Where did you read that?
Agreed.
If they have a **working machine ** that produces energy, they can patent it.
You don’t have to use the words ‘perpetual motion’.
When penicillin was discovered, it didn’t matter nobody knew it existed.
When one chap split the atom, it didn’t matter that it hadn’t been done before.
When the microwave came out, people bought it. They don’t have to know how it works.
“Its cash reserves were €94”. That’s not a typo. That’s about 120 bucks.
Financial problems are a fairly common characteristic of companies that don’t actually sell any products or services.
The company has been going since at least 2000, and did sell a variety of products and services. Quite how they diverged into “Orbo” is something of a mystery.
I note from Wiki that they managed to rack up over €3m in losses last year, so somebody must be investing. (For certain values of “investing”…)
Perhaps this is some sort of tax scheme. Maybe they are to science as Uwe Boll is to film.
If they have a machine that they claim works by violation of established physics, they’ll have trouble, whether they mention the words ‘perpetual motion’ or not. Of course if they really did have a verifiably working model, I’m pretty sure they could persuade the patent office to suspend that particular condition.
Everything else stopped being profitable, would be my guess - I bet they lost a bunch of contracts or just had a sales slump, or whatever, so they need something that will give the company a boost…
The condition only exists because no one can make a perpetual motion machine work. As long as they apply for a patent before demonstrating their working perpetual motion machine to the world, they will get patent protection when they do a convincing demonstration. The patent office only has a particular policy, there is no law against patenting perpetual motion machines. Policies change. The patent office isn’t going to refuse a patent to some guys who have just been crowned the greatest engineers in history, and to which the Nobel has been granted in perpetuity.
How does that work? - if an application is summarily rejected, would this decision definitely be retrospectively reversed after the device is demonstrated working?
I’m not a patent expert and I can’t give details. Someone else might. My broad understanding is that the process of getting a patent is one that takes a long time, and can be taken through years of appeals. I think all Steorn would need to do is file, (thus getting their foot in the door) then immediately begin demonstrations so as to get the support they need in order to get the patent office to take them seriously. I’m not sure of what would happen if the patent office reached the point of absolute, final, rejection before overwhelming scientific opinion made them realise they had it wrong and that the patent should have been granted. Firstly, I would strongly suspect that Steorn would still have first claim, since they applied first. Secondly, I think that as long as Steorn filed a comprehensive complex thorough patent and kept appealling slowly and steadily, they could keep the process alive while they got the snowball of credibility building. I think 3-5 years is not uncommon between application and rejection. Although I’m not sure about how it goes when it is a subject the patent office summarily rejects.
My impression from skimming their documentation, is that summary rejection in cases like these would be a fairly brisk and low-level affair, but I might be misreading that - the documentation is incredibly verbose and I am not qualified to properly understand the subtleties of the phrasing. You may be right though - that if they had a working machine, maybe they could submit an application and bulldoze through any attempt at rejection by abundantly demonstrating the concept in action.
It’s all moot though, because they don’t have a working machine.
Just out of interest, can anyone suitably qualified or experience chime in with the answer to this:
-Suppose just for a second that they did have a working device and this demonstrated that magnetism isn’t a conservative force, what’s the absolute minimum load of physics principles that we would have to rewrite? I’m guessing this wouldn’t be something that would be very contained and that it would mean we’re wrong about nearly everything in science, all at once (which I think is what makes it impossible they’re telling the truth).
What’s the minimum impact on physics that a working magnet motor such as this could make?
I think that’s exactly right: but that doesn’t mean you won’t have a right to appeal the low level decision, then appeal the next decision after that, etc.
I’ll tell you what; if these guys have actually invented a working, economical perpetual motion machine and they don’t get a patent, I will personally send them a check for $1000. Since the entire human race’s aggregate wealth would increase tenfold by such a discovery, I’ll be able to afford it, and so will anyone else. Free energy would make all humans richer, eliminate most pollution, and usher in a golden age that would last millennia. Think about it; you wouldn’t need hydrocarbons or nuclear power or any other form of power (except for airborne vehicles like jets and rockets.) All energy we used would be free. Why the fuck would you be worried about PATENTS if you had invented something that would elevate all the world to a higher plane of wealth?
Indeed, and if you needed hydrocarbons, you could synthesise them - it doesn’t matter how much energy that would take, because you can just get it for nothing. It’s completely ridiculous. As you say, if you invented such a device, you could just give it away and dine out for life on the celebrity of being the guy who changed everything.
And as I said earlier, I think that’s a diagnostic sign that this is bullshit (one of the many) - they’re not excited enough about it.
Because it will take time to develop technology to implement the new power source into all these other areas of life. Then it will take even more time to distribute the benefits of free energy. As the inventor of this stuff I wouldn’t want to wait until the rising tide lifted all the boats. I’d want to reap the benefits of my invention immediately. I’m not immortal, so I would rather live the rest of my life in luxury than wait thirty years for this “golden age” to raise my individual standard of living.
In general, I think the best case scenario is that Orbo taps into the rotational energy of the Earth. Kind of like harnessing tidal forces, but without geographic limitations of being in a tidal area. Worse case scenario, they’re con men. Middle ground, they’ve made an error in their calculations or are misinterpreting the behavior of the device. The middle ground is most likely, IMHO.
Enjoy,
Steven
Middle ground, my ass. They’re crooks, pure and simple.
So sue me. I could use the money.
Middle ground seems highly unlikely to me. Claims of a working model of a perpetual motion machine operating at 400% efficiency can’t easily be explained as honest mistakes or measurement error.
Hopefully this thread isn’t too old to bump.
Apparently the “demonstration” will be starting this week at the Kinetica museum in London.
This place is only a mile or two from my office, so I may well wander over and have a look later in the week.
Hm. You know, I wonder if anyone from the JREF would be interested in your observations, or be able to tell you what to look for. We have any amateur magicians around?