User talk:Enric Naval/Motionless electromagnetic generator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Removed text May 22, 2013 with suggestion that it belongs in different article

Sorry for posting on your talk subpage. I looked into this section, and posted it for future convenience.

The removed text:

Since 1911, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has stated that perpetual motion machines will be rejected, under the terms that device's must be capable of demonstrating utility. As such machines invariably not deliver on their claims, they fail to provide utility and are rejected. However, this does not mean that the USPTO rejects such applications out of hand. Instead, they specifically call out such devices for a higher level of scrutiny, specifically requiring an example working device to be provided on demand for testing to satisfy the examiner.[1] This is in contrast to most other patents, which have not required a working model to be provided since before the start of the 20th century.

Is already covered in Perpetual_motion#Patents by the direct quote from the source:

"With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing." http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html - section: 608.03 Models, Exhibits, Specimens (same reference)

If there is more in the subsequent sections, I missed that. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next selection:

A commonly cited case of this process in action is the Newman's energy machine, which was provided to the USPTO on demand of the examiner, and then passed to the National Bureau of Standards who tested the device and showed it to have an efficiency of less than 100%. The patent was ultimately rejected, and Newman's lawsuit to reexamine failed.[2]

Is already included in Newman's energy machine#U.S. patent application with the same reference.

In every case presented in the NBS report, the output power was less than power input from the battery pack, and therefore the efficiency was less than 100%. http://files.ncas.org/nbsreport/contents.html

- Sidelight12 Talk 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application - 608.03 Models, Exhibits, Specimens", Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8 ed.), August 2001
  2. ^ Robert Hebner, Gerard Stenbakken and David Hillhouse, "Report of Tests on Joseph Newman's Device", National Bureau Of Standards, June 1986. Retrieved 2008-01-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enric_Naval/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator&oldid=816522113"