Cold Fusion Related Energy Patents- To Be Issued Soon
Johnathan Chan
I thought that members of this group might be interested in a few news
items..
What new methods are being used to study cold fusion?
What historical trends are underway in the cold fusion field?
What alarming non-linear process have the Israeli's come up with?
What simple devices can be used to stimulate LENR & transmutations?
What various techniques can now be used to generate neutrons quite
simply?
Why are the Japanese so brilliant in coming up with simple ideas?
Why are the French and Italians brilliant at implementation?
Why is the US, Britain, Canada and Australia falling behind?
Why is there silence from the German community?
How does plasma science intersect the cold fusion field?(hint: don't
toss out those old plasma science textbooks just yet)
How will condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) theory be assisted by
nanotechnology trends in instrumentation?
Recent News:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Fusion Energy Patents: Soon to Be Issued ..URL's listed on site
below
As reported in the recent MIT Technology Review and Physics Today, the
latest patent info in Cold Fusion Energy is available at the USPTO web
site. I've placed these patent URL links on my Atomic Motor Energy
Blog : http://www.atomicmotor.com
You can also add a MyYahoo RSS feed for the latest news as it happens
from your MyYahoo front page for convenience. Just click "Add to
MyYahoo" button near each daily story.
There are links also available at http://www.CERG.org and
http://www.LENR.org (library of scientific papers) and other places on
the web, such as http://www.USPTO.gov (hint), but you will have to
search for them like I did.
I hope this helps raise awareness on this energy source. As glaciers
melt, oil depletes and forrests burn..science phenomenon can often
times be burried when competing against Britney as a news item.
We also have an On-line poll available to gauge opinions on Cold
Fusion Energy applications. Please visit. Thank you ! .
-Johnathan Chan (editor: http://www.atomicmotor.com )
( Please forward this email to interested friends and colleagues )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send a message to : edi...@dailyelement.cerg.org with
just the words
UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Bradley K. Sherman
>below
As we say over here in the wet science: Molecular Biology is
less complicated than Intellectual Property Law because the
cell is contrained by the laws of chemistry but IP suffers no
such constraints.
--bks
JohnnyCJohnny
> Cold Fusion Energy Patents: Soon to Be Issued ..URL's listed on site
> below
>
> As reported in the recent MIT Technology Review and Physics Today, the
> latest patent info in Cold Fusion Energy is available at the USPTO web
> site. I've placed these patent URL links on my Atomic Motor Energy
> Blog : http://www.atomicmotor.com
>
> You can also add a MyYahoo RSS feed for the latest news as it happens
> from your MyYahoo front page for convenience. Just click "Add to
> MyYahoo" button near each daily story.
>
> There are links also available at http://www.CERG.org and
> http://www.LENR.org (library of scientific papers) and other places on
> the web, such as http://www.USPTO.gov (hint), but you will have to
> search for them like I did.
>
> I hope this helps raise awareness on this energy source. As glaciers
> melt, oil depletes and forrests burn..science phenomenon can often
> times be burried when competing against Britney as a news item.
>
> We also have an On-line poll available to gauge opinions on Cold
> Fusion Energy applications. Please visit. Thank you ! .
>
> -Johnathan Chan (editor: http://www.atomicmotor.com )
>
Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's
attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months
after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a
cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost.
Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion
patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny
them.
Hatunen
(JohnnyCJohnny) wrote:
>Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's
>attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months
>after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a
>cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost.
>Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion
>patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny
>them.
I don't know what "give the field a big boost" means, but it
would certainly give the attempts to harvest investors a big
boost.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Rob Eldred
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd2ccfd9.04083...@posting.google.com...
> Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's
> attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months
> after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a
> cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost.
> Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion
> patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny
> them.
" Certainly the USPTO issuing a cold fusion patent would be huge news and
give the field a big boost." Maybe, but the USPO has already issued several
perpetual motion patents. These days one can patent most anything, there is
no requirement that it work or meet scientific principles. The PO is mostly
interested in money, little else. A patent gives the grantee the exclsive
right to manufacture and sell the device in question for 20 years. There is
no garantee that it will sell or that it is any way viable or marketable or
that it even exists. The days of having to present a working model to the PO
have long passed. Complicated weasel wording is par for many of today's
patents designed to fleece investors without any intention of marketing a
device.
