Hi Umit,

Yes it is better not to have any connection with companies like Steorn or those people you listed, I agree. 

If you do not mind, I would show you a link to a patent (from 1995 by Pavel Imris) which also works with permanent magnets and gravity. I attached below Figure 5 from it to see how the setup looks like. Patent language is in German and the European Patent office has a free online machine translation service by clicking on first the Description icon in the left hand side Menu and then you can see patenttranslate in red icon above the full German text. By clicking on red icon, you will have the machine translation in English in a new window. Here is the link to the Bibliographic data and to see the full patent with all the Figures you can click on the Original document on the left hand side Menu too. This is the link:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950201&CC=EP&NR=0637120A1&KC=A1 

I am sure you will understand the principle for this setup and I would like to read your opinion whether the principle is correct at all or it leads to a sure failure?

Very briefly for those not getting the principle: the rotor wheel #22 is supposed to rotate clockwise because magnet #31 on it (shown at the 3 o'clock position) is repelled out radially by magnet #31' hence its rotary torque effect onto the shaft is higher than that of magnet #32 (shown at the 9 o'clock position) which (due to the spring on its left side) is shifted radially closer towards the shaft.
The repel force between the left hand side magnets #32 and #32' is weakened strongly by the ferromagnetic side walls #28 (which cover one half of the rotor wheel) so the spring can push magnet #32 closer to the shaft, making an unbalance for the wheel.
Of course this unbalance is also weakened by the pull forces of these magnets towards the ferromagnetic sidewalls but it may be compensated for by using heavier (in weight) magnets.
There seems to be two sticky points at the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions but one is compensated by the other: when magnets at the 12 o'clock position are to exit (clockwise) from the gap between the two parallel ferromagnetic plates, they are tended to be kept there by the natural attraction to the ferromagnetic sidewalls and retard or break the rotation of the wheel, however, the magnets at the 6 o'clock position are just to enter into the gap between the ferromagnetic plates so they are naturally attracted clockwise, reducing the break force at the 12 o'clock position.
The spring at the 3 o'clock position is pushed by the repel force between magnets #31 and #31' when these magnets are outside of the ferromagnetic plates and this spring will release this repel force the moment the magnets enter into the gap between the plates, pushing  the outside magnet closer to the rotor shaft, providing unbalance for the rotor.
I hope my description is understandable.  Of course this is not really a high RPM setup, though using more magnet arms than 4 (as is shown) may increase speed and torque.

Regards,  Gyula

@umit:

You will be offended, but you are a model case in the OU world.

Situation 1): An inventor invents something and files a patent. This allows to show the invention to many people because the invention is protected by the patent. By showing the invention to many people the inventor learns about the shortcomings and advantages of his invention and can make informed decision.

Situation 2): An inventor invents something and tries to keep it a secret. This makes it impossible to show the invention to many people. The inventor can never find out about the shortcomings and advantages of his invention and gets lost in a dream world.

Inventors of "strange machines" tend to stay in "Situation 2)". This helps them to keep up an illusion. For many it is more desirable to keep on dreaming than to face reality. There might be some benefit in the "strange machine", but also this benefit will never be proven, because of the secrecy which prohibits independent tests and measurements.

Our world is complicated, therefore "Situation 1)" is also no guarantee for success. To file and to legally defend a patent is very expensive, and most people will not be able to afford that. In many cases the world will just ignore the invention, and all the money spent on the patent will be for nothing. This happens with the majority of patents. Patents for "strange machines" are almost always ignored.

So, "Situation 1)" and "Situation 2)" both pose grave problems. What is the right way to proceed after having invented a "strange machine"? Well, there is no right and simple way.

My personal opinion (an there is no guarantee that I am right) is "total openness". Show the "strange machine" to everybody and help many people to replicate and measure the "strange machine". What will happen? So far, every "strange machine" did not work as intended after careful measurements by independent parties. Only by prohibiting careful measurements and by holding a "secret" legends and rumours are kept up for many years, in some cases even for centuries (e.g. Bessler wheel or Tom Bearden).

