I recently received a patent on three machines
designed to convert gravity to mechanical energy.
The patent can be viewed here. United States Patent 7770389
.
Pl try here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
Abstract
A empty tank submersed in a body of liquid will float to the surface, as the tank floats up it will do work. It is the goal of this machine to empty the tank after the tank has been submersed, and in the process of emptying the tank do less work than the empty tank does when it floats up.
Inventors: Sandler; Brian Peter (West Bloomfield, MI)
Appl. No.: 11/906,464
Filed: October 2, 2007
Can you show it analytically, with formuli, how this thing happens? How does the machine, all by itself, does less work when emptying than the work it does when it floats up to the surface?
All machines are powered by some kind of fuel, the fuel that powers these machines is gravity.
Quote from: brian334 on August 10, 2010, 04:01:33 PM
All machines are powered by some kind of fuel, the fuel that powers these machines is gravity.
This is only figuratively speaking because gravity is force. Nevertheless, it has already been proven that the conservative force of gravity can cause spontaneous displacement, that is, can cause work to be done without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir. In other words, it has been shown that under certain circumstances work can be done without spending fuel.
How do you prove that the construction in your patent also does this?
one of the first machines i ever designed did this easily, i don't know how yours works, mine was a simple flap valve on the top that opened when it reach the top the tank would fill and sink again, the floating tank was inside a large fish tank, the base of the tank had a hole and a long flexible piece of tube that went out through the wall of the fish tank glass with some simple silicone, naturally as the tank hit bottom it simply pushed a rod that opened the base hole and pushed closed the flap at the top and gravity emptied about half of the water. a better engineer would have had a hollow rod through the hose to allow air in, as mine kept making a vacum, it worked, and you could patent it as it does work and could produce power, but as you can imagine where water flows with gravity for it to be commerciallly viable it must produce more than a hydro setup of equal flow. The patent office will grant a patent on anything that works, it does not have to be practical nor be commercially viable, simply be a novel inventive step and work, the one you just read works, but is simply a toy, anyone wishing to build it do not forget the airline inlet through the outlet hose, and the upper flap had a cork on top that pull the lid closed from above and when in free air the weight of the lid makes it fall open, and stay open until water stops pouring in, the lid of the floating tank had grooves from the outside running to the centre because the top would always be too high out of the water to refill, the rod is simply through rubber gromits from clark rubber. and an aluminium tank sealed with silicone.
I imagine this device has a similar principal, other wise a gravity pump not relying on a downhill freefall could be used for anything, and something much more powerful that this.
Not raining on your parade, i thought mine was the coolest thing ever, and was indeed a novel patentable invention.
Note, I am involved in the design of a hydro project being funded by venture capital, and you can bet the first math that was done was flow rate for work of the new machines of existing hydro before they even looked at it, my input was the physics and mechanical side of the design. The math I leave to everyone else, I knew my design was better simply by flow weight volume over time, what that means in kiliowatts I have no idea. I hope I am wrong and you have discovered something no one else has thought of in this gravity pump.
@brian334
Your machine is now patented, no more need for secrecy.
May be you would like to show us photos or better videos of a working machine.
It would be great to see a machine that actually (not only theoretically) coverts gravity to mechanical energy.
I hope you forgive my skepticism as far as the patent is concerned. There are literally thousands of patents claiming "strange machines" which unfortunately never worked.
Greetings, Conrad
I guess, what @conradelectro asks applies to both @brian334 and @The Eskimo Quinn. It isn't at all obvious that you have anything before you demonstrate it so that others can reproduce it. Never mind its commercial viability. Just show that it goes up and down in the fish tank more than once on its own.
Mr. Bus,
Will you explain why any of these machines won’t work?
@brian334
For me, there is no need to proof that a machine does not work.
It is the inventor who has to proof that it really works, best by building a working prototype and showing it publicly.
If you followed the many threads in this forum you probably saw that none of the alleged "wounder machines" where ever proven to work. All attempts to get clear and concise information about a working machine always failed.
The burden of proof is on you! And I sincerely hope that you will be the first one in this forum (in fact, the first one in human history) who succeeds. I would be very sad if we once again discuss an illusion.
It is very simple, just show a working machine and explain how it can be replicated. But exactly this "simple demonstration" never happens.
Replication does not mean, that your patent protection vanishes. It would help you to attract funding.
Sorry for writing the obvious, I will not insist further. It just needed to be said and I do not want to speculate publicly why the inventors of strange machines never proceed in an obvious way.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: brian334 on August 11, 2010, 11:33:30 AM
Mr. Bus,
Will you explain why any of these machines won’t work?
These machines will not work because the energy gained when the contraption floats to the top will be exactly equal to the energy spent to empty it when at the bottom. It's for you now to prove that's not the case.
Hello Brian,
Thanks very much for posting the patent number to your invention. Congratulations on getting the patent.
Do you have a working prototype? I would very much be interested in seeing pictures of a device if you could post them here on this forum.
Thanks again for your efforts.
RR2
Quote from: Omnibus on August 10, 2010, 02:21:29 PM
.
If you get an error message like this from Google Patents Advanced Patent Search, try:
http://www.pat2pdf.org
They have a lot more complete database.
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7770389.pdf
--Lee
It is not at all evident that the patent in question has achieved its goal:
QuoteIt is the goal of this machine to empty the tank after the tank has been submersed, and in the process of emptying the tank do less work than the empty tank does when it floats up
Mr. Rat,
Old friend. I have respect for your opinion. If you can explain why these machines won’t work I will give up believing in them.
Quote from: brian334 on August 11, 2010, 04:32:10 PM
Mr. Rat,
Old friend. I have respect for your opinion. If you can explain why these machines won’t work I will give up believing in them.
I told you why. It's not about believing, it's about proof that they work. There's no proof they do.
Quote from: conradelektro on August 11, 2010, 02:09:37 PM
For me, there is no need to proof that a machine does not work. ... The burden of proof is on you! ...
@brian334
Unfortunately, conradelectro is most likely correct. Now, there's something else: I applied for a patent involving a regeraratively cooled spacecraft ion thruster that I improved (in my opinion) from a McDonnell Douglas design. I didn't have a prototype. That's for big commercial companies with enough R&D money; but I submitted the application anyway---and it was rejected---but the Patent Office considered it on its merits.
So, did you build a prototype that worked as you say it should? Some of the other Members criticism might disappear if you did.
REEDIT:There's even more:
http://www.brainstormpatents.com/faq#patentingmyideainvolves
Look at #2
An invention has to be different enough to be patentable and useful to someone as well. Not necessarily work. At least by this company's standards.
#8
Some of this company's patent aren't feasible, so they don't need to work. Or at least be enough to have a patentable idea, but
not have a constructable prototype. Merely be new. Nathan Stubblefield's invention was so far beyond the Examiner's intelligence, the guy wouldn't grant the patent unless it was modified in a prototype to be understood. It doesn't have to work on that basis, I think. The patent Examiner didn't understand it to recognize it would work, so it was unpatentable until he did understand.
Being able to demonstrate that you can do what you say you can, should make the idea more acceptable to those who use the idea.
#14
You don't need a prototype to prove your invention, but it helps a lot, as I said above.
--Lee
If I had a working prototype I sure in the hell would not be talking to assholes like you.
Quote from: brian334 on August 11, 2010, 06:11:54 PM
If I had a working prototype I sure in the hell would not be talking to assholes like you.
You not only do not have a working prototype but you have nothing of the sorts you claim. Don't waste our time.
That's not true. That magnetic motor was discussed extensively in this forum. Someone may want to point to the links.
Unfortunately, I haven't paid attention to Thane Heinz motor. Is it self-sustaining?
As for the magnet motor you mention, I guess it isn't convincing enough to have attracted people's attention. We have many such claims and participants already tend to disregard them out of hand if there's noting more convincing brought to the fore than just a vid on youtube.
Patents are a waste of time and more important they only help protect $multi-billion corporations that can afford to take violators to court. The average guy with limited funds trying to launch a product well lets see how much money you have taking just ONE person to court. Now try it when violators are off shore and watch the fees add up.
By making a patent you are bringing the State into your own creativity so you are converting a Right to be creative to a Privilege. So you just begged for Consent! If you think the state is there to protect you then think again. Its more likely to issue a "Withheld under national security" then you REALLY are stuffed because then you can NEVER talk about it, use it, sell it or do anything with it.
Now if its really worth the paper its written on for OU device the Chinese will make them 100 times faster than you in a blink of an eye!
If you want protection then copyright already granted last around 75 years.
Quote from: brian334 on August 11, 2010, 04:32:10 PM
Mr. Rat,
Old friend. I have respect for your opinion. If you can explain why these machines won't work I will give up believing in them.
Honestly, I always thought there must be some way to take advantage of the deep ocean and the buoyancy of gas to raise on its own from just about any depth. The hard part was going from low density to high density and back again. I think your idea is clever, but I was just asking if you had a prototype, that's all. I don't think you should give up on it at all.
No, no, build your dream. I wish you the best of luck.
RR2
Quote from: Omnibus on August 11, 2010, 08:07:42 PM
Unfortunately, I haven't paid attention to Thane Heinz motor. Is it self-sustaining?
As for the magnet motor you mention, I guess it isn't convincing enough to have attracted people's attention. We have many such claims and participants already tend to disregard them out of hand if there's noting more convincing brought to the fore than just a vid on youtube.
No its not self running. He never measured the i/p to the DC drive motor correctly and the generator coils lug like pig. All the flux diversion stuff was a load of crap and waste of money but there was ONE thing that happened.
