Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Perpetum mobile vs. free energy patents - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Jack on September 23, 2003, 8:46 pm
But if an inventor calls his/her alleged perpetual motion machine
free-energy generating machine/technology ?

Ivan Lucas wrote:

Most free-energy technologies generate some extra energy to put a
specified machine into perpetual motion.
Free-energy is latest buzz for alleged perpetual motion machines.
You don't need perpetual motion machine but free-energy generating
machine or technology to put a machine in perpetual motion, having good
cause to claim you have invented perpetum mobile.

perpetual motion machine = free-energy + a machine

so if generated energy is free, so you have got your perpetual motion

So if only UK patent offices considers free-energy inventions,
so considers perpetual motion machines too.

It is up to an inventor, to develop new free-energy generating
technology to have a perpetual motion machine built and ready for


Posted by Alec Chiasson on November 7, 2003, 6:12 pm


Perpetuus Fraudulentus

Posted by David Kiewit on September 20, 2003, 12:08 pm
machine which will not

Only after an infinitely long examination.

And I bet you thought the USPTO's 2 year average pendancy was long!

David Kiewit, Reg. Patent Agent
(1) 727 866 0669
5901 Third Street South
St. Petersburg FL US 33705

Posted by Francis Lorin on October 20, 2003, 5:01 am
 On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:02:35 +0200, Jack

examiners at the patent office usually have no absolute way of knowing
whether something is a perpetual motion device or whether it even
works as stated in the specification of the application - given the
higher production requirements and the larger size of the patent
databases to search, examiners really don't have time (and some simply
don't know how) to determine whether an invention violates natural
laws, e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

However, if the words "perpetual motion" or something similar to it,
are actually used in the application in reference to the invention,
the examiner has an obligation to reject the application on grounds
that a perpetual motion device is intended, citing 35USC101

regarding the Great Tesla's efforts to produce "free energy", e.g.,
Wardenclyffe tower on Long Island in the early 1900's, he was actually
proposing to transfer/convert energy already available in low
frequency waves deep in the earth's crust into electrical energy that
can be directed to geographical locations (like Tunguska in 1908?)
where it was needed the most - that's not quite "perpetual", although
it may appear to be - no natural laws are violated - however to
Tesla's dismay, his idea violated the laws of capitalism, according to
JP Morgan, and his research into free energy for all was aborted

Fran Lorin

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread