Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 42 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 38 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
Isn't this old technology? i.e. prior art that isn't patentable? What is so different about this?
http://www.xcalibertactical.com/product ... .php#about
I don't know... I've read over this a couple times and I haven't seen anything different in his design or the ammo...
Ummm, it says the patent was issued in 2005...
Did people like us make BBMGs in 2005?
My head is hurting, I didn't take my ADHD meds... I can't think right know, so I doubt that this helped... sorry for everything.
Kermit the Frog always helps though...
<a href="http://s709.photobucket.com/albums/ww95/JKazkid/?action=view¤t=MDSig.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww95/JKazkid/MDSig.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Checking out the non-lethal competition eh?
Technically, the Strafer Mk.I made by Piper was the first "modern" incarnation of the Vortex design, and it was the reverse engineering on spudtech that brought it to the masses.
The have been patents along the same vein however, such as this one for the LARC BBMG of the eighties. Aside from some slight variations in configuration, the essential principle of loose BBs in a chamber being agitated by airflow and sucked into the barrel is the same.
A couple things about patents in the US that you need to know;
1. The patent actually only covers what is listed in the "Claims" section. You need to read that closely to figure out what is actually getting patented. The "Claims" section of patents generally contains the absolute worse "legal English" prose you will ever read.
2. The US Patent Office (USPTO) doesn't always check that an idea is indeed patentable. Prior art etc. is a tricky thing to analyze and sometimes the USPTO will ignore the prior art and sometimes they will be extremely anal about the prior art.
3. The basic concept of a US patent is outlined in the US Constitution. The Constitution however doesn't give details as to what is and what is not patentable. Over the years congress and the USPTO have decided what is patentable.
4. "Reduction to practice" is generally required for a modern USPTO patent. Though even this requirement is often skipped and is not included in the Constitutional description. Hence, there are many "perpetual motion" and "greater than unity energy" patents on the books. Things that should have been prohibited because of the requirement for "reduction to practice".
5. Individual concepts and assemblies that are covered in other patents can be included in a new patent as long as they are used or combined in a new way. The prior patents are still in force though (if they haven't expired) and the users of the new patent must still negotiate the use of the parts covered by previous patents.
5. Ultimately, it is the courts that decide the validity of a patent, not the USPTO.
It was issued in 2007, but submitted in 2005. Just wondering. No competition, just was puzzled as to the history. Thanks all.
Basically it doesn't patent the idea of a vortex design but the specific design of the P3 Strafer Mk.4
I actually worked a temp office job in the Patent office located in Crystal City, VA a few years back.
It was very interesting.
(My job was to help count/tally votes for the union, since they needed people unaffiliated with the office involved, hence temps).
Anyway, the young guy supervising was cool and showed me the room with hard copies of patents on file. He said there were about 4. 5 million on file!
I was asking him questions and they use he explained different catagory engineers to determine if a design will work, Or the applicant needs to build a working model sometimes.
So the I brought up Perpetual motion for some reason...
It was apparently a very touchy subject and he said "We throw those in the trash!!! Because it's scientifically impossible" So being a jackass sort of I go, " But if it hasn't been invented yet, how the heck can you say it's impossible then?", He got even more touchy and I had offended him!
Yeah, Like JSR stated he explained a design can be patented, but not a theory.
Re: Check out this patent.
There are a few designs for over-unity engines. The U.S. has a policy of not approving so called perpetual motion, even though there are other ways of creating engines that develop over unity using their environment. I didn't realize that this patent was a design patent and not a utility patent. All the difference in the world.
I believe the accepted definition of "over unity" is impossible just like perpetual motion. Taking energy from the environement still follows all the laws of thermodynamics. Heck, a system that takes energy from the envirnment isn't even "perpetual motion" let alone "over unity".
For what it's worth ...
Even if someone did come up with a perpetual motion machine (and patented it) they would make very little money off of the idea. It would have no utility and very little value. It would be roughly equivalent to a "pet rock". You could sell it as a novelty but that is all.
To make money, you have to come up with a "greater than unity" machine. That is, you put in a small amount of energy and it returns more energy than was put in. That means the device creates something of use, energy. A "perpetual motion" machine creates nothing of value.
In order for any of them to work, they have to break any number of existing conservation of energy laws. Conservation of energy does not include creation of energy from nothing. Machines based on over unity efficiency don't work using any of the known laws of physics.
Guys with these machines all run into same limitation,, If only they can cut a loss here and there, it should output more than is put in... if only.
There is NO if only. The only if only is you have to break the energy in = energy out rule of physics. You can not reduce losses to the point of a net gain where there is not a net gain anywhere in the system.
A net gain is energy is put in somewhere.. Often hidden to "Sell" to investors. This is FRAUD. Getting a patent is often tried to sell the patented idea to investors when the idea will never work. This is why the patent office throws them in the trash.
When you get yours working and running for a year or two with no external energy added, wake me up. In the meantime, I still believe in physics and the existing laws of conservation of energy and matter. When you have a way to violate these simple rules, publish for peer review.
I stand corrected. I should have said an environmental engine. The Titan rockets use such an engine that wicks energy during launch. However, I do think that a machine can be made that doesn't break the laws of physics and can produce mechanical energy for use by humans and get it's regenerative power from it's environment. Remember that all the energy from compressed air is transferred to heat and the mechanical energy we get is a bonus. I will get on that as soon as I get the launcher in full production...
They do that a lot here already.
Heck, you can add a car to the windmill and dam.
produce mechanical energy for use by humans and get it's regenerative power from it's environment.
Only problem with a car is it takes a zillion years for the environment to regenerate the fuel.
I'm not a proponent or believer of over unity. I do have a concept that I thought was pretty cool though. We'd use a large bundle of fine capillary tubes. The water or other fluid would be drawn upward a certain distance. The water column raised constitutes energy. It is not "over unity" but it does not require an external power source. If this idea is scaled up by a massive amount, IN THEORY, you could generate power by driving a turbine wheel. In practice, I believe keeping the capillaries clean would be an issue. So, since trees do something similar, the idea is then to imagine a very large tree dripping sap as a power source. Scale it up. You get the idea.
The only reason we use fuel that took a zillion years to produce is because it is there cheap and easy to use. Wood and steam are alternatives that take less recovery time, but doesn't meet our current energy demand. High energy use personal transportation will change as the energy cost require considerations of efficiency and cost. We use cheap energy now with little consideration for our grandchildren's needs.
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]