The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generate electrical power.” Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The patent states: “An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator.

22, 2006 for an “Internal Energy Generating Power Source.” The various reasons for such a device being unworkable aside, the USPTO issued Patent No. 4,074,153 4,215,330 and 6,246,561 B1.Īnother classic example of a perpetual motion machine is the “motor which drives a generator which is connected to the motor.” Friction and electrical resistance are typically ignored in such devices. Other examples of supposed perpetual motion machines can be found in U.S. In this particular patent, energy is supposedly extracted from “unpaired electron spins.” Glaring errors in basic physics appear throughout the specification. Johnson on April 4, 1979, is one of many magnetic-based issued patents, claiming to generate usable energy without any energy being input into the system. So too is the “Apparatus to Recover Energy Through Gravitational Force,” issued to Ralph E. Edward Rutkove’s “Gravity Wheel Apparatus,” patented on Dec. The overbalanced wheel appears time and again. Small details, such as friction, seem to have eluded both the inventor and the examiner. 543,392, issued on July 23, 1895, is titled “Mechanical Power.” The invention is a pendulum-based variation on the overbalanced wheel, designed to “increase power” from a primary motor’s input. The office has issued a number of patents for erstwhile perpetual motion machines. Such inventions are typically rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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.” The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 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. The USPTO has an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. Modern inventors have inundated the USPTO with thousands of patent applications for supposed perpetual motion machines. With the invention of modern electrical generators in the 19 th century, the quest for perpetual motion literally became electrified. Rather than ending the debate, however, the decree sparked a frenzy of perpetual motion research. In the 17 th century, mathematician Blaise Pascal inadvertently invented the roulette wheel in a failed attempt to create a perpetual motion machine.Įvidently tired of scientific false promises, in 1775 the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris declared it would no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion. Other stabs at building a perpetual motion machine have produced unintended consequences. It takes energy to keep the wheel spinning. Shifting and/or rearranging of the weights was supposed to keep the wheel spinning forever. Honnecourt found that weights cause a wheel to spin under the force of gravity. In 1235, Villard de Honnecourt invented an overbalanced wheel, a perpetual motion design that has surfaced in various guises throughout history. The wheel was supposed to spin perpetually but, of course, friction stopped it in due time.

The “magic wheel” was invented in 8th century Bavaria, consisting of a magnetically powered spinning wheel. Patent and Trademark Office came to be, inventors attempted to create perpetual motion machines. Long before the United States and the U.S. Yet throughout the centuries and even to this day, inventors the world over continue to challenge the known laws of the universe.

Physics dictates that there can be so such thing as a perpetual motion machine – a device that produces more work or energy than it consumes.

Overbalanced wheel