Passive Power Amplifier Patent US8653903

[lancaIV]

Why we did not get by the inventors and media some promotion about this "Power Amplifier" invention :

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/jsonline/obituary.aspx?pid=160504829

[ZL]

lancaIV,

I don't see any power amplifier at your link. That is an obituary, which mentions the invention of "passive magnetic and dielectric amplifiers". There are countless passive amplifiers, one of them is the transformer. It amplifies either current or voltage if desired, but it is not a power amplifier. A passive amplifier does not mean it is a passive power amplifier.

You have also listed many patents, but giving no thorough explanation about why you are listing them. What is good in them and what is bad. My German is a bit rusty after decades of not using it, so I will not venture to read them. Did any of your listed patents contain an explicit claim that it produces excess power or energy?

There is a widespread misconception among the FE researchers, who think that it is a wise thing to patent an FE device by simply not claiming that it produces free energy, and hoping that this way it will slip under the radar. They think that once the device is patented, no one else can patent the same again, and forbid everyone else to use it.

It can slip through the system of censorship this way, sure. But if the inventor does not claims explicitly that it produces more output power than what it consumes, and that one of the purposes of the invention is exactly the generation of excess energy; then anybody can patent the same device again for this specific purpose, of generating excess energy. Then he can simply lock it away and forbid everyone else to use that device in mass production for generating excess energy. Therefore such a tactic is useless for protecting an FE invention, if one intends to use it as an FE generator.

The judges also asked Mr. Vajda, to please remove the explicit claim from the patent application, that it generates excess energy, and that it violates the law of energy conservation. Then they would have considered to grant him the patent. But Janos told them that if he removes this claim from his patent, then what is the purpose of the device? What is the practical usefulness of the invention? And he was completely right, one should not be shy and afraid to say that "the king is naked" if he is indeed naked.

If the purpose of a patent is only to claim priority for the invention, and offer a channel of accessibility via the patent registry, then is is also good enough to just have a patent application. It is better to have a denied patent application, which claims the truth about excess energy, than having a granted patent about an FE generator which does not claim to produce FE.

[lancaIV]

ZL, United States Patent 8653903 , invented and applied 2012 by  ..... ?
Compare : http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/jsonline/obituary.aspx?pid=160504829


"You have also listed many patents, but giving no thorough explanation about why you are listing them. What is good in them and what is bad. My German is a bit rusty after decades of not using it, so I will not venture to read them. Did any of your listed patents contain an explicit claim that it produces excess power or energy?"

Probably there is a FE device device ,developed by Dr.Pavel Imris,ready to demonstration,
translated the application description and an example value,  from german to english:
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=102013021483&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.1&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en


For example, in row 3 140 V voltage and 6.66 amperes reactive current. At 50 Hz frequency, the reactive power 935 VA and the active power is 850 W. The effective power in the capacitive windings 3, 25, 26 is 24.31 W. All other rows in Table 1 demonstrate the physical and technical function of the invention further , The experimental data in Table 1 illustrate the relationship between the energy used (column g), and the output energy (column f) in the present electrical generator. In technical terms, which is a ratio of energy output to energy input, also called efficiency. The power of the generator according to the invention are professionals in today's state of the art more opposite than skeptical. It is important to know that the physical and CONSULT TECHNICAL feature of this generator is part of a discovery in the field mass-energy relationship. The delivered electrical energy, as documented in Table 1, is one of forms of energy that are not yet known and for many no power size is defined yet, but they are there, really exist and are economically viable for all mankind.

The economic advantages of the invention described herein are readily detectable for any expert. The use of this electric generator is everywhere in business, where electric power is needed. Finally, this energy is clean, does not pollute the environment and it is cheap.




ZL,about your concernings FE and overunity-limit related there is the solution to not applying a patent but only to apply the device as utility model,the disadvantage is the shorter validation of the claims ! But utility models does not get patent office peer-examination !




An offer from patentauction.com ,from Russia :
https://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11451
https://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11462
Created electromagnetic resonance device operating on the principle. Industrial development of serial production will not require any special materials or equipment. Cost of it will be available within each. Now there is a working model that consumes 300 watts of power voltage of 220 volts, increasing it feeds the load capacity of 3000 watts. It can easily be checked at any time. We are ready to sell the technology. Write [Use the button below to contact me] bkb gj ntk +79081285589


Probably a kind of Ankvich-amplifier.

[ZL]

ZL, United States Patent 8653903 , invented and applied 2012 by  ..... ?
Compare : http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/jsonline/obituary.aspx?pid=160504829

OK, I got your point now. The man in the obituary is one of the inventors of the patent, which is the subject of this thread. Are you convinced that his invention generates FE as described in his patent? Are you willing to test it, either in computer simulation or by building a prototype?

Did you, or anyone you trust has replicated the cited device of Dr Imris? If yes, then did it really generate excess energy as claimed?

There is no shortage of patents, and non patented inventions which promise excess energy generation, either explicitly or implicitly. I have got also a big pile of such material printed on paper, and gigabytes in digital format. Most of them are practically useless in reality; they don't generate any significant quantity of FE (if any at all).

What is rare to find, and sorely missing is reliable and trustworthy proof that these really generate FE, in the form of mathematical proof, or even better as independent replications from honest people, who are not the undercover agents of the energy cartel. Before anybody suggests the site of Naudin (and his ilk), who claims to do just that; just take a look at his MEG replication pages, and then read the comments of honest people about that replication at the link already posted, but here it is again:

http://u2.lege.net/newebmasters.com__freeenergy/external_links_from_phact.org/z/bearden.htm

These comments were made in 2003, and some of the commentators have also warned Naudin about the mistake in his measurement setup. Now it is 2016 and after 13 years did Naudin correct the mistake, and announce the MEG to be fraud? No! So then what does this mean? Should I spell it out? I think it is not necessary...

[Berto3]

For example this comment:

Matthew Zenkar  wrote:
> It would seem that there is no disagreement that Naudin's claim of
> veryifing the MEG is questionable at best, and some find Naudin's
> procedure outright incorrect.

Absolutely. I looked at his stuff a while ago, fully expecting to spend a lot of time searching for something really subtle. So I felt a little cheated when I quickly found a blatant, really elementary error.

To measure the output current of his MEG, he used a 10 ohm shunt resistor. To this he connected an oscilloscope set to display current with a a scale factor of 1000 mA per volt. This gave him current (and output power) readings that were about 10x too high! When you correct for this error, it quickly becomes clear that MEG is a simple transformer operating well below unity. Nothing unusual is happening here.

Naudin actually conceded that he sensed something was wrong with his measurements, as his computed output power was greatly in excess of what his resistive load could safely handle. Yet instead of checking his technique, he simply handwaved the discrepancy away by saying that the excess power must be leaving as electromagnetic radiation! Incredible.

I've gotten myself effectively banned from two MEG-related Yahoo groups, intalek and MEG_builders, by pointing out these mistakes in Naudin's work. Those guys are not at all interested in the truth; theirs is a church, not a scientific research group. Bearden is God, Naudin is the Son of God, and no heresy will be tolerated on pain of excommunication and banishment.