When using the high voltage coil it has a large inductance. As the motor accelerated the speed of the pulses hit the resonance on the coil so the power factor changed to a much lower value and it became more and more reactive. This produced a VARS tank. When this happened the INPHASE current drops so the Lenz reduced proportionally which ALLOWED the DC motor to accelerate. Now THane thought his system was gaining on OU energy. It wasn't it was simply being allowed to run faster as the lugging reduced off the motor.
BTW using reactive power is a way to overcome LENZ. You only have lenz if you have in phase amps so the answer is don't draw any amps...problem solved:)
What he should have done is constantly measured the i/p AND used a 3 phase 5HP rotoverter as these will run on just 20 watts then used this a prime mover reference and watched the i/p power versus the o/p.
I truly am hoping one day that somebody on one of these forums will have something that they really truly share in the spirit of "OPEN Source." All I see are people that look like they just want to get funding and so they claim they have developed something but then maybe give everyone a few tidbits on how they did it. I would like to see the parts list , pictures, videos, test results, schemetics, and whatever they do. And then let someone else on the forums try and build one and get the same results......but some people are just too dishonest and then "USE" other peoples knowledge and then go about on their merry way. Then if they even think someone else is going to make something they scream they have the intellectual rights and if you do anything with it they will sue you for royalties. LOL..Is this what Open Source means to some people?
I am not saying any of you guys who have posted on this thread are like this at all. Please don't think I am picking on you . I have just seen things the past year that just makes me sick.
So I am hoping for better times ahead...... :)
Good that you said this:
QuoteI am not saying any of you guys who have posted on this thread are like this at all. Please don't think I am picking on you . I have just seen things the past year that just makes me sick.
because I was just reaching for the keyboard to defend the good guys here from such attack. The bad guys are also known as well as their silly hopes for funding before delivering. The problem is how the achievements reached in the area of OU can cross the boundary and become part of the mainstream science. That's the real conundrum. How is this repression, which is worse than political repression, to be overcome?
Hey Omnibus.....I wish I had a good intelligent answer to that question..but I don't. I need to ponder it for a while.
Quote from: P-Motion on August 11, 2010, 07:13:50 PM
>>It is very simple, just show a working machine and explain how it can be replicated. But exactly this "simple demonstration" never happens.<<
This implies someone else will get off their lazy ass and actually build it. I can post a link to a magnetic motor that was not posted in this forum, but was discussed ad nauseum. They wondered if it was really a working motor. The design was shown and not one person was willing to try it.
Care to explain why ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/wh0wants2kn0w#p/a/f/0/YnYHBowc8SQ (http://www.youtube.com/user/wh0wants2kn0w#p/a/f/0/YnYHBowc8SQ)
I can explain it. It was debunked as a fraud/fake on both youtube and Overunity. why would someone replicate a fake?
Bill
We know now that there is no working prototype. This is per se not such a bad thing (although it should have been said in the very first post to avoid confusion), so lets take it from there.
ResinRat2 wants to use the ocean for energy generation, and there are indeed attempts to do just that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion#Classification (OTEC systems can be classified as two types based on the thermodynamic cycle (1) Closed cycle and (2) Open cycle.)
May be one can bring the temperature difference between the surface and the deep (in a lake or in the ocean) into the design of the machines from the patent in question http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7770389.pdf ?
But this would be in principle some sort of heat pump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
And I would like to know whether the inventor (may be it is brian334 or a Mr. Brian Peter Sandler, who figures in the patent as inventor) plans to build something?
The patent was filed in October 2007, so there was some time for work, or was it a "Gedankenexperiment"?
It will cost some money to build such a machine, but the costs would be moderate because the patent shows a rather simple technology and no fancy materials. To make a prototype which is intended to work for some hours (a flimsy prototype) is not so difficult and would not cost more than a few thousand Dollars and less if the inventor is prepared to do most of the work himself.
A "production model" which can be used by the general public and would have to last for years is a completely different matter which can be solved later (and which would be very expensive).
I personally believe that one has to take advantage of the temperature gradient between the surface and the deep of a lake or the ocean in order to extract energy. Therefore, I personally would not replicate the machines from US7770389. But I urge the inventor to do it if he believes in his "Gedankenexperiment".
To be precise: I think that it is rather easy and not very expensive to build a prototype according to US7770389, but that it will be impossible to make it work as the patent promises. And I am not prepared to proof my point, neither in words nor in doing something. If some one claims something extraordinary (contrary to what is explained by conventional science), she/he has to physically proof it in order to deserve much attention.
And it must be attention what brian334 seeks, otherwise he would not speak with an asshole like me!
Greetings, Conrad
@conradelectro,
Using temperature or pressure differences to run machines has been known for a couple of centuries now. Recall those clocks that can run for 100 years without winding. These types of machines are not overunity.
The person who opened this thread claims he has a machine which, if working, will be an overunity machine. Unfortunately, he only thinks he has such machine but he actually doesn't. There are absolutely no grounds for a claim that his machine produces excess energy. Therefore, it is useless to even consider spending time and money for a model. This is a complete waste.
I never said the machines produce energy.
Quote from: brian334 on August 13, 2010, 11:57:50 AM
I never said the machines produce energy.
Then what good is it?
If the machine sinks to the bottom, then floats to the top all by itself and repeats that continuously it must necessarily produce energy to make up for the friction losses. You machine doesn't do that, therefore it should be ignored.
P-motion,
please post your junk invention somewhere else.
I like "ocean wave generators" and there are several developments going on just now. "Wave generators" are a simple concept, but durability is a very big issue, also collecting the electric power from many units deployed over many kilometers is a challenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power .
A further technology is to use the tides and there are at least two ways of doing it:
- one builds a dam that catches the ingoing tide and then the water is let out through turbines (much like the it is done with river dams);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power (many more schemes are possible)
- the best I think are marine current turbines http://www.marineturbines.com/ (much like submerged windmills, several developments are ongoing)
I neither live on a lake nor near the see nor at a river or stream, therefore "water power" was never high on my agenda. But it is very windy where I live, so I started to look into wind power (but this is an other topic).
Nevertheless, I can not refrain from posting my favorite wind power:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4224763
http://www.humdingerwind.com/
(forget Humdinger, the general principle is known, only special belts or special electronics could be patented; do not worry about efficiency for a home built thing, the wind is plentiful when it blows)
When I was referring to the temperature gradient I was thinking about "up and down floaters" like the ones suggested in the discussed patent from Brian.
May be one can build a very efficient "heat pump" based on "up and down floaters"? A wheel type concept probably would be best?
Since Brian (I mean the inventor of the discussed patent) has thought very long about his machines, he would be best suited to add "temperature" to his "Gedankenexperiment" and by such bringing it back to known physics.
Sorry, for posting my junk here.
Greetings, Conrad
At least you know you post junk.
brian,
i just had a read of your patent. from this patent (for machine#1)...
QuoteWhen the top part of the un-expanded machine is abruptly stopped it becomes a expanded machine (FIG. 2). The momentum of the piston-like tanks full of liquid (3a) and the nose-cone full of liquid (4) pulls the piston-like tanks full of liquid (3a) out of tanks 2a and 2c. Expanding the machine.
and (for machine#2)...
QuoteThe machine free-falls from position 8 to position 9. At position 9 the gas filled tank (20) in the upper part of the machine is abruptly stopped from spinning and falling by the stop in the tank (10) and by the stops on the machine (23). The lower tank (21) filled with heavy liquid keeps spinning and falling. The lower tank (21) unscrews from the upper tank (20) expanding the machine.
i think you have not considered the difference between the liquid resistance and air resistance. consider why boats don't have brakes like cars do.
the #3 machine just falls into the trap of not considering the extra pressure at depth. this has to be accounted for by some means. i couldn't get the drawings to download so not sure how it works. just from the readings, it seems to have too many assumptions that are not real, not to mention the complexity (way too many things to go wrong).
i will give you credit for a great imagination!! keep at it, something will come.
tom
I know the difference between air and water.
If you don’t look at the drawings you will not understand the machines.
Quotei will give you credit for a great imagination!! keep at it, something will come.
Not so. This should not be encouraged.
brian,
QuoteI know the difference between air and water.
If you don’t look at the drawings you will not understand the machines.
it doesn't take a pic to know if i free fall 80 feet in water, i won't have nearly the impact at the bottom as i would have falling 80 feet in air.
get real!! the amount of resistance and added pressure at depth you would have to overcome is not possible with your setup. i bet you don't even have a clue how much gas pressure your container would have to have to start with at the top.
so, do you know why cars have brakes and boats don't? think about it. you can't expect things to work (when it comes to momentum) anywhere near the same in water as they would in air.
if your 1000 words don't really describe 1 pic well enough for me (or anyone) to understand, you should rewrite your patent.
tom
The patent office did not have any problem understanding the machines.
Quote from: brian334 on August 14, 2010, 12:27:34 PM
The patent office did not have any problem understanding the machines.
The patent office don't give the south end of a north bound rat for the operation of your invention. you fill out the papers they take the money.
it don't even have to be that differant than from other inventions (that's what the courts are for) never mind working.
fritznien
QuoteiThe patent office did not have any problem understanding the machines.
Tf the reason you say that is because you've been issued a patent and you think just that makes it worth more than the paper it's written on you're badly mistaken. If the buyer doesn't understand it you'll be the one holding the bag having spent tons of money to get the patent. Losers like you who have spent thousands for worthless patents such as this one are countless.
Quote from: brian334 on August 14, 2010, 12:27:34 PM
The patent office did not have any problem understanding the machines.
