Gravity & Energy?

[MacM]

Another member posted this reference to my first patent in another thread where it doesn't belong.

http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/McCoinPatent.html

Since it appears to be perpetual motion, but was never considered so and was merely an academic patent, not a practical device, and I've been challenged to discuss it, I've opened this thread.

1 - To consider it you must first know the drawing is incorrect. The diaphragm valve is mis-drawn. It must be thicker than the diameter of the sphere such that the sphere is never exposed to the differential pressure across the valve.

2 - You have to understand this is not considered a viable device. It is merely interesting from a hypothetical view point.

3 - You start by acknowledging that given two surfaces that are polished to near perfection that are placed together with minimal clamping force can seal thousands of pounds pressure. That is the sealing force needed does not have to be equal or higher than the differential pressure placed across the surfaces.

4 - The flexiable valve hypothetically is made of a virtually friction free material as is the coating on the spheres. Minimal enough to be disregarded for this hypothetical exercise.

5 - The valve is inflated and forms a seal between two chambers. Fluid is introduced into the lower chamber and pressure is pumped in to cause the fluid to rise up one side of the closed chamber.

6 - Spheres in the chamber were designed such that the cummulative buoyancy of a stack in the column pushes one sphere out of the chamber and it rolls over into a free-fall chamber.

7 - There is one sphere left in the lower end of the fluid column just below the valve.

8 - The kenetic energy of the falling sphere impacts the valve and is slowed. The valve acts like a chicken laying an egg. The weight of the sphere causes it to slide down through the valve since it is not exposed to the differential pressure across the valve. And valve pressure is much lower than the differential pressure across it.

9 - The pressure in the valve is set so as to absorbe virtually all the kenetic energy and that pressure is also applied to a piston with a sprague clutch (rachet) output device such that any displacement of air in the valve causes rotation of a shaft.

10 - There is also a large chamber between the bottom of the valve and the lower end of the fluid column. It serves to mitigate disturbing the fluid column height as spheres enter and leave the high pressure chamber.

11 - When the falling sphere enters the lower high pressure chamber it's weight is designed to be sufficient to submerge the sphere resiting in the fluid until it rolls around into the stack and once again applies it's bouyancy to the stack pushing another sphere over the top to continue the cycle.

12 - Now assuming this hyopothetical valve could be constructed it demonstrates an energy output. Buoyancy (inverted gravity function) lifts the sphere to the high potential. Gravity then converts that potential into kenetic energy which would be converted into mechanical energy output.

For those that scream "Perpetual Motion" that is not the case. The idea of the design is to demonstrate that gravity is in fact a pushing gravity based on energy flow and absorbtion by mass.

The definiton of perpetual motion is once set in motion it remains in motion with no outside power applied.

Universal energy would be outside power and hence this would NOT be perpetual motion.

BTW: The patent office required specific materials to fit the buoyancy/gravity requirements, etc, That is why they are large plastic coated pine wood balls in water.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by MacM

For those that scream "Perpetual Motion" that is not the case.

Is there a pump that does work to maintain the pressure? If not, it's obviously a perpetual motion device. If so, it's simply a Rube Goldberg machine powered by the pump. Either way it's uninteresting (and embarrassing for the patent office).

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MacM

8 - The kenetic energy of the falling sphere impacts the valve and is slowed. The valve acts like a chicken laying an egg. The weight of the sphere causes it to slide down through the valve since it is not exposed to the differential pressure across the valve. And valve pressure is much lower than the differential pressure across it.

Since, as the sphere is part way through the valve, its upper hemisphere is exposed to a pressure of 0.4psi and its lower hemisphere is exposed to a pressure of either 32psi or 11.25psi (the drawing isn't exactly clear on this), the bolded part is incorrect.

Dave

[edd]

Originally Posted by MacM

2 - You have to understand this is not considered a viable device. It is merely interesting from a hypothetical view point.

This is not intended as a criticism, but why did you bother to patent something that had no practical value?

I mean, Schrodinger wouldn't have bothered patenting a Device For Executing Cats, as noone would bother making and selling one on the sly.

[Horatius]

Since MacM has said the diagram in the link provided, is incorrect, here's a link to the actual patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=dnZ...J&dq=3,292,365

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by MacM

1 - To consider it you must first know the drawing is incorrect. The diaphragm valve is mis-drawn. It must be thicker than the diameter of the sphere such that the sphere is never exposed to the differential pressure across the valve.

