User Menu

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Keppe Motor

Keppe Motor Manual

Gravity Machines

SunRocket

Rocket Stove

RocketStove

Solar Energy

solar-energy-power

Lindemann Video

Magnets Sales

magnets sales

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

OU Shop

hho-dry-cell

Navigation

Ebay offers

Products

ufomovie.info

ufomovie.info

sky energy

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 75991
  • *Latest: Rqcgpxcn

  • *Total Posts: 382046
  • *Total Topics: 11898
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 27
  • *Guests: 168
  • *Total: 195

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator  (Read 30322 times)

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« on: August 23, 2007, 11:19:13 PM »
G?day all,

A couple of days ago there was an item on Keelynet about the Chas Campbell device. I had to refresh my memory as I could only vaguely recollect what it involved. Amongst related devices a US patent number was quoted which I also looked up.

I have never been a keen subscriber to conspiracy theories and suppressed technology, though now I am really starting to wonder.

Have a look at this and tell me what you think.

The patent in question is:

US Patent Nr. 709 5126       The patent was granted in 2006 and therefore is current.

In the opening paragraph it states:

?An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.?
   
This in no uncertain terms describes a perpetual motion device, something the patent office says it will not issue patents for.

WHY THEN DID THE US PATENT OFFICE ISSUE A PATENT IN CONTRADICTION TO ITS OWN POLICY?
[/b]
One could understand it if someone had really and demonstrably built such a device, but that is not the case here. The patent describes a device that has been around for many years, there is no new technology involved.

There were chiefly three areas where this technology was in use.

The main area and possibly the first was to connect an AC motor to the grid that drove a DC generator whose output was used for welding. This was mainly because efficient and reliable rectifiers were not available and this way a good supply of DC current was obtainable that was isolated from the grid.

Other areas were to isolate equipment that was likely to introduce interference into the grid and in areas where 60 cps equipment was run of a 50 cps grid and vice versa.

Today we would use solid state technology in these applications, but before the advent of reliable rectifiers and inverters there was really no other way of doing this efficiently.

We are looking here at a proven track record for such equipment that goes back around eighty years or so and no-one has ever reported over unity in such an arrangement. Quite the contrary.

There are three main areas where losses occur in such an arrangement. There is a loss in converting electrical energy into mechanical energy (I.E. the motor), then there is the loss in the mechanical coupling of the motor and generator (mainly friction), and lastly in the re-conversion of mechanical energy into electrical energy (the generator); not to speak of the minor losses of energy incurred in the electrical connections and leads.

Even with the best of equipment you would be lucky to get 70% of output versus input.

Which begs the question, why would the US Patent Office issue a patent for a device that is KNOWN NOT TO DO WHAT IS CLAIMED.

THE STING LIES IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PATENT!

It says:

?It is important to note that while the present invention has been described in the context of a fully functioning energy generating system. This invention provides significant advantages over the current art. The invention has been described in connection with its preferred embodiments. However, it is not limited thereto. Changes, variations and modifications to the basic design may be made without departing from the inventive concepts in this invention. In addition, these changes, variations and modifications would be obvious to those skilled in the art having the benefit of the foregoing teachings. All such changes, variations and modifications are intended to be within the scope of this invention.?

The claims made in the patent are sufficiently vague and all encompassing as to apply to ANY device that may be constructed in the future that involves the generation of electricity, especially any device that claims over unity. It would appear that the Patent Office has handed the holders of this bogus patent the power to veto anyone who wants to introduce new technology in this area and involve them in lengthy court battles for infringement on this patent.

PLEASE SOMEONE PROVE MY ANALYSIS WRONG, FOR I CANNOT SEE WHERE I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.

Hans von Lieven
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 08:31:53 PM by hansvonlieven »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« on: August 23, 2007, 11:19:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2007, 01:18:37 AM »
@Hans

I sent the inventor an e-mail and invited him to come on the forum. It would be best to have his information. I do not think there is any conspiracy. The US patent office maybe thinks this is impossible and does not care about it.

I personally think the Figure #1 is not possible, but maybe the #2 has a chance. He is using a 6000 rpm PM coupled to a 5:1 ratio gear toproduce 1200 rpm, then he goes to an inertia wheel, then to a generator that works at 1200 rpm then his output is shared.

We'll see if he wishes to come here and talk with us.