In my opinion "total openness" is mainly a way for the inventor to protect himself from illusions and false conceptions. Of course I am talking about an honest inventor. A person interested in crime, will do everything to promote an illusion or to swindle. But the fraudsters are not interesting, one just has to avoid them, problem solved.

Most often the inventor of a "strange machine" worries about that his "idea" will be stolen and used by others for personal gain. Well, that happens to all good ideas (not only to "strange machines"). No matter what you invent (a conventional machine or a strange machine), it will be most difficult to make a profit from it. And the vast majority of inventors never make a profit from their invention. Per year about 250.000 patents are filed with the European Patent office, and how many of these "inventors" make a profit? If a profit is made, it is most likely a company and not a lone inventor. But the vast majority of patents filed by companies also make no profit. "Patent" is almost a synonym for "no profit", statistically speaking.

Therefore, statistics also speaks for "total openness", even for a conventional invention not only for strange inventions. A lone inventor has the best chance for success by sticking to "total openness". But there are no guarantees, like with everything in life.

Being a lone inventor is a very hard choice. Most good engineers work for a company and their inventions are turned into a profit by the company. The good engineer at least gets a good salary. You might not like this situation, but it is reality.

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: This theme pops up at least three times every year. So nothing I said is new. To stick to "Situation2)" seems to be the nature of OU-inventors.

I know everything, steorn yildiz the canadian the australians the german that is in prison etcetera.
I dont want to involve in such things.

Umit

You asked for a company and you gave yourself the right answer: there is no company! And if there is such a company, stay away from it.

I really would love to hear your comment if we lived in the passed, when the air plaine whas not invented yet, or televesion not invented yet.

For sure you would say,,you are a scam, only birds fly, and a television hahahahaha only a theatre with a box around it can be made and nothing else.

Progress comes from good ideas which have been checked many times by many people. The important thing about "good ideas" or "inventions" is that they are measured, tested and checked many times by independent parties. If independent measurements and tests are confirming the ideas and if independent checking is also showing what is claimed, we have progress.

People publish their findings and if other people can repeat these findings independently, we have progress.

I hope you see that secrecy can not provide progress, because the independent checks can not be done.

One way to avoid "secrecy" is to file a patent. For many reasons you do not want to do that. And I agree, I would also not file a patent as a lone inventor.

Now I repeat what I want to say:

You yourself found out that there is no company which can help you. (And I agree.)

You yourself do not want to spend money on a patent. (And I agree.)

My suggestion is therefore "total openness".

And this suggestion is logically and practically sound even if I am the worst and most negative person on earth. My worst personal habit is to try to tell the truth. Many people a very much offended by truth. And I am myself offended if someone tells the truth about my actions.

Greetings, Conrad

My argument is: file a patent or be totally open.

Now you tell us that you want a patent. Fine, do that!

You identified problematic companies. Now you tell us, that you hope to find a good company in a problematic business segment. Fine, do that!

I am sorry that I can not help you to file a patent and that I can not help you to find a good company in a business segment that never produced a good company.


My contributions in this thread about "patents" and "total openness" make sense in a more general way. I am sorry that you see everything linked to you personally.

And you are right, I was rude. But I easily get upset if someone says "I have something extraordinary but I can not tell you what it is and how it works". I am convinced that this is a silly way to talk. You might not have said that directly, but you for sure insinuated it.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Umit,

Well I would like to know your opinion on the setup shown in that patent whether its working principle makes it possible to operate on its own as described.  Of course I fully aware of how hard to answer this question without building it but I thought you have already a setup working on permanent magnets and gravity just like this setup so chances are you have a much better insight and judgement by just taking a glimpse on it.  I also know that there must be a number of ways to utilize magnetism and gravity, not just like this setup or your own setup.

Unfortunately I am not aware of anybody who already built this and what they found, and I have not done so either. My opinion is that this principle has a chance to work on its own: when the magnets are on the right hand side of the wheel (i.e. away from the parallel ferromagnetic plates) the repel force can defeat the spring and shifts the outer magnet radially away from the shaft, and when the magnets are inside the paralell plates, the spring (due to the much less repel force) is able to release its pushing force acquired in the outside position and the outer magnet is shifted closer to the shaft, thus unbalancing the wheel. Maybe you can tell something just by a glimpse what I am not yet aware of which may sweep all my belief away. At least, this setup is the one which I consider as having a chance for operating on its own at all, out of the many hundreds or thousands of setups which are a nonsense in this respect, be it in a patent or shown on youtube, whatever.