I'm wondering how you reconcile this assertion with the dimensions of the valve and the spheres recited in Col. 5, lines 4-5 ("Valve 40 should be about two feet thick") and lines 15-17 ("Pinewood spheres ... having a diameter of four and eight-tenths feet"), which seems to show that the spheres are significantly larger than the thickness of the valves.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'm wondering how you reconcile this assertion with the dimensions of the valve and the spheres recited in Col. 5, lines 4-5 ("Valve 40 should be about two feet thick") and lines 15-17 ("Pinewood spheres ... having a diameter of four and eight-tenths feet"), which seems to show that the spheres are significantly larger than the thickness of the valves.

It doesn't actually matter what the relative thicknesses of the sphere and the valve are. It's impossible for the sphere to pass through the valve without being exposed to the differential pressure across it; in fact, geometrically it's utterly nonsensical.

MacM, please feel free to post a series of drawings that shows otherwise.

Dave

[MacM]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Is there a pump that does work to maintain the pressure? If not, it's obviously a perpetual motion device. If so, it's simply a Rube Goldberg machine powered by the pump. Either way it's uninteresting (and embarrassing for the patent office).

our question assumes leakage through the valve. Hypothetically there would be none hence no pump required.

I find it fascinating that you would defer this question into the "Perpetual Motion" file and say it is embarassing to the patent office, rather than realize that it rather suggests that gravity is associtaed with a universal energy.

Since you have taken the position you have I feel you didn't find any viable arguement against it's function.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since, as the sphere is part way through the valve, its upper hemisphere is exposed to a pressure of 0.4psi and its lower hemisphere is exposed to a pressure of either 32psi or 11.25psi (the drawing isn't exactly clear on this), the bolded part is incorrect.

Dave

Please go back and read #1. The sphere is never exposed to the pressure differential across the valve. The valve is mis-drawn.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by MacM

Since you have taken the position you have I feel you didn't find any viable arguement against it's function.

Why would we need to make any more arguments against its function? You admit yourself that it doesn't function.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by edd

This is not intended as a criticism, but why did you bother to patent something that had no practical value?

I mean, Schrodinger wouldn't have bothered patenting a Device For Executing Cats, as noone would bother making and selling one on the sly.

Since 1954 I had envisioned the UniKEF concept. Inspite of any or all criticisims that may (and usually are) made the concept had caused me to make several priori predictions which over the years were discovered and became accepted. Enough so that I became convinced that gravity has a mechanical explanation and is a function of energy flow.

This patent was an attempt to formalize that possibility. It happens that it was issued while I was in Nuke school and the Prof nick named me "Frictionless Freddie" which brought some humor to the class so one day I made him a challenge.

I asked him if he was familiar with the tital dams. He replied he was. I pointed out tht as the tides came in they produced power then when the tides went out they again produced power.

He replied but the tides are the energy source. I asked well what causes the tides and he replied "Well the moon of course". To which I asked "How does the moon cause tides?"

Turning a bit red he sheepishly said "Grativity".

Now I understand that the tides are affecting the earth's rotational period and the drag on the moon is causing it's orbit to change. But all of this is evidence that gravity is doing work naturally in a balanced push-pull enviornment.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Since MacM has said the diagram in the link provided, is incorrect, here's a link to the actual patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=dnZ...J&dq=3,292,365

The patent is also availble at the bottom of the original link posted. The valve is also mis-drawn there.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I'm wondering how you reconcile this assertion with the dimensions of the valve and the spheres recited in Col. 5, lines 4-5 ("Valve 40 should be about two feet thick") and lines 15-17 ("Pinewood spheres ... having a diameter of four and eight-tenths feet"), which seems to show that the spheres are significantly larger than the thickness of the valves.

My major screw up. But concentrate on the description provided. That is where the interest is.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It doesn't actually matter what the relative thicknesses of the sphere and the valve are. It's impossible for the sphere to pass through the valve without being exposed to the differential pressure across it; in fact, geometrically it's utterly nonsensical.

MacM, please feel free to post a series of drawings that shows otherwise.

Dave

How do you post sketches here?