ROTFLMAO, really? Sorry, the joke of the day...
FYI, patent offices grant patents on
any thing you can imagine... Examiners (mostly clerks without any decent technical background) check a few databases for a previous work, but that's about all. Like someone mentioned before, the most important detail is that you PAY the fee...
There's literally hundreds of thousands totally worthless patents (all that they don't do what is claimed) worldwide today.
So, can someone trust the patent service..? Yep, it's still good for a big companies, which can afford to defend anything in front of the court, for years... $$$
Sorry to say, IMHO, your patent is non-working, but I think you know that for quite some time now.
It's based on a basic physics explanations regarding buoyancy, which is not really an enigma, for at least the last 150 years. Funny, i think your idea was discussed even on these pages a few years ago. Too bad you didn't listen to the advices...
Btw, how much did you pay for the patent?
Why didn't you make the prototypes, the delusion would became obvious in a minute...
hi all,
thanks to the post by the_big_m_in_ok (don't know how i missed it before)...
QuoteIf you get an error message like this from Google Patents Advanced Patent Search, try:
http://www.pat2pdf.org
They have a lot more complete database.
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7770389.pdf
--Lee
i now have seen the drawings and read the patent.
i am still sure your machines won't work.
if you give some real numbers regarding each machine, such as their physical size (overall and each part that does work), the depth they will be working in, expected rpm of generator drive, sealing method (the area that holds the liquid and gas from the surrounding liquid), starting gas pressures, and anything else you know for sure about the machines, i will try to give you exact reasons why they won't work, not just in general.
there is one way you might be able to make your machines work. instead of using a liquid and a gas, use a gas and a lighter than air gas. this would take you away from the biggest problem your machines have, overcoming the drag and resistance of a liquid (kills momentum).
check out this airplane....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPbu5UeW4uk.
too cool!!
Forget machine #1 it will fall to slow to work.
Machine # 2 spins as it falls. Assume machine # 2 displaces 1 cu. Ft. of
water. Water weighs about 63 lb./cu.ft. put a 63lb. lead weight in the bottom half of the tank. The top of the tank weights about 3 lbs. the total weight of the tank is about 66lbs. Or 3 lbs. more than the water it displaces. Let the tank free-fall 10 ft. How fast will the tank spin? Will the momentum of the spinning 63lb. Lead weight be enough to expand the tank by more
than 3 lbs?
brian,
i'm not sure if i have the skills to get the answer to your question.
we would need to know the exact size of the container (for a lack of a better word) the blades are attached to. as you can imagine, this could be a lot of different numbers. with each different dimension, will come a different area of resistance on the leading surface(s) and surface area that would create drag as the container spins. if you make it long and skinny, the resistance will be small, but the drag area large and vice versa.
also to consider is the surface area of the blades themself. more surface might give a more positive drive, but would slow down the rotation. smaller blades would have less resistance, but may not be able to create rotation. it might just free fall.
just keep in mind, i think, anything you use will have a trade off of some type.
example;
1) short and fat = small number of turns (threads) to gain extra volume, but would have large surface area resisting direction of movement.
2) long and skinny = large number of turns (threads) to gain extra volume, but would have a good fall rate, depending on how large the blades were.
another thing to figure out is slipage. i know it is there but i don't know how to figure it short of building it and putting it to the test.
still yet another factor is the material the threads will be made of. how easy or hard will it be to engage and disengage them. anything better to make them from than teflon?
lots to consider here without mentioning the capturing and transferring of the power.
i guess i spoke too soon when i said i could give you exact reasons. i'm sorry for that.
wasn't that a cool plane?
tom
The volume of the tank is 1 cu. Ft. or 1728 sq.in. of surface area.
Regardless of the shape the surface area is the same.
The surface area and angle of the wings needs to be determined by testing to figure out the maxium efficiency. The size and angle of the wings might need to change as the tanks fall.
The question is can a spinning and falling 63lb. lead weight increase the displacement of the tank by more than 3 lbs?
QuoteThe volume of the tank is 1 cu. Ft. or 1728 sq.in. of surface area.
Regardless of the shape the surface area is the same.
not true. to prove the point, take an empty tobacco can (you know, the one that is oval) and fill it with water. now squeeze the top until it is round. can you now add more water (volume)? did the surface area change?
QuoteThe question is can a spinning and falling 63lb. lead
weight increase the displacement of the tank by more than 3 lbs?
i think not. it would be nice if you can prove me wrong.
tom
Quote from: P-Motion on August 12, 2010, 07:16:37 PM
bolt,
Do you think anythng like that would have a chance of going ou ?
Jim
YES for sure indeed i'm not even quite sure because its a FACT it has been done. Beside that patent things today is a huge scam im surprised so many people full for it. When you patent something you are asking the State for permission to use your creativity to go ahead and build something in return for 17.5 years grace or whatever country law says it is. BUT we all have copyright protection under common law world wide for 75 years.