Oh yeh. I found this link;

http://www.whitewomenblackmen.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3999&sid=abe60f3e07cca7bf003b12036c7680fd
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 05:19:34 AM by wattsup »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2007, 01:18:37 AM »
Please support overunity.com and get your
LED TV Sets , Video stuff, Gadgets and Audio Equipment Christmas Gifts over here:

LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com
LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2007, 03:55:52 AM »
G'day wattsup,

Thanks for the link provided. An interesting document to say the least.

Amongst other things it says:

"The Internal Energy Generating Power Source or "McQueen Machine" uses a battery to initially start the machine. After the machine is operation, it actually generates more energy than is required to operate the machine. Energy actually produced by the machine is used to power the machine. The excess/additional energy generated by the machine is used to power an additional load. This revolutionary machine uses positive electrical charges from the atmosphere to generate power. It was once said that "if we could harness the power of lightning, we would have all of the power we could ever use." This machine taps into that natural power source."

Being only a conventional engineer with standard university training and over 40 years of practical experience I must have missed something.

Can someone please explain to me how it does that and why no-one else in all these years that this technology has been around has reported anything like that?

Please enlighten me.

Hans von Lieven


« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 08:22:18 PM by hansvonlieven »

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2007, 04:14:10 AM »
@Hans

Very good questions. I have some ideas and will post them tomorrow.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 08:52:50 PM by wattsup »

Offline Rosphere

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2007, 05:14:43 PM »
United States Patent 7,095,126

EDIT:

@Rosphere
Thanks for putting the patent here but the size when exploded in rather unmanagable to view. It may be better to remove these and just post the hole PDF file on your post.

My intent was to make them available for download, not for viewing on screen.  I had to convert each tif page to a gif in order to upload them.  I do not have the software to make one pdf file.  Now that I see that someone else has made a pdf file, I am removing them.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 05:59:24 PM by Rosphere »

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2007, 10:09:14 PM »
@Rosphere

Thanks for putting the patent here but the size when exploded in rather unmanagable to view. It may be better to remove these and just post the hole PDF file on your post.

@Hans

I don't know exactly how JQ managed to have his patent. I think you can have any patent and you have one year to produce it otherwise you can lose it. So maybe a young smart lad gets an idea so great, he patents it first, then tries to do the development afterwards. Otherwise I and us all would have heard about it before. If you ask me, it's not ready because of lack of finances.

In my view, forget fig.1, and in fig. 2 the main flaw is the 5:1 gear and inertia wheel. Granted this will create greater mass rotation. And if he reads this I will tell him, for free, that the inertia wheel is on the wrong shaft or wrong side of the gear. You are therefore giving the inertia to the wrong side. As shown, the generator will use the inertia to stop the Prime Mover (PM).

The PM should have the inertia turning at 6000 rpm, wow, turning the gear 5 to 1.  That mass and rotation will (ok hopefully) gain in energy above the wattage consumed by the PM. The gear will transfer the energy to the generator. The generator drag will now have to pass the gear and the inertia wheel to reach the PM. This advantages the PM side. High frequency of mass to low frequency of motion. Your car uses the same principle. To work on such devices, I estimate you have to have $150K in the bank just to play. Expect your first 4-5 trials to be part of the learning curve. Ouch.
 
I am convinced that serious energy will come from such apparatus in the immediate future, but I have lifted such set-ups and they are heavy, noisy often piercing db levels. The only place to have them is in an enclosed cemented wall with a thick door.

The answer for OU is not one thing, its a mix of all methods. There is motor, control, motion, inertia, transformation, concentration and hopfully afterwards some wild music. Either that or we'll all be plasma charging our garbage for the rest of our lives.

Gears, inertia wheels and motion are extremely powerful transformers of energy, but the craft is expensive, slow, because of gear designing and fabrication commissioning delays and heavy so it takes time to develop. There are gear diameter and angle issues, pitch issues, material issues, and so on. But once the right mix is found, such devices will be the quickest to expand in usage because the components are all available. No special learning curve. Just replicate quickly and use.

At best, the maker will sell gears and users will use local motors and controls. This IS on the horizon. But, like locomotives, they will be big, heavy, but very reliable and powerfull.

As for where the OU energy comes from, it is around you all the time. It resides in every space.

One example of energy.

Can you calculate how much energy it would take to propell a human weighing 180 pounds at 67,000 miles per hour, over an 80 year period. That's how much energy is expended on you and on me by being on a plantet that moves through space at that speed. Mother Earth indeed expends alot of energy to keep us alive.

Now imagine that every OU device in the world is also travelling at the same speed.