!------------!-----------!
!.................!...............!
!...............X!X.X...........!
!..............X.!.....X.........!
!.............X.........X........!
!.............X..!.....X.........!
!...............X!..X............!
!------------!-----------!

Not exactly round but you should get the idea.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Why would we need to make any more arguments against its function? You admit yourself that it doesn't function.

It is an exercise in academics. If you assume the requisite qualities of the valve then gravity is shown to be a function of energy tranfer.

Even if the damn thing actually worked physically it would not be practical because you would need a machine bigger than your house to power your house.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by MacM

How do you post sketches here?


!------------!-----------!
!.................!...............!
!...............X!X.X...........!
!..............X.!.....X.........!
!.............X.........X........!
!.............X..!.....X.........!
!...............X!..X............!
!------------!-----------!

Not exactly round but you should get the idea.

I see. By simple hydrostatics, therefore, the pressure differential between the two hemispheres, at the point where the ball has exactly half entered the valve, is not 10.85psi but 31.6psi, the difference between the 32psi in the valve bladder and that in the low pressure region of the motion space. This arises from the fact that the pressure inside the valve bladder is transmitted to the ball due through the flexible material. Therefore, far from never being exposed to the pressure difference across the valve, the ball is exposed to nearly three times that pressure difference.

Dave

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by MacM

If you assume the requisite qualities of the valve then gravity is shown to be a function of energy tranfer.

Exactly. If I assume that the Moon is made of green cheese, it would taste quite good on toast. If you assume something that is not actually true, you come to a conclusion that is not actually true. Not really that amazing.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by MacM

our question assumes leakage through the valve. Hypothetically there would be none hence no pump required.

Hypothetically, the laws of physics are wrong and we could build perpetual motion machines.

Quote:

I find it fascinating that you would defer this question into the "Perpetual Motion" file and say it is embarassing to the patent office, rather than realize that it rather suggests that gravity is associtaed with a universal energy.

Yes, it's "fascinating" - to a crank.

By the way, gravity is a conservative force. Do you know what that means?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It doesn't actually matter what the relative thicknesses of the sphere and the valve are. It's impossible for the sphere to pass through the valve without being exposed to the differential pressure across it; in fact, geometrically it's utterly nonsensical.

MacM, please feel free to post a series of drawings that shows otherwise.

Dave

Remember that I'm approaching this from the point of view of a patent professional. We're required by law to believe pretty much everything we can't demonstrate is actually flawed. So, I'm examining his patent purely in light of what the document says, and what he says about the document and the technology, to see if there are any inconsistencies. Showing that something can't possibly work is hard; showing that his document is internally inconsistent, or is at least inconsistent with other statements he's made, is much easier. Hey, it's Government work!

Originally Posted by MacM

My major screw up. But concentrate on the description provided. That is where the interest is.

That's where I got the information I quoted - not the diagrams. The dimensions cited in Col. 5 of the description are inconsistent with what you've stated in this thread. Did you discover this requirement after the patent was issued? Or is there a discussion of the dimensions in the description that I missed?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Remember that I'm approaching this from the point of view of a patent professional. We're required by law to believe pretty much everything we can't demonstrate is actually flawed. So, I'm examining his patent purely in light of what the document says, and what he says about the document and the technology, to see if there are any inconsistencies. Showing that something can't possibly work is hard; showing that his document is internally inconsistent, or is at least inconsistent with other statements he's made, is much easier.

Are you allowed to use the laws of physics to demonstrate something can't work? If so, this one is very easy.

If you could really make the valve function as claimed, the machine will run forever, extracting energy from the gravitational field. But that violates several basic laws of physics. The most obvious is Newton (or Einstein's) law of gravity, which tells us that the work done by gravity around any closed loop is zero.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Are you allowed to use the laws of physics to demonstrate something can't work? If so, this one is very easy.

If you could really make the valve function as claimed, the machine will run forever, extracting energy from the gravitational field. But that violates several basic laws of physics. The most obvious is Newton (or Einstein's) law of gravity, which tells us that the work done by gravity around any closed loop is zero.

Well, that can be tricky. If the applicant is claiming a straight-up PM machine, we can make that sort of argument. However, there is a principle that the applicant cannot be denied a patent just because their theory of how the device operates is wrong, so long as they can show the device operates.

