I'm not saying it's as simple as hooking up a wire from A to B, but if power in is lower than power out (however 'fundamentally' different its form) there's always a way to close the loop. Always.
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 08, 2008, 10:26:40 AM
i ask a question. if one of us was to have the answer to the riddle, and wants to give it to the world, and be compensated for it by allowing who ever wanted to manufacture,produce and distrubute the "motor" for a license fee or an override of sales but need to acquire the funds to not only patent in the U.S. but also internationaly, knowing that the large firms that handle something of this size only see in $$$. how does one go about this. do we go to a site like this? do you ask the government? as you can see, this is a riddle in a riddle.
fortunatly, for all of us, the investors in hand have the funds and abblility to see ths project to fruition.
So do you have all the money you need for patents, or do you seek more? I am a little confused.
Anyway, the answer is: first, decide if you want a loan or do you want to sell stock. If you want a loan, go to a bank first. They will offer the most favorable interest rates. If a bank rejects you, you can seek venture capital financing, which may be in forms of loans, sale of stock, or a combination of the two. I am not aware of government grants for experimental technology like this, but maybe there is something out there.
.
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 08, 2008, 11:39:26 AM
the company is an LLC. the business plan is simple. 300 million unit shares. 95 % is owned by Leibowitz. 57 % of his are for charity. the remaining 5 % or 15 million are being sold to generate the capital to acquire any one of the larger patent law firms. realisitcly only a fraction of these need to be sold. Unit shares are being sold at 5$. As a security clause, the LLC will pay out double to any investor his origianl investment of which , that investor can reinvest those funds at the origianl price of 5$ if so desired once the first license is sold. so in effect, that investor will have 3 for 1 of the unit shares bought.
being an LLC set up as a pass through company, share holders will be paid their dividends as accounts are acquired. We understand the scope and magnitute of the project and estimate within 24 months of selling the first license to manufacture and produce the motor, 50 billion in income from the sales of licenses to manufacture and sell the product to any and all producers.
based on these numbers, unit shares would receive divedends in the amount of @ $150 per share.
Well, I know lots of people who want to invest. I am a little confused, though.
You say you are seeking money to cover the costs of securing patents for your invention. So that means you do not have your patent situation squared away yet. This is a negative to an investor. It is a little of a Catch-22, but that is that. On the other hand, you do not need millions of dollars to secure patents. Even $20,000 will go a way here, and with $100,000, I would be very surprised if you could not accomplish what you need. So I am not sure why you are selling stock to cover the costs of a patent. Those are relatively small, especially in light of what you must have spent on the prototype.
atlas, it is a predicament
@cameron
Looking into the patents you mentioned it looks like you'll have a low rpm big torque output, but that will be still low power. You need to have both high (power = torque X rpm)
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 08, 2008, 01:01:45 PM
atlas, it is a predicament
According to Google, 1 hp = 746 watts. If Leibowitz's device can indeed produce 200 hp from 1000 watts and uses no other fuel, then this is nothing short of phenomenal. Meggerman is correct about the overunity ratio. If you can prove this up, I would invest myself. Are you going to have any kind of public demo to attract investors?
Also, if this is not a impossible perpetual motion device, where does the excess energy (i.e. the 199.25 excess hp) come from?
@shruggedatlas
QuoteI am familiar with the "oxymoron" argument, and it states that it is nonsensical to believe that a machine can have an efficiency of over 100%. But that is not what proponents of perpetual motion research believe exactly. More precisely, it is allowed that a perpetual motion machine may be less than 100% efficient, in that there are losses to friction. Nonetheless, a perpetual motion machine, due to some clever design, is able to generate sufficient energy from nothing to make up for the frictional losses.
There is one thing however that you and most others have never considered, that is that overunity is impossible all the supposed "overunity" machines are in fact underunity and have losses like all other machines---overunity is an illusion. The delusion is in the general perception of energy, we see an unbalanced condition of energy doing work and in the process the energy is discharged/neutralized. One unit of energy input would always equal less than one unit of energy output------- but you cannot concieve the very simple fact that the input can be recovered and used over and over if certain conditions are met. When you say----
QuoteNonetheless, a perpetual motion machine, due to some clever design, is able to generate sufficient energy from nothing to make up for the frictional losses
--- this is an absolute contradiction in terms as there is nothing to "generate", the energy input is "conserved" a word you may know well, as in the conservation of energy. I understand this is impossible, for you it very well may be impossible, but for some people here in this forum who have seen this process in action and have made the effort to research and understand with an open mind this impossibility is not all that difficult. Everything you need to understand this is here in the forum as I will not help those who refuse to help themselves.