Bob
JohnnyCJohnny
> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:cd2ccfd9.04083...@posting.google.com...
> > Interesting website. Thanks for bringing it to this forum's
> > attention. I guess we'll have a lot to talk about in a few months
> > after the DOE review of cold fusion. Certainly the USPTO issuing a
> > cold fusion patent would be huge news and give the field a big boost.
> > Don't get your hopes up though about those pending cold fusion
> > patents. The USPTO has sat on cold fusion for years, only to deny
> > them.
>
> " Certainly the USPTO issuing a cold fusion patent would be huge news and
> give the field a big boost." Maybe, but the USPO has already issued several
> perpetual motion patents. These days one can patent most anything, there is
> no requirement that it work or meet scientific principles.
That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT
issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model
can be examined by patent examiners. Yes, the USPTO is still
interested in patenting things that work and are based upon scientific
principles. They reject all sorts of things. They've rejected cold
fusion patents for over a decade. A couple of cold fusion patents
have snuck through under different names. Where are you getting your
info from? You are dead wrong.
> The PO is mostly
> interested in money, little else. A patent gives the grantee the exclsive
> right to manufacture and sell the device in question for 20 years. There is
> no garantee that it will sell or that it is any way viable or marketable or
> that it even exists. The days of having to present a working model to the PO
> have long passed. Complicated weasel wording is par for many of today's
> patents designed to fleece investors without any intention of marketing a
> device.
> Bob
The point is if the USPTO starts issuing cold fusion patents en mass,
it will provide credibility for the fledgling field; a field that
couldn't get patents in the past because it wasn't taken seriously.
Well, people will start taking it more seriously if the USPTO starts
issuing patents. What's this, a dozen cold fusion patents have been
issued in the past year? Perhaps I should take a closer look. That
will be the reaction if the position of the USPTO changes.
Fred B. McGalliard
> That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT
> issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model
> can be examined by patent examiners.
But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the
office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of
machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really
strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM
machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the
nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or
just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
JohnnyCJohnny
Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true
believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting
evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't
accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort. Yes, a couple of "cold
fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to
mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical
processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
Hatunen
(JohnnyCJohnny) wrote:
>"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<I3BG2...@news.boeing.com>...
>> "JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>> news:cd2ccfd9.04083...@posting.google.com...
>> ...
>> > That's utterly false. The USPTO has a long standing policy of NOT
>> > issuing a patent for a perpetual motion machine unless a working model
>> > can be examined by patent examiners.
>>
>> But they also accept items for patent that have no working model in the
>> office, and no expert evaluation. As I recall they have patented a number of
>> machines which were then advertised as PM machines, including some really
>> strange fusion devices that somehow left no radioactive residue (a PM
>> machine by another name I expect). All you need to do is obfuscate the
>> nature of the machine, say by claiming it collects zero point energy, or
>> just avoid discussing where it gets the energy at all.
>
>Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse true
>believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting
>evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't
>accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort.
No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever and a
few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have slipped
through, and been publicized as PM later by the promoters.
>Yes, a couple of "cold
>fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to
>mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical
>processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
Duane C. Johnson
Hatunen wrote:
> JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
> > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse
> > true believers of doing. You making up an example without
> > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty
> > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines
> > of any sort.
>
> No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever
> and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have
> slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the
> promoters.
What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent
and not having stated as such in the patent?
The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works.
If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation"
and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
Especially if the inventor knew it required PM or cold
fusion to operate beforehand.
Also, technically it is the responsibility of the inventor
to make sure the patent fully discloses all pertinent
information.
> > Yes, a couple of "cold fusion" patents have been issued
> > under different names that failed to mention cold fusion.
> > But, they were just describing chemical processes, not
> > claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
> But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
As I recall the patents that "seemed" to slip through were
not cold fusion patents at all. The patents were pertaining
to a specific structure or process. The patent database
is full of patents for specific detail improvements.
There are a relatively few of what I call "Basic Patents".