This leads to statements like this one from the OP:

Originally Posted by MacM

The definiton of perpetual motion is once set in motion it remains in motion with no outside power applied.

Universal energy would be outside power and hence this would NOT be perpetual motion.

He's postulated some new "Universal energy" that accounts for the output of the device. Thus, he is not claiming a PM machine, but is instead claiming a new source of energy.

Consider the discovery of radiation back in the late 1800's. No one could explain how, say, Radium, produced energy, but it would have been possible to develop a working device that exploited that energy. They would have been able to get a patent on that device, even if their theory of how radiation works was later shown to be completely wrong.

MacM is essentially asserting that our understanding of gravity is completely wrong, and on that basis, he has created a new energy generating device. Alas, the Patent Office doesn't have the resources to actually test all these devices, and so we are left with playing he-said-she-said with the applicants and everyone else, and in a lot of cases, we're barred from simply rejecting the applicant's assertions out of hand. That's usually left to the Courts, if the patent ever ends up there.

Understanding this is one thing I've been trying to promote, since far too many patentees act as if a patent is a guarantee from the government that their devices actually work, when they are in fact no such thing.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, that can be tricky. If the applicant is claiming a straight-up PM machine, we can make that sort of argument.

But that's what this is!

Quote:

However, there is a principle that the applicant cannot be denied a patent just because their theory of how the device operates is wrong, so long as they can show the device operates.

I'm confused - how could they do that without either

a) building a working model, or
b) making an argument that is consistent with the established laws of physics?

Quote:

He's postulated some new "Universal energy" that accounts for the output of the device. Thus, he is not claiming a PM machine, but is instead claiming a new source of energy.

But anybody could make a claim like that: sure, my device appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but that's because you didn't know about Z&h($&-rays.

Quote:

Consider the discovery of radiation back in the late 1800's. No one could explain how, say, Radium, produced energy, but it would have been possible to develop a working device that exploited that energy. They would have been able to get a patent on that device, even if their theory of how radiation works was later shown to be completely wrong.

Sure - IF they had a working model, or at least experimental evidence that radium produced energy. Otherwise no one would believe it, and they'd be right not to.

I don't understand your standard.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I don't understand your standard.

Welcome to my world!


It's the standard that's been pieced together by many years of court decisions, which are often made by judges who don't understand the science and technology involved.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

But that's what this is!



I'm confused - how could they do that without either

a) building a working model, or
b) making an argument that is consistent with the established laws of physics?

They can claim that they have made a working model. Unless I have evidence to refute that assertion, I'm required by law to believe it.

You read that right.

However, if it can be demonstrated that the applicant has made a materially false allegation during the prosecution of their application, the subsequent patent can be thrown out in its entirety. However, that's a function of the Courts, not of the Patent Office.

Of course, for a fraudulent applicant, this isn't a great worry, as they will never let their patent end up in court, if at all possible.

And yeah, that does suck.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

But anybody could make a claim like that: sure, my device appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but that's because you didn't know about Z&h($&-rays.

And believe me, they do make just such claims. If you're interested, I can dig up a few patents that contain lines that essentially say just that.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Sure - IF they had a working model, or at least experimental evidence that radium produced energy. Otherwise no one would believe it, and they'd be right not to.

No one except the people who are required by law to believe it. Like me.


This is a huge flaw with the patent system as it exists today, and I have been making some efforts to push us (here in Canada, anyways) toward a more skeptical position on such claims, but it's an uphill battle, and it's a battle that ultimately must be fought in the courts, as it was the courts that got us here. Unfortunately, not many people in the patent world are willing to take a stand on this issue, and force such cases to be appealed to the courts.

[edd]

What exactly are the downsides to having non-working patents in the system? Other than it being a waste of time, energy and paper to have them cluttering things up.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by MacM

1 - To consider it you must first know the drawing is incorrect. The diaphragm valve is mis-drawn. It must be thicker than the diameter of the sphere such that the sphere is never exposed to the differential pressure across the valve.

Fault #1: There is no design that can protect the ball from the pressure differential. No matter how you design the valve, there will be a point where the ball transits from the low-pressure area to the high pressure area. The lower part of the ball must pass into the high pressure first; therefore the pressure on the ball will be in the direction up.

