Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Patent announcement  (Read 42159 times)

brian334

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 633
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2010, 10:32:10 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.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2010, 11:01:51 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.

the_big_m_in_ok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2010, 11:11:38 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
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 11:57:27 PM by the_big_m_in_ok »

brian334

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 633
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2010, 12:11:54 AM »
If I had a working prototype I sure in the hell would not be talking to assholes like you.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2010, 12:43:11 AM »
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.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2010, 01:16:26 AM »
That's not true. That magnetic motor was discussed extensively in this forum. Someone may want to point to the links.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2010, 02:07:42 AM »
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.

bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2010, 03:26:39 AM »
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.

ResinRat2

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
    • Hydrogen Reactor Vids
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2010, 03:46:44 AM »
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
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:15:55 AM by ResinRat2 »

bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2010, 05:53:46 AM »
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.

truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2010, 05:44:11 AM »
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...... :)

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2010, 05:53:54 AM »
Good that you said this:

Quote
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.

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?

truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2010, 09:02:52 AM »
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.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2010, 09:48:20 AM »
>>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

I can explain it.  It was debunked as a fraud/fake on both youtube and Overunity.  why would someone replicate a fake?

Bill

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Patent announcement
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2010, 04:50:59 PM »
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
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 05:27:46 PM by conradelektro »