Perpetual Motion Assessing the Competition

ACTUALLY IN THE RUNNING

The Day Perpetual Motion Was Proven for Certain by Nathan Coppedge

Overall, some devices I see as having principles: Select Machines - YouTube

SUPPORT FROM SCIENTISTS

“Say, you talk about pulling something up an inclined plane with an equal weight. You're right. This is possible. And not at all a violation of conservation of energy.”
—Ian Switzer, CEO of a Cornell engineering company

“ok so publish and let someone else verify… someone articulate and educated..” —Bob Smurdly

NOTES AT STACKEXCHANGE:

"I'm still not sure I really follow. The notability or importance of an invention is really orthogonal as to whether it can be patented. The patent office does not exist to give publicity to inventions per se (at least, not beyond the duty of disclosure that all patent applicants have), but merely to decide what inventions should receive a patent." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

"On a second look, I can see now that your question is how to publicise your invention if people don't believe in it. This is a problem that lots of inventions have: especially pharmaceuticals. How does one prove new drug X cures disease Y? By solid theory and rigorous empirical tests. But that is somewhat outside the scope of this stack, since we only deal with patents, and not commercialisation." —Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

How Can I Patent My Perpetual Motion Machine? "One requirement for a patent to be granted is that the invention is useful (35 USC § 101). Since perpetual motion machines are inconsistent with modern laws of physics, it is assumed that a patent application relating to a perpetual motion machine does not function, and therefore is not useful. The application is therefore summarily rejected.
However, if the applicant can show a working model to the examiner, this assumption can be overcome. In such a case, the application can proceed as with any other kind of invention."
—Maca (2018 / 03 / 05)

Source: My apparent (perpetual motion?) appears unpatentable. If the evidence truly is unbelievable, but very real, how will I ever be recognized?

The only other even marginally viable inventor may or may not be: Finsrud

MAIN COMPETITION

• Billionaires have a likelihood of taking advantage of inventors by sheer probability.
• Reidar Finsrud, an industrial artist in Norway, built a device which looks perpetual, but supposedly it isn’t. Also, that was recently, from 1990 or later.
• The V-Gate is just a magnetic rail concept which has never overcome the entry resistance to recycle the energy, but it is one of my major competitors.
• A fellow I talked to online has inspired VE Project maybe a quarter or less as much as I have. He has a clever design for a torque-based machine, but I know why it doesn’t work.
• The VE Project does models of perpetual motion machines, but they are largely considered fakes which make use of hidden power and special effects.
• A handful of others are almost-convincing fakes evidently making use of various tricks to convince video watchers that their machines work. However, the number of somewhat convincing fakes is smaller than most assume.

That’s just about all—virtually no one else is competing for perpetual motion in real life, other than ME.

But if someone takes interest in MY designs, it could be almost anyone, so it is somewhat confusing. THESE people MIGHT be interested, but there is little evidence that they have been interested:

• Middle school and high school students working on science projects could probably replicate my partial experiments. They are not fake.
• Someone older with model-building skills could reproduce an experiment just to see how it works.
• An engineer or mathematician could test the ratios I used.
• Someone with physical modeling software could fiddle around with close to ideal ratios to see whether it works.
• Big companies could pay someone small change to investigate it.

See, there are possibilities, but for some reason people don’t know how easy it might be to officialize that I made history!

Some devices almost certainly proven not to work:
PMMs Competition - YouTube

Critiques of Magnetic and Electric Motors

Debunking Magnet Motors

Critique of So-Called Working Over-Unity Generator

The Argument Against Flywheels
Argument pro perpetual motion against zero-point energy

Understanding the Searl Effect (not pmm)

VERSUS CONVENTIONAL POWER:

HYDRO

• Very limited number of sites—only where water makes a significant change in altitude.
• Expensive to build (like a steel bunker).
• Depends on sunlight for evaporation.

NUCLEAR

• Prohibitively expensive.
• Some of the nastiest waste products in large amounts—including large amounts of radioactive seawater for cooling.
• Requires mining rare minerals.
• Hard to.maintain.
• ‘Cap’ on power output.

OIL & COAL

• Limited resource.
• Causes pollution.
• More expensive than simple perpetual motion.
• More restrictive sites—not a toy.

THERMAL:

• (Less pollution than conventional coal).
• Similar downsides to coal & oil (India, which runs these plants, has terrible pollution).

SOLAR:

• Only runs half the day.
• Requires special materials.
• More expensive than simple perpetual motion.

WIND:

• Takes a long time to pay for itself.
• Depends on wind.
• Can't be built indoors or underground.
• More fragile due to exposure, materials used.

WAVE POWER:

• Limited sites.
• Reduces shipping lanes.
• Depends on gravity from the moon.
• Harder to carry the energy to the place where it is needed.

Perpetual motion also has competition from so-called professional idiots… So-Called Professional Idiots

See also:

Perpetual Motion Links

What simple technologies have actually been invented recently (a lot)