0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: opportunity on 16/07/2018 12:48:47I'll give you 10 to sober up...to start.You are not an opportunity...
I'll give you 10 to sober up...to start.
Quote from: opportunity on 16/07/2018 13:15:54Quote from: LB7 on 16/07/2018 13:14:01Quote from: opportunity on 16/07/2018 12:48:47I'll give you 10 to sober up...to start.You are not an opportunity...I'll give not 10 but 20...just prove to me you can sober up..You are english and you think all people are like you ? always drunk ?
Quote from: LB7 on 16/07/2018 13:14:01Quote from: opportunity on 16/07/2018 12:48:47I'll give you 10 to sober up...to start.You are not an opportunity...I'll give not 10 but 20...just prove to me you can sober up..
Because even for a patent, people will say: "No, it is not possible".
if there was a mistake I would see it.
In fact the patent office does not require a working model. They simply refuse to grant patents on anything that claims to produce more energy than it consumes, and thus save themselves a lot of work.This is a Good Thing! The problem with patents is that they reveal the principle of the device so that a person "skilled in the art" can make one. What you have here is far better protected as a trade secret, that is, you don't tell anyone how it works. So you build a small one, feed the surplus energy into the national grid, and use the money to build a bigger one, without ever having to tell anyone how you do it.
In fact the patent office does not require a working model.
Quote from: alancalverd on 17/07/2018 22:49:24In fact the patent office does not require a working model.They do for perpetual motion machineshttp://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/11/the-patent-law-of-perpetual-motion/id=19828/which is (shockingly) why I said they do.
Mainspring have their force near constant : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainspring
Why not read the document ?