Perpetual Motion Heat Engine Patent approved by UKIPO
5 views
Skip to first unread message
oth...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2021, 6:28:41 AM12/16/21
to
Here are the list of inventions that I had submitted:
Zero Energy Transportation System, GB1412440.8
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1412440.8
Granted.
Optimum collision damage reduction system, GB1402217.2
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1402217.2
Delayed.
Zero aerodynamic drag vehicles, GB1402386.5
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1402386.5
Granted.
An optimum hybrid vehicle, GB1412516.5
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1412516.5
Abandoned in UKIPO but approved but expired at MYIPO.
Perpetual motion heat engine, GB1521173.3
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1521173.3
Granted but Renamed Imperfect Perpetual Motion Heat Engine.
The last one is the most controversial. Actually we can say that they are just names, trying to make things dramatic but Patent laws specifically state that we must name our patents according to their functions and applicatiions, which is what they are. Renaming them to something else will be in violation of the spirit of the Patent laws.
For example, the Perpetual Motion Heat Engine. I wanted to rename it as a Positive Feedback Heat Engine, but this invention looks like the Perpetual Motion Heat Engine published in text books. Almost exactly. I only change the components and application.
Instead of trying to produce infinite energy, which is impossible anyway, despite what other inventors are trying to achieve, I just use the machine as a battery, an energy storage. The same engine, the impossible engine, can act as an energy storage device. surely it loses energy very fast but all batteries lose energy. Even the KERS in Formula 1 races loses energy very fast, within seconds in fact, but still the lossy batteries are still practical and help cars win races.
I could violate patent law by still insisting on changing its name but there is a second patent law which states that we cannot humiliate previous inventors. They have invented a machine which I copied and by not acknowledging their contributions, it is illegal, and specifically stated in the patent manual, especially in UK. By changing its name, it is as though I condemn their inventions as completely wrong, despite copying it. It is hypocrical, isn't it?
In the end, I came up with the name Imperfect Perpetual Motion Heat Engine. After all, nothing is perfect.
Zero Energy Transportation System, GB1412440.8
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1412440.8
Granted.
Optimum collision damage reduction system, GB1402217.2
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1402217.2
Delayed.
Zero aerodynamic drag vehicles, GB1402386.5
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1402386.5
Granted.
An optimum hybrid vehicle, GB1412516.5
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1412516.5
Abandoned in UKIPO but approved but expired at MYIPO.
Perpetual motion heat engine, GB1521173.3
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1521173.3
Granted but Renamed Imperfect Perpetual Motion Heat Engine.
The last one is the most controversial. Actually we can say that they are just names, trying to make things dramatic but Patent laws specifically state that we must name our patents according to their functions and applicatiions, which is what they are. Renaming them to something else will be in violation of the spirit of the Patent laws.
For example, the Perpetual Motion Heat Engine. I wanted to rename it as a Positive Feedback Heat Engine, but this invention looks like the Perpetual Motion Heat Engine published in text books. Almost exactly. I only change the components and application.
Instead of trying to produce infinite energy, which is impossible anyway, despite what other inventors are trying to achieve, I just use the machine as a battery, an energy storage. The same engine, the impossible engine, can act as an energy storage device. surely it loses energy very fast but all batteries lose energy. Even the KERS in Formula 1 races loses energy very fast, within seconds in fact, but still the lossy batteries are still practical and help cars win races.
I could violate patent law by still insisting on changing its name but there is a second patent law which states that we cannot humiliate previous inventors. They have invented a machine which I copied and by not acknowledging their contributions, it is illegal, and specifically stated in the patent manual, especially in UK. By changing its name, it is as though I condemn their inventions as completely wrong, despite copying it. It is hypocrical, isn't it?
In the end, I came up with the name Imperfect Perpetual Motion Heat Engine. After all, nothing is perfect.
Skybuck Flying
Jun 27, 2022, 5:31:19 PM6/27/22
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages