From: derek@prz.tu-berlin.de (Dirk Kuhlmann) Subject: Re: Anyone EVER patent a Perpetual Motion Device? Sender: news@prz.tu-berlin.de (Newsadmin Elwood-PRZ) Message-ID: <1994Feb27.180808.18420@prz.tu-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 18:08:08 GMT References: <1994Feb23.161147.25209@microplex.com> Organization: PRZ TU-Berlin Lines: 258 Xref: columba.udac.uu.se sci.physics:1937 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:257 sci.energy:604 alt.conspiracy:1727 alt.alien.visitors:1210 In article alkotz@mail.mmmg.com (Art Kotz) writes: > >In article <1994Feb23.161147.25209@microplex.com>, hsk@microplex.com >(Harjeet Kalsi) wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello Everyone! >> >> Sorry if this is a silly question, but I was just wondering if anyone >> has *ever* managed to get a patent on a "perpetual motion" or "free energy" >> device? (even though something like that is not possible). >> >> Regards, >> >> Harjeet >> hsk@microplex.com > >I haven't heard of any patent applications that have been granted, but I >know the patent office regularly gets applications - I've seen some that >make you think a bit to explain why they don't work. Of course you can >always patently (pun not intended) say perpetual motion is impossible, but >to analyze the system and show the flaw in the reasoning takes some effort >sometimes. I don't know of any patent granted for a 'perpetual motion device', but there is a patent for an "ELECTROSTATIC ENERGY FIELD POWER GENERATING SYSTEM". It was granted to William W. Hyde, 1685 Whitney, Idaho Falls Id. 83402 on Jan. 30, 1990 under US. Pat. No. 4,897,592. Hyde does not explicitely mention he invented a perpetuum mobile, but the claim seems to be 'hidden' in the patent text on page 5: [...] since there is no net change in capacitance thereby enabling the system to convert energy with a reduced input of mechanical energy and high efficiency, as evidenced by minimal loss of charge on the electrodes. It was therefore found that working embodiments of the present invention require less than ten percent of the electrical output energy for the mechanical input. Although you need a second energy input to maintain an electical field, this seems to be neglectible since the field is static. I wonder whether anyone could comment on this. You can get the patent text and the corresponding technical drawings via ftp at phoenix.oulu.fi (130.231.240.17) as /pub/free_energy/HYDEPTNT.ZIP and /pub/free_energy/HYDEPTNT.doc In HYDEPTNT.doc, Stefan states about the patent: It seems to be simular to the Methernitha machine, but I really don't know if the Hyde machine works.. I never did hear any info from any witness of the Hyde machine... Neither do *I* know anything specific about Hyde's device. Can anybody out there in the U.S. try to track down this and possibly contact the inventor himself? I understand that Hyde's patent claim does *not* imply a working model, since in article mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes: > >alkotz@mail.mmmg.com (Art Kotz) writes: > >>Do you need a working model of an invention for a patent? My guess is >>probably not, since people are attempting to patent these kinds of things >>regularly. Anyone know if this is true? > >What I heard is that the U.S. Patent Office has dropped its "working >model" requirement *except* in the specific case of perpetual motion >machines. However, this only applies to things that are *called* >perpetual motion machines, so if you call the thing a "free energy device" >or "hypno-magnetic vacuum extractor" or what have you, it's easier to >get it patented. OK, now what's about the 'Methernitha' machine mentioned by Stefan? Again, my sources are rather poor. I am citing from an open letter which I came across some weeks ago (Message-ID <94036.235726SRK106@psuvm.psu.edu>): > :The original is published in DEUTSCHE PHYSIK, No. 7. > > DEUTSCHE PHYSIK > International Journal on Fundamental Physics > > 10 October 1992 > > > Stefan Marinov > East-West Publishers > Morellenfeldgasse 16 > A-8010 Graz, Austria > > Telefon 0316/377093 > Telefax 0316/835015 > > [... lots of stuff deleted] > > Paul Baumann (photograph on p. 8), a simple Swiss peasant, who today is > the spiritual head of the Christian Community METHERNITHA in the village > Linden, near Bern, was sentenced for 7 years by a false accusation. In > the prison, in the year 1978, he constructed the first functioning > perpetuum mobile on our planet, the machine TESTATIKA (photograph on p. > 9). Of this machine dozens of prototypes are built. I give in DEUTSCHE > PHYSIK, No. 4, the picture of the machine with diameter of the disk 2 m, > > which will continuously deliver 30 kW electrical power (the machine on > p. 9 has only one disk with diameter 20 cm and delivers some 200 W). > > I am member of the community. In March 1989 I tested two machines > TESTATIKA. It is besides any doubt that TESTATIKA is a perpetuum mobile, > which moreover delivers a great quantity (in comparison with its size > and weight) of free energy. I dedicated to this machine the fifth volume > of my series THE THORNY WAY OF TRUTH. A half an hour video was > registered which everybody can receive. > [...] For jpeg-pictures about the devices mentioned you may try ftp at phoenix.oulu.fi (130.231.240.17), /pub/free_energy and have a look at FRONT.JPG GARDEN.JPG MARINOV.JPG NEW30KW.JPG 10KWWORK.JPG 3KWFRONT.JPG 3KWREAR.JPG There is also a short mpeg movie TESTATIK.MPG which shows some construction details of the 'Methernitha' device. Apart from that the pictures and the movies don't _prove_ anything per se, I can't interpret what I see there. Any comments? As for Marinov, the only thing I can say is that the guy is for real. I tracked down his phone Nr. in Graz and spoke to him as well as to people who know him personally. He offers some information material, but it's pretty expensive. Would have to quit smoking to be able to buy them ;-) >Another popular category, which the Patent Office has not seen >fit to restrict, is that of "space drives" like the Dean Drive which >allegedly violate conservation of momentum, through some mechanical or >electrical means. Since most people have heard of energy conservation >but don't have a good handle on the idea of momentum, these sound somewhat >more plausible to the average bureaucrat, I suppose-- or maybe the volume >isn't large enough to justify putting on the kibosh. > >Antigravity devices have also been patented in droves. Except for >perpetual motion, the tendency seems to be to give a device the benefit >of the doubt if nobody can figure out how it's supposed to work. According to my information, at least one such device has been patented in the U.S. I don't have the patent itself, but an article where the source is given. It's up to you, U.S. folks, to debunk it. >Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:17:00 CST >Reply-To: "High Resolution Imaging in Astronomy, > Discussion List" >Sender: "High Resolution Imaging in Astronomy, > Discussion List" >From: "NAME 'Robert E. McElwaine'" >Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft > > > > Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft > > NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on > U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $1.00 per complete copy from > U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA > 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting > it via your local public or university library's inter-library > loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A > SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor > Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971. > > In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side views > of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored to > the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY > possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine, > manufacturing, etc.]. Each oval diagram shows a motor > spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,000 > RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around the > first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,800 > RPM, in the opposite direction. The two outer discs have > extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, as > they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide > extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft. The > central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on > both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very close > contact with the two outer discs. > > I should clarify that each of the two outer discs has > ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed > opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc. > > VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensions > slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the > "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from the > discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION. > > The most important factor making it work is that the > discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST be > made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of the > atoms are of isotopes having "half integral atomic spin", > such as copper (3/2). All other parts, etc., should have a > minority of such atoms. [See the appropriate column of the > table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook of > Chemistry and Physics."] > > Experimenters should use one motor to spin the center > disc, and a 2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer discs, > so their relative speeds can be varied to establish the > needed conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via > "NEGATIVE WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" field > PUSHING AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.). > > > If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon > bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO IT > THE HARD WAY?! > > Your favorite university or research company could make > a big name for itself by making a small model of this work. > > > UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this > IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. > > > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC > I'd like to point out that my interest in this stuff implies neither belief nor disbelief in the possibility of perpetuum mobiles, anti-gravity etc. I'm just curious about the subject, since it has continuously been discussed during the time I am connected to Internet. It should be possible either to debunk or to confirm the claims by collecting sources and personal experiences and eventually carry out experiments. I think this is what should finally be done. Regards Dirk ______________________________________________________________________ Dirk Kuhlmann Technische Universitaet Berlin | voice: +49 (0)30 314-21238 Prozessrechnerverbundzentrale | fax: +49 (0)30 314-21114 Sekr. MA 073 | email: derek@prz.tu-berlin.de Strasse des 17. Juni 136 | or derek@cs.tu-berlin.de 10623 Berlin 12 GERMANY |s=derek;ou=prz;pd=tu-berlin;ad=de ______________________________________________________________________