I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature, but that reason don't convince to
me, i mean, if you have that machine what is made now and it works how
can be possible that pattent office comes to say that your machine
can't be patented because "by nature" it can't work (well that is my
interpretation of their reason to don't grant the patent). Better i
give an example, for instance , independently if is or is not useful,
you know that in outer space, where there aren't gravity and air you
can put to rotate anything and it doesn't to stop so if anybody makes a
machine to take advantage of that or simply to make a perpetual motion
machine, ¿how can the patent office goes to say what that device is
impossible if right now is working and it doesn't violates laws of
nature?
Please give me logical reasons for don't grant patents for that kind
of machines please, that i don't understand well the real reasons

I believe there's this little thing about you can have
purr-pet-ewe-wail motion but.......but......but.....Dave, the Ae35
system will fail.....oops, got off-track.........you can have urine
perpetual motion butt....EWE CANT GET NO WORK OUTTA IT BECAUSE THAT
HALTS THE PURR-PET-EWE-WAIL MOTOWN!!!! I THINK. THEREFOR IRAN. THANK
YOU.

(ps there r a lot of things you cant patent like this guy onest
described the geostationary communications satellite concept and it's
unknown whether he cudda shudda patented it butt that's all water under
the toilet and who cares about the subjunctive tense n e weigh except
Dr. Hofstadter (the AI guy, not the historian) and that guy's made a
bunch of moola n e weigh from his friction so who cares????

- Binky

Camilo wrote:
I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature, but that reason don't convince to
me [...] in outer space, where there aren't gravity and air you
can put to rotate anything and it doesn't to stop so if anybody makes a
machine to take advantage of that or simply to make a perpetual motion
machine, ¿how can the patent office goes to say what that device is
impossible if right now is working and it doesn't violates laws of
nature?

A perpetual motion machine is, by definition, a device which violates the
first or second law of thermodynamics. It's not just a machine that keeps
moving forever.

Please give me logical reasons for don't grant patents for that kind
of machines please, that i don't understand well the real reasons

The real reason is that the patent office got tired of dealing with a
constant stream of patents for perpetual motion devices, none of which
worked. I agree that someone might in principle construct a perpetual motion
device that did work. But if they were allowed to patent it, they would
essentially be patenting a law of nature, and I think it's better not to
allow that anyway.

-- Ben

Camilo wrote:
I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature, but that reason don't convince to
me, i mean, if you have that machine what is made now and it works...

The point is that it doesn't work! Duh!

"Camilo" wrote in message
ups.com...
Please give me logical reasons for don't grant patents for that kind
of machines please, that i don't understand well the real reasons

A patent has to contain an accurate description of how the device works.
That description can include text, mathematics or a combination of both. The
problem is that nobody has yet been able to write a satisfactory
description. They either miss out some details or they make mistakes in the
maths. The most common error is not explaining where the energy comes from
to counter the losses that are obvious in the design.

This web site describes some of the common mistakes people make... very good
reading...

The Basement Mechanic's Guide to Testing Perpetual Motion Machines
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

"CWatters" wrote in message
...
This web site describes some of the common mistakes people make... very
good
reading...

The Basement Mechanic's Guide to Testing Perpetual Motion Machines
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm


Sorry that's not the article I thought it as. Never mind it's still worth
reading.

Camilo wrote:

I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature, but that reason don't convince to
me, i mean, if you have that machine what is made now and it works how
can be possible that pattent office comes to say that your machine
can't be patented because "by nature" it can't work (well that is my
interpretation of their reason to don't grant the patent).

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
Perpetual motion machines

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
If time is homogeneous then mass-energy is locally conserved via
Noether's theorem. No Type I perpetual motion machines are possible.

If you cannot flip an honest coin "heads" 10^23 times in a row (feel
free to do it in parallel as a grand canonical ensemble), then
statistical thermodynamics locally holds in closed sytems and there
are no Type II perpetual motion machines possible.

If you cannot divide by zero, then there are no Type III perpetual
motion machines possible.

Oops! Fresh out of perpetual motion machines. Engineering details
are irrelevant - liquid nitrogen smoke, mirrors, strobes, magnets,
superconductors... and the inevitable manual transmission from a 1969
Honda Accord.

[snip crap]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Hi Uncle Al You left out dropping hammers turning a wheel. I liked that
one the best it gave the hammers leverage going down on the rim right
side,and coming closer to the wheel's center coming back up on the other
side. Beert

"Camilo" wrote in news:1127385485.208947.32600
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature,

That's not my understanding of the patent office's attitude toward
perpetual motion machines. My understanding is that you have to provide
them with a working model before they'll consider it. Good luck.

but that reason don't convince to
me, i mean, if you have that machine what is made now and it works how
can be possible that pattent office comes to say that your machine
can't be patented because "by nature" it can't work (well that is my
interpretation of their reason to don't grant the patent).


--
Steve Gray

"Steven Gray" wrote ...

I'm reading now about perpetual motion machines are not patentable
because they violate laws of nature,

That's not my understanding of the patent office's attitude toward
perpetual motion machines. My understanding is that you have to provide
them with a working model before they'll consider it. Good luck.

I thought they rejected, out of hand, any application that claimed to
violate either the First or the Second Law of Thermodynamics?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----