Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Engineer needed to analyze a new invention

  1. Sep 10, 2010 #1
    I recently received a patent on a machine designed to convert gravity to mechanical energy.
    The patent # is 7770389, also there is a additional patent
    application. Publication # 20090084106. Both can be viewed at
    the U.S. patent office.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 10, 2010 #2

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You've obviously put a vast amount of work into this. Unfortunately it appears to be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Were you looking for help to point out why the machine will not work?
     
  4. Sep 10, 2010 #3
    yes, please explain why the machines will not work.
     
  5. Sep 10, 2010 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Before even looking at the patent, the principle you describe is a direct violation of the principle of conservation of energy, which is one of the fundamental principles on which a huge amount of physics and applied physics depends. So one doesn't really even need to read it to know it doesn't work.

    But I'm curious (and disappointed in the patent office), so I'll take a look. That said, typically it is against PF policy to debunk PMM's, though the fact that this one got a patent intrigues me and I'm willing to give it some slack for now for instructional purposes and morbid curiosity.
     
  6. Sep 10, 2010 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From the abstract:
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=7770389.PN.&OS=PN/7770389&RS=PN/7770389

    The concept is breathtakingly simple and given the fact that you put years of your life into this and no doubt thousands of dollars, have you ever attempted to build a prototype or do the math to calculate the work in and out?

    And again, I am so disappointed in the USPTO: the concept is simple and the statement is a clear violation of CoE and an obvious version of the common buoyancy motor PMM concept: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/buoyant.htm
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  7. Sep 10, 2010 #6

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In addition to the technical problems and lack of mathematical analysis, the patent contains many grammatical and spelling errors -- so many that it is hard to believe that the patent could issue with them. For example, just in column 1 of the text description:

    "accelerate do to" should be "accelerate due to"

    "builds-up speed, than" should be "builds up speed, then"

    "falling thru" should be "falling through"

    Amazing. What are the qualification requirements for patent examiners these days?
     
  8. Sep 11, 2010 #7

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll be honest, I was having a giggle at the spelling mistakes too, but it was the sheer amount of effort (and presumably money) that had gone into this that shocked me.
     
  9. Sep 11, 2010 #8
    For educational purposes only it should be easy to explain why each of these three patented machines will not work.
     
  10. Sep 11, 2010 #9
    Brian did you factor in the amount of work needed to empty the tank? Remember that the external water level rises as the tank is emptied and just a part of the work input is needed to increase the gravitational potential energy of the water.
    History has shown that all perpetual motion machines are flawed and the problem is that it can be very time consuming to locate those flaws.My advice is steer away from perpetual motion ideas because the chances of success are generally regarded to be non existent.If you are interested in energy conversions why not turn your talents to alternative energy ideas?
     
  11. Sep 11, 2010 #10

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hi Brian,
    Perpetual motion machines are not patentable, but obviously your patent has been issued so for whatever reason, the examiner must have determined it was not a perpetual motion machine. Patents can be issued on mechanisms and systems as long as the claimed utility of those is not for energy creation; that is, as long as you don't say these are perpetual motion devices, the mechanism/system can be patented. However, there's an issue of utility that must be addressed as described by the patent office here:
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_01.htm

    What is blatently out of place here, is that the device shown in Figure 4 and described in columns 4 and 5 of the text, indicate the device is performing work on the "load" (#15 in Fig. 4) but the work input is unclear to me.

    Question: Where is the work input to drive this device?

    Edit: After considerable effort I found where the work input was provided, but certainly it isn't clear from the patent. This is described at the top of column 3 of the text. Apparantly, #39 (cable) pulls on the telescoping cylinder which is driven by #40 (a Wench) that pulls on the cable. So apparently, there's a wench inside the cylinder who has to pull on the cable to extend the cylinder. This would mean it's not a perpetual motion machine at all, it's powered by a wench (poor girl!).....
     
  12. Sep 11, 2010 #11

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That has already been explained... they violate the first (and sometimes second) laws of thermodynamics.
     
  13. Sep 11, 2010 #12
    These are not perpetual motion machines.
    The machines are designed to convert gravity to mechanical energy.
     
  14. Sep 11, 2010 #13
    Maybe the reason the patent office issued the patent is because they think the machines will work.
     
  15. Sep 11, 2010 #14
    Assume the second machine displaces one cubic foot of water and falls
    10 ft. Water weighs about 63 lbs./cu.ft. Make the total weight of the tank
    66 lbs. Put a 63 lb. lead weight in the bottom half of the tank.
    The questions are how fast will the tank spin and will the 63lb lead weight
    have enough momentum to expand the tank?
     
  16. Sep 11, 2010 #15

    Pattent offices don't care if something works or not. They'll patent anything that it doesn't have in its databse already.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  17. Sep 11, 2010 #16

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I just did a quick view of the patent and think it passed through for one reason, I did not see anywhere that #49 was mentioned as a energy transfer function.

    Maybe I just overlooked it ????:smile:

    Ron
     
  18. Sep 11, 2010 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One of three criteria for a patent is that is must be useful. A machine that requires more energ:y input than output is not useful. The fact that a working model has not been constructed or the mathematics has not been done is problematic.

    With so many spelling errors - I noticed others - and missing information, e.g., no definition of Number #49, as well as no mention of (49) in any of the three machines would be sufficient grounds to reject the patent. It is beyond me why this so-called invention was awarded a patent. :rolleyes:
     
  19. Sep 11, 2010 #18
    # 49 was not allowed by the patent office.
     
  20. Sep 11, 2010 #19

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hi Brian,
    Can you explain why this is NOT a perpetual motion machine and doesn't violate conservation of energy and conservation of momentum? Being the inventor, you must understand your invention sufficiently to do that, and then explain what the invention is intended for. Once you do that, you will quickly get help in working out details around the invention, and you'll make us all feel bad for misinterpreting your work. At the moment, everyone thinks your invention is just a perpetual motion machine that *somehow* got patented.
     
  21. Sep 11, 2010 #20
    Perpetual motion machines make energy, my invention does not make energy. It converts one form of energy into another. Gravity energy into mechanical energy.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Engineer needed to analyze a new invention
Loading...