John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 992 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th February 2011, 07:20 AM   #9911
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Yes, you can. It's done all the time. Hell, they're still issuing patents for perpetual motion devices.

se
You don't seem to know much about United States Patents. A perpetual motion machine is the only kind of invention for which a working model for the patent office to examine is required. As of several decades ago, no patent for one has ever been issued and I think that still holds true. Can you point to even one exception?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 07:32 AM   #9912
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Soundminded,
You have a working prototype with appropriate source material? Do you host demonstrations? I'd hate for your tree to fall in the forest... (There is nothing a couple dozen yards of speaker grill material and lighting can't hide, so no excuses regarding disclosure.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 07:33 AM   #9913
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitsware View Post
> You don't get a United States patent for a revolutionary
> type of sound system for empty words.

Thank You,
Amar .........
I think anyone who dismisses out of hand what a professor of electrical engineering at MIT has to say is making a big mistake. Whether you like his products or not, the fact remains that about 45 years ago he started a privately owned company which has now grown over one billion dollars a year in sales with nothing except an idea and knowledge. A lot of people must like his products for them to be so successful. If you take the 6 variants of his 901 speaker as one model, even though it is now usually only available by special order, it has had a longer lifespan on the electronics market than almost any other product I can think of, Klipschorn being one example that is an exception. That in itself is remarkable.

Regardless of the flaws in the execution of his design for this model that make it unacceptable to audiophiles and his own misconceptions and flawed logic, he made some interesting discoveries and introduced some innovative ideas. I just wonder if all of the bashing you hear about him is because of disdain for his products or prejudice and jealousy about him personally and of his commercial success.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 08:09 AM   #9914
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
You don't seem to know much about United States Patents. A perpetual motion machine is the only kind of invention for which a working model for the patent office to examine is required. As of several decades ago, no patent for one has ever been issued and I think that still holds true. Can you point to even one exception?
Take a look at 6,392,370 and tell me what you think.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 09:41 AM   #9915
diyAudio Member
 
Joshua_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Small village, Israel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
You don't get a United States patent for a revolutionary type of sound system for empty words. And I do have a working prototype.
Revolutionary type of sound system doesn't necessarily sound better than some existing ones. As I wrote above, the proof of the pudding is by eating.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 10:09 AM   #9916
wrinkle is offline wrinkle  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Take a look at 6,392,370 and tell me what you think.

se
Being very generous in the reading that may be used for regenerative braking, but realistically I agree with you. but it does have that weasel sentence about using other energy in the system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 01:19 PM   #9917
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
You don't seem to know much about United States Patents. A perpetual motion machine is the only kind of invention for which a working model for the patent office to examine is required. As of several decades ago, no patent for one has ever been issued and I think that still holds true. Can you point to even one exception?
Yes, I have to look it up. The perpetual motion itself is is not claimed but overunity is IIRC. The patent is real and issued, it is one of the more infamous free energy kooks.

EDIT - #6,362,718 This one is a motionless generator, but connection to a motor is an exercise left to the reader. BTW Steve, Bedini and Bearden are good buddies.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."

Last edited by scott wurcer; 20th February 2011 at 01:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 01:32 PM   #9918
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
I think anyone who dismisses out of hand what a professor of electrical engineering at MIT has to say is making a big mistake.
Jerry Sussman, co-head of the department, classmate, and brilliant physicist as well firmly believes in the work concerning audio up to 100kHz. Advice, don't pick an argument with him.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 01:43 PM   #9919
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Take a look at 6,392,370 and tell me what you think.

se
Although the abstract is long and convoluted, here is the gist of it;

From the abstract;

"Thus there exists an enormous untapped energy flow immediately surrounding every EMF power circuit, from which available excess energy can be intercepted and collected by the circuit, if respective non-linear actions are initiated that sharply affect and increase the reaction cross section of the circuit (i.e., its ability to intercept this available but usually wasted energy flow). "

"No laws of physics or thermodynamics are violated in the method and device of the present invention, and conservation of energy rigorously applies at all times. Nonetheless, by operating as an open dissipative system not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum, the system can permissibly receive available excess energy from a known environmental source and output more energy to a load than must be input by the operator alone. As an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium, this new and unique motor can tap in on back EMF to energize itself, loads and losses simultaneously, fully complying with known laws of physics and thermodynamics."

Does not violate any known laws including the conservation of energy. It is not a PMM1K, a PMM2K, or a PMM any K. In short it is not a perpetual motion machine of any kind. What it is is a more efficient motor which utilizes available energy in the form of capturing magnetic fields put into electrical systems including stray fields in the motor itself that are usually allowed to dissipate uselessly. Whether or not the improved efficiency of the motor is worth the extra cost is strictly a matter of economics. And only the field from the motor itself can be relied on, the stray fields from feeders may or may not be usable. In effect, the invention is a transformer which captures these stray fields and adds them to the field applied to the motor by applying an out of phase component to cancel reverse emf. This is conceptually no different from capturing other energy that is normally allowed to merely dissipate uselessly such as solar, wind, and tidal power and putting it to useful work. Energy is often harvested from systems that would otherwise be wasted and put to use. One example is a heat recovery chiller.

The significance of the statement that the system is thermodynamically open is recognition that in a closed system, the COP could never be even equal to 1.0 because that would violate the second law. That it is an open system means that power not applied to the motor directly including power deliberately applied to the reverse emf field is required to achieve COPs equal to or greater than 1.0. This power comes from somewhere, it just is not power normally applied to the motor directly to make it turn.

Where the application refers to more energy that is input by the operator alone, it is referring to the power normally supplied just to the armature (and field coils if there are any.) The system does not overcome other losses such as frictional bearing losses which also reduce COP.

To obtain a patent, an idea has to be novel, that is not readily apparent to those "skilled in the art," likely to work, and it cannot violate any known laws of physics. It does not have to be practical or have any useful commercial application. This patent appears to be sufficient to meet those criteria. I'm sure it would be interesting to laboratory experimenters and to some exotic motor manufacturers to play with if they are given a limited license by the inventor to build them for that purpose prior to the expiration of the patent after 20 years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2011, 01:54 PM   #9920
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Well, like I said, my hypothesis is cratering of the vinyl from some sort of skid-slam mechanism. Wet play after damage doesn't show the damage well because the craters are more or less "filled in" by the fluid, which doesn't undergo shear. A micro examination of a formerly wet-played disk would determine if that hypothesis is valid or incorrect.
I would also explore why a slurry is used when polishing. There might be some polar molecule effects at work.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2