2 - *snip*

Quote:

3 - You start by acknowledging that given two surfaces that are polished to near perfection that are placed together with minimal clamping force can seal thousands of pounds pressure. That is the sealing force needed does not have to be equal or higher than the differential pressure placed across the surfaces.

4 - The flexiable valve hypothetically is made of a virtually friction free material as is the coating on the spheres. Minimal enough to be disregarded for this hypothetical exercise.

Fault #2: The clamping pressure/friction ratio is only relevant in terms of system loss. In other words, it is relevant for whether the machine generates more energy than it looses, but not for whether it creates energy. A perpetuum mobile that stops due to friction is still a perpetuum mobile.

Quote:

5 - The valve is inflated and forms a seal between two chambers. Fluid is introduced into the lower chamber and pressure is pumped in to cause the fluid to rise up one side of the closed chamber.

OK

Quote:

6 - Spheres in the chamber were designed such that the cummulative buoyancy of a stack in the column pushes one sphere out of the chamber and it rolls over into a free-fall chamber.

Why only just one?

Quote:

7 - There is one sphere left in the lower end of the fluid column just below the valve.

What is the use of that?

Quote:

8 - The kenetic energy of the falling sphere impacts the valve and is slowed.

More energy uselessly lost.

Quote:

The valve acts like a chicken laying an egg. The weight of the sphere causes it to slide down through the valve since it is not exposed to the differential pressure across the valve.

Already mentioned: This is impossible. The sphere must pass from the low pressure region the the high pressure region. You cannot do this without either:

a: Exposing it to a differential pressure

b: Pumping pressure into the void surrounding it.

Quote:

And valve pressure is much lower than the differential pressure across it.

Fault #3: You cannot make a valve withstand a differential pressure and then open it using a smaller pressure (except by gearing, but then you will have to replace the pressure with movement).

Quote:

9 - The pressure in the valve is set so as to absorbe virtually all the kenetic energy and that pressure is also applied to a piston with a sprague clutch (rachet) output device such that any displacement of air in the valve causes rotation of a shaft.

Is that supposed to be your energy output?

Quote:

10 - There is also a large chamber between the bottom of the valve and the lower end of the fluid column. It serves to mitigate disturbing the fluid column height as spheres enter and leave the high pressure chamber.

Fault #4: You are here acknowleding that the sphere has to enter the high pressure. In other words, it has to displace its own volume of medium under pressure.

Quote:

11 - When the falling sphere enters the lower high pressure chamber it's weight is designed to be sufficient to submerge the sphere resiting in the fluid until it rolls around into the stack and once again applies it's bouyancy to the stack pushing another sphere over the top to continue the cycle.

Fault #5: Impossible. For your machine to work, the sinking sphere must, directly or indirectly, push the top sphere entirely out of the fluid. The down pressure of an object in a fluid is its weight minus the weight of the fluid it displaces. Since the two spheres are identical, they will balance somewhere midway.

Quote:

12 - Now assuming this hyopothetical valve could be constructed it demonstrates an energy output. Buoyancy (inverted gravity function) lifts the sphere to the high potential. Gravity then converts that potential into kenetic energy which would be converted into mechanical energy output.

As explained: No.

Quote:

For those that scream "Perpetual Motion" that is not the case. The idea of the design is to demonstrate that gravity is in fact a pushing gravity based on energy flow and absorbtion by mass.

If the device were to produce energy, it would be a perpetuum mobile, period. You declaring otherwise wil lnot chage that fact.

Quote:

The definiton of perpetual motion is once set in motion it remains in motion with no outside power applied.

Incorrect, although that is an oft stated claim. Perpetual motion is producing a higher energy output than the energy input. That the device may loose energy to simple friction and hence stop, is actually irrelevant.

Quote:

Universal energy would be outside power and hence this would NOT be perpetual motion.

As far as we know, there is no such thing as universal power.

Hans

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by edd

What exactly are the downsides to having non-working patents in the system? Other than it being a waste of time, energy and paper to have them cluttering things up.

If the patent system were being used as intended, there would be no problem. The legal effect of a patent is to allow you to prevent others from practising your invention, so all you would legally have is the right to stop people from building a non-working device - which they most likely wouldn't do anyways.

Even if they were to build the device, and you were to sue them on that basis, the non-functional patent would then likely be thrown out by the courts.


The problem arises in that people don't understand what a patent is, in legal terms, and unscrupulous patentees exploit that lack of understanding to scam people. Quite often, you'll see the patentees using the patent in their advertising, implying that the existence of the patent proves the device works. Alternatively, you see the patentees using the patent to solicit investors. In these cases, the patentee has no interest in going anywhere near the courts, so there is no mechanism to get rid of the improperly issued patent.

[edd]

I see. Thanks!

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Horatius

The problem arises in that people don't understand what a patent is, in legal terms, and unscrupulous patentees exploit that lack of understanding to scam people. Quite often, you'll see the patentees using the patent in their advertising, implying that the existence of the patent proves the device works. Alternatively, you see the patentees using the patent to solicit investors. In these cases, the patentee has no interest in going anywhere near the courts, so there is no mechanism to get rid of the improperly issued patent.

As much fun as it is to make fun of some of the patents out there, I don't know that there's much that can be realistically done to fix the patent system for the reasons you outlined earlier. In essence, the current system doesn't spend huge resources struggling to determine whether a patent is really valid unless there are two parties willing to invest huge resources to fight over it. Should we be spending a lot of resources to determine the validity of each of the thousands of concepts that nobody (except maybe the inventors themselves) really cares about?

Rather than try to fix the patent system, then, I'd say the solution might be better public education. If everyone understood that a patent was really more like a copyright than a gov't seal of approval, maybe patents wouldn't have so much marketing appeal.

On the other hand, I've known people who were impressed with copyrights. I remember a woman boasting that she'd gotten her poem copyrighted.

<sigh>

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

As much fun as it is to make fun of some of the patents out there, I don't know that there's much that can be realistically done to fix the patent system for the reasons you outlined earlier. In essence, the current system doesn't spend huge resources struggling to determine whether a patent is really valid unless there are two parties willing to invest huge resources to fight over it. Should we be spending a lot of resources to determine the validity of each of the thousands of concepts that nobody (except maybe the inventors themselves) really cares about?

Rather than try to fix the patent system, then, I'd say the solution might be better public education. If everyone understood that a patent was really more like a copyright than a gov't seal of approval, maybe patents wouldn't have so much marketing appeal.

On the other hand, I've known people who were impressed with copyrights. I remember a woman boasting that she'd gotten her poem copyrighted.

<sigh>

As I said, it's an uphill battle.

I don't see it as an either/or situation, though. I'm working within the office to promote more skepticism, while also working through venues like the JREF to educate non-patent people about what a patent really means. I'm hoping we can meet somewhere in the middle!

You're right in that we don't have the resources to validate every application that comes through, but at the same time, we don't really need to validate the vast majority of them, as they are usually filed by honest inventors. We need to focus our efforts on those few that are of questionable utility. The problem there is, you risk being accused of treating certain inventors unfairly, and a lot of government employees are seriously risk-averse.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I see. By simple hydrostatics, therefore, the pressure differential between the two hemispheres, at the point where the ball has exactly half entered the valve, is not 10.85psi but 31.6psi, the difference between the 32psi in the valve bladder and that in the low pressure region of the motion space. This arises from the fact that the pressure inside the valve bladder is transmitted to the ball due through the flexible material. Therefore, far from never being exposed to the pressure difference across the valve, the ball is exposed to nearly three times that pressure difference.

Dave

No it isn't and that is the point. Re-read the stipulations. The valve is made to perfectly seal and the pressure inside the diaphragm is not equal or greater that the differential it seals.

Perfectly polished surfaces can seal 10,000 Psi with only ounces of clamping pressure.

The pressure inside the valve is set strictly to absorb the kenetic energy of the free falling sphere.

Further it would be a matter of pneumatics not hydrostatics.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Exactly. If I assume that the Moon is made of green cheese, it would taste quite good on toast. If you assume something that is not actually true, you come to a conclusion that is not actually true. Not really that amazing.

You of course are attemptying to defeat the academics by interjecting real world limits on materials etc.

Let us remember all the hypotheticals you use when talking about SR.

1 - Having sufficient power to push a space craft 0.99c.