For patent only protection it provides is for blue chip companies. No one else can afford the legal fees to take people to court which often takes 3-5 years or as much money as lawyers can squeeze out of you. And if you make some a TPU and try to patent it what you going to do when CHina starts making them for 100 bucks each?
People need to get a reality check the patent system may once worked over 50 years ago had some credibility but not anymore. I can patent my kitchen table as a UFO and it will pass:) They will only be too pleased to take my money.
Bolt:
I agree 100%. My attorney told me 20 years ago that the average patent defense case cost 1 million dollars. (even back then) The main thing to think about is that if 5 companies jump your patent and you can only afford to sue 4 of them, then the courts will rule that since you did not totally defend your patent, it is now null and void.
Total waste of time and money. Besides, if you invent something and someone else patents it, they still can not keep you from making them as long as you can prove prior art. It happened to me many years ago.
Bill
the common misconception is that the majority of patents have never been proven, some are just schematics, and have never even been constructed
all a patent does is cover you if it does work, it never says it will or does, and it doesn't have to
i could patent a trampoline for use on the moon so that if someday we localize it i could get the royalties
Anyone figure out how fast machine # 2 will spin?
If the 63 lb. tank falls 10 ft. I estimate it will spin at 17 ft/sec.
I am still waiting for one of you einstein’s to explain why the machines will not work.
Quote from: brian334 on September 12, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
I am still waiting for one of you einstein’s to explain why the machines will not work.
It was explained already and it is for you to understand the explanation. Noone can understand it for you.
Quote from: brian334 on September 12, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
I am still waiting for one of you einstein’s to explain why the machines will not work.
Take a syringe. Close it's small hole with a finger. Than just try to suck some air with it by pulling a plunger. It's of course not possible. But it will look like you really suck it - the air portion will get bigger in the tube. But... if you stop holding the plunger it will go back to it's oryginal position. That's because you didn't really suck any air but only changed it's volume due to the change of pressure. If you stopped pulling the plunger, the volume of air returned to it's oryginal state. This property of gases and liquids is called compressibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressibility
The same will happen with machine #1. You need to apply pressure to change volume of air in the tank (change volume from almost 0 to something). Now note, that the deeper your machine will flow in the ocean, the bigger will the hydrostatic pressure be - acting on the piston which you want to move by using only gravity force. So... the deaper you go, the more momentum you will gain. But also the deaper you go, the higher the hydrostatic pressure is. Perfect equilibrium.
If you don't know what a hydrostatic pressure is look at the following page. You can move a small red tank using a mouse. You will see what happens (the page is in polish, but this doesn't matter):
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14pl/hydrostpr_pl.htm
So as you can see, there is absolutelly no way to make your machines work. It looks interesting at first but that's just it. You should have showed us it earlier, so that you would have more money in your pocket now ;] Why haven't you built a prototype first ? Sorry but that's just stupid acting.
By the way... I'm not worthy to be called Einstein :P
Machine # 1 will not work, it will fall to slow.
Machine # 2 spins as it falls. How fast do you think it will spin?
Also in latter versions of the machines there are breather tubes to the surface to allow air into the expanding tanks.
Quote from: brian334 on September 14, 2010, 06:55:38 AM
Machine # 1 will not work, it will fall to slow.
Machine # 2 spins as it falls. How fast do you think it will spin?
Also in latter versions of the machines there are breather tubes to the surface to allow air into the expanding tanks.
brian,
i guess you didn't try the volume test. too bad you are not here to learn when the chance presents itself.
what do you think the breather tubes will do for the machine?
i don't have faith in your momentum effect in water, but i might offer a way your prop might be used. have it turn a screw (like a siccor jack for cars) that compresses a spring or some other clever way of storing energy the prop can make to be used at the top and bottom of the cycle. this way you turn the negative of water to a positive.
tom
Did you ever hear of a water hammer?
Ok I've just read wiki about water hammer. So what ?
Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on August 10, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
one of the first machines i ever designed did this easily, i don't know how yours works, mine was a simple flap valve on the top that opened when it reach the top the tank would fill and sink again, the floating tank was inside a large fish tank, the base of the tank had a hole and a long flexible piece of tube that went out through the wall of the fish tank glass with some simple silicone, naturally as the tank hit bottom it simply pushed a rod that opened the base hole and pushed closed the flap at the top and gravity emptied about half of the water. a better engineer would have had a hollow rod through the hose to allow air in, as mine kept making a vacum, it worked, and you could patent it as it does work and could produce power, but as you can imagine where water flows with gravity for it to be commerciallly viable it must produce more than a hydro setup of equal flow. The patent office will grant a patent on anything that works, it does not have to be practical nor be commercially viable, simply be a novel inventive step and work, the one you just read works, but is simply a toy, anyone wishing to build it do not forget the airline inlet through the outlet hose, and the upper flap had a cork on top that pull the lid closed from above and when in free air the weight of the lid makes it fall open, and stay open until water stops pouring in, the lid of the floating tank had grooves from the outside running to the centre because the top would always be too high out of the water to refill, the rod is simply through rubber gromits from clark rubber. and an aluminium tank sealed with silicone.