Laser, radio, transistor, telegraph and others.
But countless improvement patents.
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3X [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
red...@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
JohnnyCJohnny
> Hi Hatunen and All;
>
> Hatunen wrote:
> > JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse
> > > true believers of doing. You making up an example without
> > > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty
> > > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines
> > > of any sort.
> >
> > No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever
> > and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have
> > slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the
> > promoters.
>
> What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent
> and not having stated as such in the patent?
The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll
approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a
different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
>
> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works.
> If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation"
> and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
>
> Especially if the inventor knew it required PM or cold
> fusion to operate beforehand.
>
> Also, technically it is the responsibility of the inventor
> to make sure the patent fully discloses all pertinent
> information.
>
> > > Yes, a couple of "cold fusion" patents have been issued
> > > under different names that failed to mention cold fusion.
> > > But, they were just describing chemical processes, not
> > > claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
>
> > But how are they promoted after patent issuance?
>
> As I recall the patents that "seemed" to slip through were
> not cold fusion patents at all. The patents were pertaining
> to a specific structure or process. The patent database
> is full of patents for specific detail improvements.
They were patents that described the electrolysis of heavy water using
paladium. About as close to cold fusion as you can get a U.S. patent
for. If the patents had mentioned cold fusion, they probably would
have been rejected. They were submitted by people working on "cold
fusion", so obviously that's what they were describing, just being
clever not to mention the name, and it worked.
Bruce Scott TOK
|> What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent
|> and not having stated as such in the patent?
|>
|> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works.
|> If PM or cold fusion is essential to the "operation"
|> and not disclosed the patent would be invalidated.
People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged
patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Fred B. McGalliard
"JohnnyCJohnny" <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:cd2ccfd9.04083...@posting.google.com...
...
> believers of doing. You making up an example without supporting
> evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't
> accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort. Yes, a couple of "cold
> fusion" patents have been issued under different names that failed to
> mention cold fusion. But, they were just describing chemical
> processes, not claiming to have invented a free energy machine.
Sorry but you just made my point. You can patent a process that involves
effects that are not soundly established as valid, and you can patent a
perpetual motion machine component if you do not claim it is a PM machine
clearly. I did have a specific example in mind but would rather not go into
detail.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200409011153....@ipp.mpg.de...
> Duane C. Johnson asks:
...
> |> The patent must "fully disclose" how the thing works.
> People cheat. They "fully disclose" to an overworked and overchallenged
> patent official, and then sell it differently in their PR.
Recall the brouhaha when the basic process for the P&F cold fusion process
had been "disclosed" to the scientific community, and then it was offered,
as explanation for all the null results, that oh, by the way, it depends on
some very precise and very proprietary (and pretty much secret and rather
random) process for preparing the electrodes. "fully disclose" NOT.
LongmuirG
<snip>
>The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll
>approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a
>different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
More fundamental question -- What is the value of a patent?
A patent attorney I met described a patent as a "license to sue". The Patent
Office does not protect the patent holder. The patent holder himself has to
pay the full costs of defending his patent -- hunting down people who are
making money off the invention he has patented and then suing them one by one.
And Patent Attorneys are not cheap, he assured me!
If the patented device is worthless (e.g. a perpetual motion machine), no
competitor will be making money off it, and that "licence to sue" will be
worthless. Any patent slipped through the Patent Office would be irrelevant
vanity.
Harry Conover
> "Duane C. Johnson" <red...@redrok.com> wrote in message news:<41354588...@redrok.com>...
> > Hi Hatunen and All;
> >
> > Hatunen wrote:
> > > JohnnyCJohnny <joh...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Not true. Now you're doing what a lot of skeptics accuse
> > > > true believers of doing. You making up an example without
> > > > supporting evidence. The history of the USPTO is pretty
> > > > clear that they don't accept pertpetual motion machines
> > > > of any sort.
> > >
> > > No, they don't. But the examiners aren't all that clever
> > > and a few machines not denoted to be perpetuum mobile have
> > > slipped through, and been publicized as PM later by the
> > > promoters.
> >
> > What's the point of having a PM or cold fusion patent
> > and not having stated as such in the patent?
