US Patent Office Has Granted Patents for Perpetuum Mobile

[hansvonlieven]

G'day omnibus,

You wanted another patent that violates scientific principles? Well here it is:

US Patent Nr. 709 5126       The patent was granted in 2006 and therefore is current.

In the opening paragraph it states:

?An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.?
   
This in no uncertain terms describes a perpetual motion device, something the patent office says it will not issue patents for. It also violates established scientific principles.

If you want the full patent you can download it here, it is on file on the overunity server.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3130.0/topicseen.html

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

I did a little digging.  Here is another magnet power generator patent (No. 6,362,718):

http://www.google.com/patents?id=-64KAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,362,718

I doubt this one works either.

And about the USPTO and PPMs:  The USPTO has had a longstanding policy that anyone seeking a patent for a perpetual motion device must have a working model.  This policy was put into place because many unscrupulous persons were using the guise of a patent as validation of their technology and were duping investors in this way.

For more info on this as well as more examples of PPMs/energy generators which have been granted patents refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

So Omnibus is partially right in that it is a concern that someone does not use a patent to claim his or her device is legitimate.  However, I hope it is clear now that it is not so much a concern of the USPTO that patents are only granted on workable ideas, because this is clearly not the case, as little effort is made to validate the feasibility of other types of inventions.

Omnibus, if you want the USPTO to be a certifying body, then all I can say is: write your Congressman.

Thanks for the patent but I don't see how an electromagnetic generator is a perpetuum mobile. There is external energy applied in this case, isn't there? Or maybe I'm missing something. I know, however, of several perpetuum mobile patents, including that cited by @hansvonlieven. The patent I'm focusing on here in this thread is the one by Frank Fecera (http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06867514&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D6,867,514.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F6,867,514%2526RS%3DPN%2F6,867,514&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)
because it's the most recent and the most explicit perpetuum mobile device of those I've seen so far.

Contacting my Congressman is certainly something which I'd consider doing, maybe even one of our Senators, Clinton or Schumer. I'd pursue first contacting the USPTO and will keep you posted. This problem shouldn't be left unresolved.

[Omnibus]

Forgot to mention. As far a I know the owner of the patent @hansvonlieven mentions has demonstrated it before the US Patent Office. This patent is also worth pursuing.

[hansvonlieven]

Can't you read???


it says:

?An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.?

The highlighted text makes it clear that this is a perpetual motion device.

The inventor claims that he had a working device which has since been destroyed and he is trying to re-build it. An all too familiar story.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

Can't you read???


it says:

?An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.?

The highlighted text makes it clear that this is a perpetual motion device.

The inventor claims that he had a working device which has since been destroyed and he is trying to re-build it. An all too familiar story.

Hans von Lieven

The patentee said more important things. For instance, that he has demonstrated it to the US Patent Office. I said that, you didn't notice it but I'm repeating it. And yet, I don't think this and other perpetuum mobile patens which I also mentioned I know of are as explicit as the Fecera patent in being really perpetuum mobile. In the patent you quote there must be an external energy source, as very well seen from the boldened text you provide. Fecera, however, explicitly says in his patent:

"There are many instances where a motor action is required and no source of external power is available. Accordingly, a motor which relies solely on the energy stored in permanent magnets would be useful."

In Fecera's patent once the device is constructed there's no need for any external energy for it to turn.

Anyway, as I'd say for the third time, I know there are other perpetuum mobile's, other than that of McQueen and Fecera but of all those Fecera's is the most explicit that I know of in its being a perpetuum mobile and at the same time is fairly recent. Also, it isn't necessary at all to spread oneself too thin. One glaring example of a perpetuum mobile granted by the US Patent Office is enough to raise a red flag. Resolution of this will spread over to everything else.