@cameron sydenham
If I was to give advice, I would say you had better do this fast and you better have your act together, many people have been to this point and none have succeeded--- as we all know very well. From the sounds of it I would say your patent will infringe on many patents which I expect the patent examiner will miss anyways which is a good thing, also many could produce any variation of your patent so marketing and market share will as always determine your success.
I think you had mentioned using a router motor, that's interesting as I am using a wetvac motor on my generator ;D.
Best of luck
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 08, 2008, 10:26:40 AM
...if one of us was to have the answer to the riddle, and wants to give it to the world, and be compensated for it...
giving implies no compensation, you are either giving it to the world or you are selling it to the world... either way good luck with it, it's sad that people value money so much.
@morgenster
are you suggesting that reactive power is the same as real power?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on April 09, 2008, 02:03:41 AM
are you suggesting that reactive power is the same as real power?
Why are you so stuck on real versus reactive power? Yes, we all remember from high school that (real power)^2 + (reactive power)^2 = (total power)^2. Or was that apparent power, I don't remember. But what does that have to do with anything here? Are you suggesting the input is real, and output is reactive? Reactive power is stored and returned to the source, so it cannot be the output.
Or are you just trying to show off your knowledge of basic electric terms?
im not stuck on anything. i find it curious that you think its "so simple"...
you didnt answer my prior question, have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? im suggesting that it is not "so simple"
morgenster said power is power and that may be, but it isnt JUST power in a electric motor is it now? its reactive and real and apparent.... isn't it? or did you not pay any attention in highscool to the basic terms? or do you just love to generalize with sweeping statements?
lose the math dear, all it says is that you have such a small grasp of the english language that you cant explain something WITHOUT using math.
lastly everyone is NOT here for OU... i certainly am not.
lets try and keep on topic ok?
yes, the equation 746 = 1 hp is accurate in our demo.
this site has served very well, I have been called directly from people who scan these types of sites for potential. as far as having our act together, it really comes down to acquiring enough money to protect the ideas and patents. atlas- you say 20 k to 100k will go a long way. to get the proper patents internationaly will take 5million - 10 million because of the scope and beardth of what this will do to the global economy. yes, the inventor and all core investors are interested in the money, but all are wanting the best for the environment as well and want to see this to fruition. sounds altruistic, but consider ourselves lucky.
Cameron
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 09, 2008, 09:59:43 AM
yes, the equation 746 = 1 hp is accurate in our demo.
this site has served very well, I have been called directly from people who scan these types of sites for potential. as far as having our act together, it really comes down to acquiring enough money to protect the ideas and patents. atlas- you say 20 k to 100k will go a long way. to get the proper patents internationaly will take 5million - 10 million because of the scope and beardth of what this will do to the global economy. yes, the inventor and all core investors are interested in the money, but all are wanting the best for the environment as well and want to see this to fruition. sounds altruistic, but consider ourselves lucky.
Cameron
Hi Cameron,
You have deleted the patent numbers you gave earlier, I wonder why ?? They were not the proper ones and /or there are still pending other patent applications?
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 09, 2008, 09:59:43 AM
yes, the equation 746 = 1 hp is accurate in our demo.
this site has served very well, I have been called directly from people who scan these types of sites for potential. as far as having our act together, it really comes down to acquiring enough money to protect the ideas and patents. atlas- you say 20 k to 100k will go a long way. to get the proper patents internationaly will take 5million - 10 million because of the scope and beardth of what this will do to the global economy. yes, the inventor and all core investors are interested in the money, but all are wanting the best for the environment as well and want to see this to fruition. sounds altruistic, but consider ourselves lucky.
Cameron
I am sorry to be blunt, but you are either lying or being cheated. Even at a high end rate of $500 per hour, your numbers mean that it would require 10,000 to 20,000 lawyer manhours to accomplish these tasks. The actual patent filing fees are relatively modest, even internationally.
This basically means that if a patent lawyer worked on nothing but your case for 4 years, this is what it would cost (or 2 lawyers for 4 years, if we use $10,000,000 figure). This is absurd. Even for a complex patent, it should not take more than 200 hours to finish the work.
Quote from: cameron sydenham on April 09, 2008, 09:59:43 AM
...yes, the inventor and all core investors are interested in the money, but all are wanting the best for the environment as well and want to see this to fruition. sounds altruistic, but consider ourselves lucky.
Cameron
doesn't sound altruistic at all
altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward.
funny shrug didn't jump on you for this and argue it to be a moral vice... objectivism and all, but shrug seems stuck on math instead ;)
as i said before good luck with it.
thank you for the wish of luck and vote of confidence. the prototype we are working on should be finished in the next 2 months and if allowed, i will post photos or better yet, video.
A couple of "investors" have been in contact and are coming down to review what it is that we have done.
Cameron