>
> The point is to prove that the patent office is biased. If they'll
> approve a patent that describes the cold fusion process, only under a
> different name, it demonstrates bias on the part of the USPTO.
Johnny, I'm not sure that your conclusion is logical. Even if it is,
what does it have to do with the function and purpose of a granted
patent?
You simply cannot patent anything whose foundation of operation relies
on a disproven or yet unproven mechanism to function. True, a clever
patent attorney can weasel-word a patent to avoid disclosing the
underlying mechanism on which the patent claims are based, but realize
that USPTO issuance of the patent is largely based ONLY on the claims
themselves being both useful and original. This secures for the patent
holder the exclusive rights to the commercial rights to of any claims
made within the patent when USING THE METHODS DESCRIBED.
A patent that is granted based on a non-disclosed imaginary priciple
that doesn't exist is, even if granted, worse less than the paper that
it printed upon. The USPTO office makes an effort to prevent this
needless and pointless paperwork, but will not seriously resist the
efforts of a clever, paid-by-the-hour patent attorney to force a
patent, no matter how ridiculous, though as a "service" to his client.
Frankly, I don't see this as bias on the part of the USPTO, but
perhaps I've missed something.
Harry C.
Hatunen
wrote:
>Johnny, I'm not sure that your conclusion is logical. Even if it is,
>what does it have to do with the function and purpose of a granted
>patent?
>
>You simply cannot patent anything whose foundation of operation relies
>on a disproven or yet unproven mechanism to function. True, a clever
>patent attorney can weasel-word a patent to avoid disclosing the
>underlying mechanism on which the patent claims are based, but realize
>that USPTO issuance of the patent is largely based ONLY on the claims
>themselves being both useful and original. This secures for the patent
>holder the exclusive rights to the commercial rights to of any claims
>made within the patent when USING THE METHODS DESCRIBED.
>
>A patent that is granted based on a non-disclosed imaginary priciple
>that doesn't exist is, even if granted, worse less than the paper that
>it printed upon. The USPTO office makes an effort to prevent this
>needless and pointless paperwork, but will not seriously resist the
>efforts of a clever, paid-by-the-hour patent attorney to force a
>patent, no matter how ridiculous, though as a "service" to his client.
People who take out patents for perpetual motion machines
generally aren't interested in maintaining exclusive rights since
they know the machines don't work and any attempts to build one
will not, therefore, infringe the patent. Such patents are sales
devices, intended to help attract investors.
It's not so clear that people who take out patents on cold fusion
know the process doesn't work, but I guarantee you not one can
survive a real test.
>Frankly, I don't see this as bias on the part of the USPTO, but
>perhaps I've missed something.
It's not bias; it's incompetence.
Richard Schultz
: The history of the USPTO is pretty clear that they don't
: accept pertpetual motion machines of any sort.
The official policy may be that they don't accept patent applications for
perpetual motion machines unless accompanied by a working model, but
they have issued at least one patent for a perpetual motion machine
nonetheless. IIRC, a picture of the relevant page of the patent application
is reproduced in Martin Gardner's essay about perpetual motion machines
which was reprinted in his book _The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher_.
I know that Martin Gardner mentions the patent in *one* of his essays
and expresses his annoyance the the guy who got the patent actually
stole the idea from Dr. Matrix.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
Bruce Scott TOK
Oh yeah, there is that too. Just don't disclose, and lie and say you
did.
Renaissance Man
Or you could "disclose" to, say, the Patent Office of Trinidad and
Tobago.
If the stakes are big enough and you have both a viable and valuable
technology and the investors, BUY Trinidad and Tobago (for example) a
Patent Office if they don't have one already, in exchange for the
one-dollar (US) a year, long-term contract to operate it, and suddenly
disclosure issues become much, much easier. <DIABOLICAL GRIN>
Of course, before then you want to endow St. George's University in
Grenada (for example) with a condensed-matter physics program,
experimental facilities, funds for research, and, in due course, a
competent faculty convenient for peer-review of publications to
support patents and other documentation of priority of discovery, and
who did what, when.
Damn, I shoulda went to law school.
