Jesse McQueen's Power Generator

[wattsup]

@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

[NerzhDishual]

The patent US2006076781A1.pdf is attached.

Best

[hansvonlieven]

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

[wattsup]

@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

[hansvonlieven]

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