• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Is this generator thing for real?

DrG

Active Member
I don't read that a prototype is required either. It does seem though, that if a claim is rejected based on incredible utility or, in UK patent law, "Patents Act 1949 §10(1)(a), formerly provided that the Comptroller might refuse an application if it appeared that it was ‘frivolous on the ground that it claims as an invention anything obviously contrary to well-established natural laws’. " from https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/2/3/136/2358262

The idea is that if a claim is rejected, a prototype may be the only recourse for appeal. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/

as shown by the countless patents on older perpetual motion machines
Are there any patents with a claim of perpetual motion (or free energy) currently granted in the UK or US?

___________________

It seems that there is a lot of lawyer squabble about rejection on the basis of "contrary to well-established natural laws". One of the points made here
is that science is always advancing so that what is viewed as impossible is always a temporary state..."just think about cloaking devices and a transporter a la Star Trek, which are already to some extent realities. See here, here, here for cloaking and this, this and NASA acknowledging “small numbers of atoms and photons have been teleported” for transporter technology futurism. "

I can buy that argument, but only if a prototype can be presented which can prove the claim (see references for Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (1989).) So, I think that a working prototype is NOT required, as stated, but that a claim that is rejected may, functionally, require a working prototype if one wants to win an appeal.

___________________

The point that I want to reiterate, if it was not clear, is that the patent granted for the device that the OP brought up, does not look as though there is anything close to a claim of free energy. It was just a lot of weasel words, in my non-expert opinion, about free energy in the description, but the claim was basically "A system for generating energy such that a portion of the generated energy supplies power to the system that generated the energy... ".
 
Last edited:

alec_t

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
"A system for generating energy such that a portion of the generated energy supplies power to the system that generated the energy... ".
Aka positive feedback. Hardly a new idea.
 

DrG

Active Member
Aka positive feedback. Hardly a new idea.
Yeah, exactly the point, well at least that is what it sounds like to me, but hey maybe I am just not smart enough to understand.

But read how it was described in one of the links...https://www.cleantechalliance.org/2018/01/16/infinity-sav-usa-acquires-patent-for-excess-energy-generator/

Infinity SAV USA recently acquired a US patent, in a transaction valued at over $3 million, that protects its generator technology that “produces several times more power than it takes to operate”. The generator is powered solely by permanent magnets. Infinity’s US Patent 7,095,126 B2 is the first patent issued for a motor and generator/alternator feedback loop combination that continuously produces excess energy.

To me, it is not just an example of being disingenuous it is more where culturally we have simply lowered the standard of proof to ridiculous levels and it sometimes seems such is going on everywhere https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/the-declining-standard-of-proof.157253/
 

unclejed613

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
A device capable of perpetual motion.
i wasn't able to watch the videos here at work due to content restrictions, but as somebody who, as a teenager, played with such machines,, i'm familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, and learned the following with hands-on experience, 1) power out is always less than power in, the difference is turned into heat. 2) if you can hear the thing running, it's bleeding energy 3) once you try to draw power from it, it will run down. 4) just because it generates X volts open circuit, and can deliver Y amps into a short doesn't mean it can generate Y amps at X volts. the true measure is how many watts go in and how many come out, and as in #1 there's always less coming out.
 

JimB

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Speaking as a Yorkshire-man,

"Tha' never gets owt fer nowt".

JimB
 

unclejed613

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
this might be a good time to reiterate the laws of thermodynamics....
0) there's no such thing as a free lunch
1) when you eat, you drop crumbs
2) ants eat the crumbs
 

crutschow

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
s that science is always advancing so that what is viewed as impossible is always a temporary state..
That may apply to certain types of functions or applications, but not to the the fundamental laws of physics.
"There's no free lunch" is one of them. ;-).
 

DrG

Active Member
That may apply to certain types of functions or applications, but not to the the fundamental laws of physics.
"There's no free lunch" is one of them. ;-).
But such a ludicrous subject isn't really something for discussion on a serious electronics forum anyway.
I note that whenever I see these ridiculous over-unity, free energy, perpetual motion garbage topics come up, they generate the same old and obviously correct responses....and do so reflexively. They seem to have little effect in regard to stopping them from coming up.

I was not interested in that kind of discussion and made that point explicitly in my first post. I thought it interesting that someone claimed to have received a patent for such a device. When I looked into it further, I found that they really did not receive a patent claiming that such a device was producing free energy. That in itself is interesting to me and I, perhaps mistakenly, thought others would find it interesting. Patents for electronic devices interest me. I am unaware of ANY patent that was granted for a genuine claim of perpetual motion in the US. If there are "loads of them historically", I do not know about them but, at the time, I was interested in learning of their existence.

The quote in the response by @crutshow is not mine, it is from an interesting article on the subject of patents that I correctly excerpted and attributed. I described the issue as "lawyer squabble". The author raised a valid point and it is one that looks forward from a legal perspective. The author of the article does not make any claims about over-unity devices that I saw. I am sorry that the point as well as the wording in the first patent seems to be missed in favor of explaining elementary physics.

Get it? I do not offer, represent, believe in, tolerate, condone, solicit or otherwise accept over-unity devices as existing.

Thanks for understanding.
 

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top