Renaissance Man
Renaissance Man
cold fusion and condensed-matter physics, but it was mostly
- political shilling for the John Kerry campaign, and
- and short pieces on "alternative energy" technology.
I didn't see anything much, new, or substantive to do with either
condensed-matter physics, cold or pycnonuclear fusion, or anything
else I expected to see from the description in the original post.
It is pretty funny to see that the Kerry camp has decided to borrow
nuclear fusion from Lyndon LaRouche as a Presidential campaign issue -
thanks for the laugh, dude.
Renaissance Man
On 29 Aug 2004 23:04:41 -0700, atomicm...@yahoo.com (Johnathan
Johnathan Chan
earth chimes in to help ..well then ..I guess its just a sign of the
times right? (hint: get used to it). Look closely and you may see
clues ..science leaves clues everywhere if we keep our eyes open..i.e
most are not obvious.
Thx for reply.
-johnathan chan (http://www.atomicmotor.com)
Renaissance Man <ren...@ricochet.com> wrote in message news:<26dfj0da6952om446...@4ax.com>...
Neil Farbstein
one millionth of a second) to catalyse fusion reactions between deuterium
and tritium. A scientist at Los Alamos Nati0onal Laboratory reviewed the
idea, he thinks it might be practical.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Neil Farbstein" <proto...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ee%4d.425962$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I invented a fusion reactor that uses muons (subatomic particles that live
> one millionth of a second) to catalyse fusion reactions between deuterium
> and tritium. A scientist at Los Alamos Nati0onal Laboratory reviewed the
> idea, he thinks it might be practical.
Of course it's practical. Has been known for about 50 years. The problem
isn't the fusion, that works. It is finding a Muon generator that does not
use up all the power and then some.
David T. Croft, Ph.D.
The perpetual motion machine is of special concern to the USPTO. It was my
understanding that violating the second law of thermodynamics (a law of
physics) was actually illegal (by the laws of the US) and that perpetual
motion machines were not palatable by law.
"Hatunen" <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:58rbj0lfrtffn4eh9...@4ax.com...
Renaissance Man
<David....@AdsorptionProcessModeling.com> wrote:
>
>
>The perpetual motion machine is of special concern to the USPTO. It was my
>understanding that violating the second law of thermodynamics (a law of
>physics) was actually illegal (by the laws of the US) and that perpetual
>motion machines were not palatable by law.
No.
US Patent Law simply declines to protect devices such as "perpetual
motion machines" whose stated principles of operation violate known
principles of physics (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics).
The US Government is serenely indifferent to anyone who thinks he or
she can make a machine that works forever (no losses of energy owing
to Joule heating, friction, transfer of energy to work surfaces, etc.)
with only one input of energy.
Where the Government gets involved is when the inventors of such
doorstops try to get other people to invest in them, but the violation
of law doesn't involve perpetual motion but investor fraud.
The US Government declines to put the imprimatur of the US Patent
Office on these gadgets, thus making it easier for scam artists to
fleece investors.
The problem apparently is that people just remember enough physics
from school to get into trouble.
Schemes that offer to enrich investors in machines that generate
infinite work from finite energy input (the whole idea of a perpetual
motion machine) are essentially no different from Ponzi schemes or
other ways to rob greedy people by making them they can make fortunes
withoiut actually working for them.
The US Patent Office was deluged by people who either wanted to patent
such machines or were looking to get money back they'd lost on them.
Hence the refusal to patent machines whose only practical purpose was
to fleece would-be investors.
Richard Schultz
: US Patent Law simply declines to protect devices such as "perpetual
: motion machines" whose stated principles of operation violate known
: principles of physics (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics).
I'd be curious to see the exact citation to the relevant statute. The
way I had always heard it was that the U.S. Patent Office will only patent
a perpetual motion machine if they are presented with a working model.
There have been cases, however, in which people have succeeded in patenting
perpetual motion devices by not calling them that and counting on the
patent examiner being ignorant enough not to realize what was going on.
Martin Gardner, in one of his essays (I *think* but am not sure that it's the
one on Perpetual Motion Machines reprinted in _The New Age: Notes of a
Fringe-watcher_), gives an example, showing the page of the patent that gives
a diagram of the perpetual motion device.