2 - Ignoring that space is filled with approximately (1) 1H1 atom/m^3, dust, larger pieces of rock and space junk. Any of whihc would not only create intense air drag but destroy any material know to man used as the hull of a craft.

Every dust particle kenetic energy would be a rather large bomb against the craft.

3 - Crafts that instantly accelerate and decelerate from 0 m/s to 2.85E8 m/s.

So you must look at this as a hypothetical valve and in doing so it becomes clear that gravity must be a function of an energy flow in the universe. If not the hypothetical valve would only produce equilibrium not a net output.

[Uncayimmy]

Mac, by push gravity do you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage...of_gravitation

[MacM]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Hypothetically, the laws of physics are wrong and we could build perpetual motion machines.

Not so. Your bias is showing. You have already discarded any possibility that gravity is a function of an energy flow in the universe.

Assuming it shows a net output then it is NOT perpetual motion it is clearly tapping another energy resource just as is solar power or wind.

The definition of Perpetual Motion is defeated by any net output. I would assume you know and understand the proper definition of Perpetual motion. It requires that there be no external source of power.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Yes, it's "fascinating" - to a crank.

By the way, gravity is a conservative force. Do you know what that means?

So say you but this suggests you are wrong. BTW: have you looked at the gravity testing in my NPA profile. It too suggests you are wrong.

This in fact is a testable difference in our views. According to my view of gravity there is a minor geometric component that is not considered in the standard Newtonian or GR view.

That affect would show a difference in gravitational force than either Newton and GR in the local 1/r^2 range. I've tested it you need to test it.

For example given two cases where all masses are kept equal, and seperation between bodies are at the same "r"

1 - In one case you have two spheres.

and in the other;

2 - Two cubes

Trt it you'll get slightly different forces even though both will calculate the same F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 . Then get back to me. In my testing we actually measured by indirect timing of a Cavendish Balance a change in gravity where it was computed to be about 60 trillionths of a pound differential based on geometry of the same test mass just rotated 90 degrees.

We spent months doing this and got plenty of confirming data.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Remember that I'm approaching this from the point of view of a patent professional. We're required by law to believe pretty much everything we can't demonstrate is actually flawed. So, I'm examining his patent purely in light of what the document says, and what he says about the document and the technology, to see if there are any inconsistencies. Showing that something can't possibly work is hard; showing that his document is internally inconsistent, or is at least inconsistent with other statements he's made, is much easier. Hey, it's Government work!

Hey I think we have had dealings before -

Originally Posted by Horatius

That's where I got the information I quoted - not the diagrams. The dimensions cited in Col. 5 of the description are inconsistent with what you've stated in this thread. Did you discover this requirement after the patent was issued? Or is there a discussion of the dimensions in the description that I missed?

Actually yes. I was a bit to eager to file the idea and missed that crucial difference.

Technically the patent should not have been allowed with the differential pressure being applied across the sphere as it passed from one chamber to the other. I think it was because it claimed Power Conversion, not power generation.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Are you allowed to use the laws of physics to demonstrate something can't work? If so, this one is very easy.

If you could really make the valve function as claimed, the machine will run forever, extracting energy from the gravitational field. But that violates several basic laws of physics. The most obvious is Newton (or Einstein's) law of gravity, which tells us that the work done by gravity around any closed loop is zero.

Well you are starting to see the light. The difference of course is that Einstein and Newton don not hold claim to the title of being absolutely right. So your assumption that this violates some law doesn not falsify the patent.

On the other hand the patent (corrected) could falsify Einstein and Newton.

It is crucial here to keep in mind that this view of gravity has also been tested for a minor difference between UniKEF and them. The difference has been measured in favor of UniKEF.

There is also some calculus that has been done on the local 1/r^2 range. The calculus doesn't prove the concept but it did prove it is a vialbe alternative.

I'll be the first to state that further testing needs to be done to either confirm or falsify the concept. But it is testable.

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by MacM

In my testing we actually measured by indirect timing of a Cavendish Balance a change in gravity where it was computed to be about 60 trillionths of a pound differential based on geometry of the same test mass just rotated 90 degrees.

We spent months doing this and got plenty of confirming data.

Do you mean this experiment?
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.p...=Display&id=38

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, that can be tricky. If the applicant is claiming a straight-up PM machine, we can make that sort of argument. However, there is a principle that the applicant cannot be denied a patent just because their theory of how the device operates is wrong, so long as they can show the device operates.