I imagine this device has a similar principal, other wise a gravity pump not relying on a downhill freefall could be used for anything, and something much more powerful that this.
Not raining on your parade, i thought mine was the coolest thing ever, and was indeed a novel patentable invention.
Note, I am involved in the design of a hydro project being funded by venture capital, and you can bet the first math that was done was flow rate for work of the new machines of existing hydro before they even looked at it, my input was the physics and mechanical side of the design. The math I leave to everyone else, I knew my design was better simply by flow weight volume over time, what that means in kiliowatts I have no idea. I hope I am wrong and you have discovered something no one else has thought of in this gravity pump.
I like Quinn's idea a lot better. It seems not to be affected by hydrostatic pressure at all. The idea used to empty the tank completely out of water by allowing the air to come in is also great. What am I missing Quinn ? Why do you say it's not a good machine to build ? You say: "where water flows with gravity for it to be commerciallly viable it must produce more than a hydro setup of equal flow". I don't agree with that. In a hydro setup you need a difference in altitude between two levels for the water to fall and "make" power. But this will only work (in a commercial way) if this water falls free in a natural way (you don't have to pump it back to the first level). As for your design, you can place it anywhere. So again... what am I missing ? Maybe I will have to say sorry for not taking you seriously Quinn.
By the way...Did you publish some more info on this anywhere else ? Pictures maybe ? Just asking. Cheers.
Who the hell is Quinn?
Ok you don't have to answer my last questions Quinn. I know the answer. The trick is... that the big tank will finally become empty ;] All the water will fall out of it through the mentioned flexible tube ;] So no closed loop. Sad. And indeed it acts like hydro setup ;]
Does anyone want to explain why machine #3 will not work?
It is a bit odd to me. I put three patented gravity powered machines on the table and not one of you can explain why they will not work.
To get a patent on a invention the invention must have what the patent office calls utility. Utility means some value. Or to put it differently a invention that does not have any value is not patentable. Therefore the U.S. patent office thinks these gravity powered machines have some value.
if you say these patents of yours are working then show us. It's not us to prove anything here.
Quote from: brian334 on January 12, 2011, 03:38:46 PM
It is a bit odd to me. I put three patented gravity powered machines on the table and not one of you can explain why they will not work.
Wrong again. I and several others have explained clearly to you why they will not work, you just don't want to believe the explanations. What you don't seem to grasp is that when you empty the water out of the container at depth, THE WATER LEVEL IN THE OUTER "UNIVERSE" MUST RISE. That is, you are raising the container's volume of water all the way up the water column; the deeper you go, the higher you have to raise this volume of water -- that's the force you feel, that you must work against, when you empty the water out of a submerged container. The weight of the water column you are lifting. That takes input of work, the same work, plus a little more to overcome losses, that you can theoretically get during the "output" part of the cycle. None of your three machines will turn on their own, and the fact that you may have had patents granted is proof, not that anything will work or is useful about your ideas, but that the patent system is severely flawed.
Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating a model of your patent, turning on its own. But please stop claiming that no one has told you why they won't work, because that is simply not true.
Cola,
If the tank displaces 1 cu.ft. of water and water weights about 63 lbs./cu.ft. and tank falls 10 ft. than to double the volume of the tank at the bottom the tank needs to lift 63 lbs./cu.ft. x 10 ft. = 630 lbs.
And you still cannot explain why any of the three machines will not work.
Quote from: brian334 on January 12, 2011, 09:28:54 PM
Cola,
If the tank displaces 1 cu.ft. of water and water weights about 63 lbs./cu.ft. and tank falls 10 ft. than to double the volume of the tank at the bottom the tank needs to lift 63 lbs./cu.ft. x 10 ft. = 630 lbs.
And you still cannot explain why any of the three machines will not work.
I am quoting your post because it is clear that you don't understand units or calculations very well. pounds per cubic foot multiplied by feet does not equal pounds. It equals pounds per square foot.... which figures into your calculation how?
Once again, your machines will not work because the maximum amount of work you can get from the output side will be equal to the work you have to put in to displace the water to increase the volume of your buoyant container, minus losses.... which, in any buoyancy drive, are HUGE. Not only do you have to lift that water, but your moving parts have to continually push it out of the way as they move.
I recommend that you spend a couple days looking at simple kinematics problems in Beer and Johnston, just for practice. If the units don't work out then you made an error; that is just basic engineering math.
@Brian
many people (even I) have fallen into the trap of doing the maths wrong. believe me its wrong. However I and very other nay sayer would happy to be proved wrong if you could demonstarte it? i hope you did this before the patent application.