So this is why I asked your opinion.

rgds, Gyula

Why should I openly showing things, or announcing things, are you mad?

@Umit: I am using your threat to discuss a very interesting phenomena in the OU world. In a way it is about you because you are strongly exhibiting this phenomena. But I see this phenomena almost in all threads where a so called "OU invention" is alleged. So please, stay cool. I know, it is not polite to do this to your thread and to you. But this phenomena is so very wide spread that it should be discussed. And yes, I have nothing better to do at the moment, sorry. And I apologise if I again say something about you (implicitly) which you did not say (explicitly).


The phenomena is: Why should i openly show things, or announce things, are you mad?

This sentiment is of course the motivation behind all patents. It is the general feeling of many people in our capitalistic world, that every idea worth something should be used to make money and therefore has to be protected by a patent or by keeping it secret.

I accept that and do not want to condemn capitalism here. But let's analyse this sentiment in an OU context.


My opinion is:

Yes, please be so mad and openly disclose your OU invention.

The reasons (according to my may be mad opinion):

1) If you really have invented an OU machine the implications will be staggering (it will be a world changer). Most rules we have now will be obsolete. Your personal fate will be totally unimportant compared to the changes which would overcome us. Nothing will be as it used to be. Politically we will have a total new arrangement of powers. So, whatever plans you have, they will be obsolete. Just try to survive by sharing your OU idea with people of good will. (Attention: I am not of good will, so please do not share your OU idea with me. I am a vile and super greedy capitalist eager to make money even from children and old grand mothers. And I do not expect a world changer, so stay calm, nothing will happen.)

2) If you made a conceptional or logical error you will know very soon if you openly share your invention. This is the most likely case and you will spare yourself a lot of money and grief by discussing your idea openly.

3) If your idea or invention is just unconventional (not really OU, but shows something not known so far) it is also good to share it openly, because you could gain recognition and money by writing a book or making presentations. The big problem is credibility. And you can most easily gain credibility by discussing your idea openly with as many people as possible. There will be no products for a long time, because your idea or invention has to be developed into something useful and you will not be able to do that alone. Also a single company can not do that alone. Only over a long time, after many people have tried your idea or invention, there will be progress and belief in it. All great inventions took many decades to catch on.

4) A big missconception about patents is that one can protect "principles". A "principle" is a discovery: a new law in nature, a new connection between forces in nature or even a new force in nature. One can not protect a "discovery" with a patent, only "devices" based on a discovery can be protected. One can build a million different devices based on a new discovery and there will be a million patents based on a new discovery. And how many of these million patents will be your patents?

So, this is why I believe in sharing a great invention openly, specially if it is some "principle" not known so far. This opinion is not popular, it even causes outbursts of rage if I tell it to OU inventors (or other inventors). In science it is done like this. Scientists always publish their findings and they gain recognition if their findings are confirmed by others.

I am not talking about "conventional inventions" (inventions that stay within conventional science and knowledge). So, for "normal inventions" (containing no contradictions to conventional wisdom), please go and file a patent, please go to companies and try to make money to your hearts content.

But if your idea or invention contradicts conventional science (e.g. by claiming or insinuating OU or by claiming an effect not known so far) please share it with everybody for the above four reasons.

I believe that unconventional ideas can be best promoted (even with personal gain) by discussing them openly. And this shows that I have a very positive world outlook.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Liberty

thank you for the information,

This little information do help me a lot, and i will look at it for sure.

I know, that many people, like the 1 in my treath, is very negative, and force with the nagativity to show openly my project.
If i ask him for his bank details, bank card and pin,he will for 100 percent refuse to give me, it is the same, asking me openly to announce my investment to lose everything with it.

You do good, you made your own website, and working on your project, keep up the good thing, i realy hope you having the breaktrough,and make it production worthly.

Kind regards,
Umit