This leads to statements like this one from the OP:


He's postulated some new "Universal energy" that accounts for the output of the device. Thus, he is not claiming a PM machine, but is instead claiming a new source of energy.

In this regard such considerations are practical engineering problems and the patent office is not equipped to engineer or question general engineering. In that light my hypothetical valve fits that catagory.

But I want to thank you for a clear and concise post on this issue.



Consider the discovery of radiation back in the late 1800's. No one could explain how, say, Radium, produced energy, but it would have been possible to develop a working device that exploited that energy. They would have been able to get a patent on that device, even if their theory of how radiation works was later shown to be completely wrong.

MacM is essentially asserting that our understanding of gravity is completely wrong, and on that basis, he has created a new energy generating device. Alas, the Patent Office doesn't have the resources to actually test all these devices, and so we are left with playing he-said-she-said with the applicants and everyone else, and in a lot of cases, we're barred from simply rejecting the applicant's assertions out of hand. That's usually left to the Courts, if the patent ever ends up there.

Understanding this is one thing I've been trying to promote, since far too many patentees act as if a patent is a guarantee from the government that their devices actually work, when they are in fact no such thing.

I actually agree with your post even though testing is not a typical step in the process it has been an option that the patent office could apply if they questioned the device.

I have several patents wherein I have had to review patents on file that claim a function that I wish to claim too and have found they simply will not work. For an example using a curved cam slot to control the stroke of a piston in a rotary engine where it is stopped by a steel pin.

In theory the device may regulate the motion of the pistion but if it survived more than one stroke in a real engine it would not only be amazing but louder than an old car with all rods knocking.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

But that's what this is!

Your bias is showing again.

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I'm confused - how could they do that without either

a) building a working model, or
b) making an argument that is consistent with the established laws of physics?



But anybody could make a claim like that: sure, my device appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics, but that's because you didn't know about Z&h($&-rays.



Sure - IF they had a working model, or at least experimental evidence that radium produced energy. Otherwise no one would believe it, and they'd be right not to.

I don't understand your standard.

That is why you are a physicist (I assume) and not a lawyer.

If the patent law said what you would like it to say then your house of cards called SR could never be overturned. We would still live on a flat earth at the center of the universe with everything moving around us.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Welcome to my world!

It's the standard that's been pieced together by many years of court decisions, which are often made by judges who don't understand the science and technology involved.

They can claim that they have made a working model. Unless I have evidence to refute that assertion, I'm required by law to believe it.

You read that right.

However, if it can be demonstrated that the applicant has made a materially false allegation during the prosecution of their application, the subsequent patent can be thrown out in its entirety. However, that's a function of the Courts, not of the Patent Office.

Of course, for a fraudulent applicant, this isn't a great worry, as they will never let their patent end up in court, if at all possible.

And yeah, that does suck.

And believe me, they do make just such claims. If you're interested, I can dig up a few patents that contain lines that essentially say just that.

No one except the people who are required by law to believe it. Like me.

This is a huge flaw with the patent system as it exists today, and I have been making some efforts to push us (here in Canada, anyways) toward a more skeptical position on such claims, but it's an uphill battle, and it's a battle that ultimately must be fought in the courts, as it was the courts that got us here. Unfortunately, not many people in the patent world are willing to take a stand on this issue, and force such cases to be appealed to the courts.

Actually it would be good to have an engineering, physics, etc review department which could then require clarification or proof. It would critically limit the number of patents approved and unfortunately could result in some good idea getting trashed.

On my Rotary engine patent just issued this past January we had to have a telephonic discussion of some other patents and I had to show that the claims made by those patents were not supported by the mechanical design.

Mine were and I was awarded the patent. Be sure to scroll down because there are actually (5) videos available which show the inner workings.

http://www.youtube.com/BigMacdaddyAZ

[MacM]

Originally Posted by edd

What exactly are the downsides to having non-working patents in the system? Other than it being a waste of time, energy and paper to have them cluttering things up.

Big problem ,adding to cost and time to actually get a patent. When you file a patent you may get (6) to (60) patents that the patent office claims is grounds to deny yours. You have to go in and point by point show where that is not the case.