If you were a patent clerk and someone applied for a patent for a perpetual motion machine, would you deny them a patent without even looking at their design? After all, perpetual motion machines are supposed to be prohibited by the laws of thermodynamics. I'm just curious what you would do. (If you can't tell by the quality of this question, I'm a little bored today)
2006-10-13 08:52:18 · 18 answers · asked by Link 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
According to Wiki (and I had heard this before)..
Devising such inoperable machines has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. One reason for this concern, according to various skeptics, is that a few "inventors" have used official patents to convince gullible potential investors that their machine is "approved" by the Patent Office. The USPTO states:
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.
2006-10-13 09:30:41 · answer #1 · answered by Tim F 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If I were a patent clerk who got to review a patent for a perpetual motion machine (a thermodynamical impossibility as far as we know), I'd take a good long look at it, and see if I could understand it. If, once I understood how it was supposed to work, I found that no one had patented the idea (or proposed it in the prior art sense), then I'd give 'em the patent.
Of course, a patent is worth diddly squat unless you can sell it. So, if it was something that actually couldn't work, well, good luck selling it. If it was something which could work, well, then, I'd have to ask them if I could invest... :)
After all, the universe is a weird place, and you never know what will turn up.
2006-10-14 19:43:56 · answer #2 · answered by DAG 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perpetual motion is an incredibly well established fact. Look at the earth going around the sun, for example. Or electrons going around a nucleus.
A perpetual ENERGY producing machine is what should raise the eyebrows of the patent folks, as it clearly violates basic thermodynamic laws.
2006-10-13 09:10:22 · answer #3 · answered by Steve 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anybody clever enough to produce a perpetual motion machine would also be clever enough to label the patent or patents with something a bit more descriptive such as "Method for using hyper dimensional energy fields to produce continuous motion in 3 dimensional space time".
I would be highly skeptical of any application that was simply labeled "Perpetual Motion Machine".
2006-10-13 08:57:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First let me say I have prosecuted many patents (my own and others)
The patent Examiner would in all likelyhood reject the application under 35 USC 101 as being unpatentable subject matter or under 35 USC 112 paragraphs 1 and/or 2 as not being clear as to what invention is being claimed.
The rule of thumb typically is not to check to see if the patent is workable, but they do look out for clearly unpatentable topics and perpetual machine is amongst those toopics, along with math formulas, torture devices etc...
Hope this helps
2006-10-13 15:43:02 · answer #5 · answered by Dr JPK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This exact problem arose in the mid-1800s when legions of inventors sought to patent their hare-brained schemes by the thousands, all of which were impossible, of course. The Superintendent of Patents was pulling his hair out over this, because so much of his staff resources were being devoted to denying these patents and explaining why they were denied. Then someone came up with the brilliant idea of requiring all patent applications to submit a working model of their invention. Do you know what? The number of applications for perpetual motion machines dropped to......
yes, you guessed it..... ZERO! So that is my answer to your question. Just supply a working model and I am sure you will get your patent......He, he.
2006-10-13 10:38:38 · answer #6 · answered by Sciencenut 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
scientists are supposed to be open minded, and yet hold the laws of physics as the basic foundation for their knowledge.
This hypothetical question is very interesting, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics prohibits perpetual motion, as such, i believe it would be a waste of time. Practically speaking, there would be more things that would be considered more important, however, it would be most interesting to study something that defies the laws of thermodynamics, so I would go against my logic and examine it thoroughly. Something that interesting would be hard to ignore...
2006-10-13 09:49:53 · answer #7 · answered by ds_8615 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws of thermodynamics do not allow perpetual motion. There is no such thing as an 'overunity' device.
Man can never exceed the speed of sound.
Heavier than air machines will not fly...
...Birds are heavier than air...?!
....Birds are alive. It's their spirit that lets them fly.It's the law of
nature
Ya..laws were made to be broken. I would definitely look at this thing very closely.
2006-10-13 09:06:51 · answer #8 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Laws" are laws because after a long time we couldn't find a way to prove the theory wrong. That does not mean it is right. Therefore, if I was a patent clerk, I would still look at it.
I guess it depends on people's degree of open-ness
2006-10-13 08:56:12 · answer #9 · answered by icez 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are several interesting answers here, and I think the question is interesting too.
I don't think a patent clerk's responsibilities are to interpret the feasibility based on current physics theories, so yes I would look at it.
2006-10-13 13:21:31 · answer #10 · answered by Ken H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