TK
there is a way of doing this...you can do the numbers if you like Tk..using natural osmotic pressures in a tank with stratafied salinity....if you want the details let me know.
Mark
He either has something or he does not.
Put up or shut up. Why be even a little bit nice to this person. He is not what he claims or does not have what he claims. Attention Ho from what I can see.
This used to be posted on the Eskimo web site by some fool that railed on about wacking some kid with a poorly designed seat rail on a school bus. Is that you Brian?
This thread is not even worthy of trolling but hey, at least it is something.. It's been a bit slow lately. Thank God for Lawrence Tseung's cop >280 claim!
cola,
How much does 10 cu. ft. of water weight? 630 lbs.?
It rather depends on where and how you weigh it, doesn't it? For example, if you weigh it IN THE WATER it weighs nothing. But it doesn't matter, you could be running your device in liquid mercury, it still wouldn't work. Why? There are lots of reasons. Here's another one: there is no source of energy in your device, but there are plenty of drains of energy: all the drag and friction. So, you can spin it with external power but when you stop, it stops. Gravity is not an energy source, and as an energy store, it can only give back what you put in, minus losses.
brian, getting a patent really does not mean much. There does not have to be utility, they don't have time to check all of the patent applications that come in for that. All they do is to check if someone has come up with an idea before. They don't even check to see if it works or what powers it. The only time they do check is if someone blatantly claims that here device is over unity or perpetual motion. As long as you hide that claim they won't even bother doing the math to see if it works. This is a fact that many over unity scam artists know. They will claim they have a patented over unity device, but if you ever read their patent application it says no such thing about it being one. If they really believed in their nonsense they would be shouting it from the roof tops, not trying to hide it in some verbage.
To get a patent
on a invention the invention must have what the patent office calls utility. Utility means some value. Or to put it differently a invention
that does not have any value is not patentable. Therefore the U.S. patent office thinks these gravity powered machines have some value.
Quote from: brian334 on January 13, 2011, 03:51:47 PM
To get a patent
on a invention the invention must have what the patent office calls utility. Utility means some value. Or to put it differently a invention
that does not have any value is not patentable. Therefore the U.S. patent office thinks these gravity powered machines have some value.
You already claimed that, that does not make it any more true this time than last time. Post a link that supports this claim. This should be easy for you since you seem to be familiar with the patenting procedure.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 10, 2010, 02:21:29 PM
.
Referring to Reply #1 :
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=u93SAAAAEBAJ&dq=patent:7770389&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=0&as_miny_ap=&as_maxm_ap=0&as_maxy_ap=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=10
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7770389.pdf
(14pp, 489 KB)
Don't think you're all alone. That error message happens to me as well. http://www.pat2pdf.org is a lot more reliable than the GOOGLE Advance Patent Search.
REEDIT:Hmmmmm, strange. The first reply #1 was what came up when I clicked on the thread in my Recently Updated Topics list, even though this thread is at least 7 pages long. Don't know why it did that. It shouldn't have. Strange, as I said.
--Lee
Quote from: brian334 on January 13, 2011, 03:51:47 PM
To get a patent
on a invention the invention must have what the patent office calls utility. Utility means some value. Or to put it differently a invention
that does not have any value is not patentable. Therefore the U.S. patent office thinks these gravity powered machines have some value.
The first half of your post is true (about utility), the second part is not... Nowadays, they patent anything, as long as you pay them (the authorities) the fee....
There are literally hundreds of thousands of "worthless patents" currently valid ...
So, what's the difference?
Patents are mostly "The Joke of the week" stuff...
???
Here's a patent that describes something that actually works:
Method of swinging on a swing
United States Patent 6368227
A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2011, 07:10:03 AM
Here's a patent that describes something that actually works:
Method of swinging on a swing
United States Patent 6368227
A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.
I saw the patent and the 2 reference patents. I don't see how this one improved on what someone already had invented. To get a patent, something usually has to be improved over "prior art", in most cases, right?
Who is going to improve on demonstrably obvious physics? A "swing" is about as simple as inventions come. ::)
--Lee
You can get a patent on a improvement of a invention , or you can get a patent on a new invention. I have a patent on a new invention.
Some people that post here can not understand any thing more complicated than a swing.
Today an invention does not have to be an "improvement". It only has to be different from preceding patents. They don't even bother with working models, unless someone claims over unity. You could combine a radio and a swing set and claim it improves reception. If the idea is original you can get a patent for it. It does not matter how stupid it is. I have not seen the OP's patents yet, but I am willing to bet sight unseen that he made no claims of over unity in its description.
Can you give us examples of what you are talking about?
My example was purely hypothetical. I found your patent, with description, but without illustrations it was impossible to decipher. Does anyone have links to illustrations of this thing? The language describing it was confusing to say the least.
The question is how fast will machine # 2 spin as it falls?