Replies

From my point of view, this is also used as an approach to secure federal funding for further research. I pay for it whether I want to or not. If the darn thing worked, they can patent it and make a small scale product to prove the process.

And when was the last time the patent office accepted applications for "Free Energy" or perhaps, "perpetual motion" machines?

If they won't accpet the application, you can't patent it. No patent, no royalties. Go ahead and make it and sell it without one, and GE, GM, hell even Micro$oft, will patent it and slap you down and you end up in the poor house with legal fee's and judgments. Or at the very least out sell you because the have the resources to go into full worldwide production a hell of a lot faster than you can.

BTW: I'm always willing to complain about wasteful government spending, but on something like this; do you honestly think they would invest time and resources in it if they didn't think it could be viable? And of course there's always the possibility that the government would buy it and burry it and use it in the black budget, while you and I are paying through the teeth for gas, oil, LNG and electricity.

On the patenting aspect: patent those parts of the machinery that are patentable such as magnet design. There will be a lot of little pieces and some will be new, or novel as they like to say. Don't even bother to try to patent an overall free energy machine.

And when was the last time the patent office accepted applications for "Free Energy" or perhaps, "perpetual motion" machines?

They've done it more than once. The requirement now is a working model.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because, skeptics claim, it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed.

Some of these are:

Johnson, Howard R., U.S. Patent 4151431 "Permanent magnet motor", April 24, 1979

Baker, Daniel, U.S. Patent 4074153 "Magnetic propulsion device", February 14, 1978

Hartman; Emil T., U.S. Patent 4215330 "Permanent magnet propulsion system", December 20, 1977 (this device is related to the Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy (SMOT)),

Flynn; Charles J., U.S. Patent 6246561 "Methods for controlling the path of magnetic flux from a permanent magnet and devices incorporating the same", July 31, 1998

Patrick, et al., U.S. Patent 6362718 "Motionless electromagnetic generator" , March 26, 2002

With enough public outcry from the uninformed? You bet Congress would. Physics, facts and economics come far behind election issues. Why do you think we haven't drilled in ANWR?