It has been proven that a magnetic field will curve space inwards and energy particles that move in a straight line will be attracted to the field as they pass by them. Like attracts like. So we have the Earth as one huge dispersed magnetic attracting a wide area of particles inwards, then we have magentic fields of our invention with more concentrated magnetic fields attracting those attracted nearby particles.

Now we know that the fastest thing known to man is the speed of light. What happens if the sun dissapears in an instant. Well in 7 minutes the light will stop on Earth and in 7.1 minutes the electric charge will stop reaching Earth. But why then would the Earth immediately change course and speed out of orbit into space at 67,000 mph or more. In fact all planets in the solar system would immediately lose their orbit. Not in 7 minutes, but instantly from Mercury to Pluto in a flash, out of orbit. What is this energy that is holding the solar system together that is so fast, so strong that it makes the speed of light look like a weakling turtle. This is the energy in every space. It goes above and beyond my comprehension at this time.

Just know that whenever you are standing silent you're moving through space and changing space and re-newing space.

I don't want to start a war of words or differences in symantics. The above is simply how I see it, at this time. If you asked me this 30 years ago, I would have probably answered "from Rock n Roll".

One thread on this forum called Universons may have a better answer. The patent holder is of the most credible stock and his explanations of energy give it more credence than I could ever do here. He has a web site that has parts in English but mostly French. Still, the inventor has managed to treat the subject in the most clinically acceptable manner possible with sound science and experimentation that may hopefully put a formal face on this energy once and for all. Academia is going to have one hell of a time absorbing this one.

The last post in that thread is here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.msg45788.html#msg45788

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2007, 10:09:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2007, 10:41:40 PM »

The patent US2006076781A1.pdf is attached.

Best

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2007, 10:41:40 PM »

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2007, 10:44:27 PM »
G'day wattsup and all,

Please don't get me wrong, I am not against the idea of over-unity per se as a matter of principle. If you have a look at my web site http://www.keelytech.com you can see where I stand on the subject.

I feel that resonance is the main key to solve the problem.

What I am saying here is simply that the way outlined in the patent is NOT the way to go about it. We are here talking about PROVEN technology that is very well understood. It does not introduce a new element into the equation.

I would be the first one to admit that many current theories about matter and energy are full of holes and need research.

By the same token the scientists and engineers of today (and yesterday for that matter) are not complete idiots. We would not have the technology we enjoy if that were the case.

In this patent I smell a scam.

The US patent office is adamant that it will not issue a patent for a perpetual motion device. Many patent applications have been refused for that reason alone! In fact the mere mention of the word over-unity in the text is enough for a patent application to be rejected.

So why then did they make an exception in this case??

Further NerzDishual just posted the patent application. It is dated the 13th April 2006. I had not seen this document before. The patent proper was granted on the 22nd August 2006, that is less than 5 months later!!!!!
Since when is the US Patent office THAT prompt. Someone really hurried this one through, it usually takes two years or more from application to patent.

Think about it.

Hans von Lieven
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 11:33:30 PM by hansvonlieven »

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2007, 01:16:52 AM »
@Hans

OK. I read through your site very quickly and there are some really nice informations there on resonance, etc. Good work. I am sure some here will find some relationship with resonance work done here. Actually someone may want to replicate the turbine.

NerzhDishual has provided the "Patent Application" above.

Specifically to the patent in question I am attaching the actual patent document and when you review them, there are some differences to the application. In the diagrams the only change is the addition of a pointer line from the item #30 to the object.

Then when looking at the "Field of the Invention" the application states;

"The invention relates to a system that generates electrical power and in particular to a system that generates several times the amount of power required to operate the system."

whereas in the patent this same section states

"The invention relates to a system that generates electrical power and in particular to a system that substantially improves the efficiency of generating electrical power."

Also on both docs you can see the provisional applcation date as being June 3rd, 2004 and file date of June 3rd, 2005.

I did not compare the rest of the docs line per line as this is needless, since this first comparison spells out that the initial application used terms that the patent office deemed unacceptable, most likely given the fact that the patent office themselves consider the device to not be of an OU nature.

Simply changing a few lines here and there made it pass the test of patentability.

I don't think there is any "conspiracy" per say. From June 3rd 2004 to August 22nd, 2006, you have a two year period which is considered pretty normal for patents.

Now the fact remains that I have never seen or heard of anyone who has seen this device in action. So the fact remains that if the inventor had no device that functions per this patent, then the patent is useless, and the reason for patenting the device in the first place seems lost.

So after a year from the patent date, still there is nothing seen on the market or elsewhere on this device from this inventor? I can think of some reasons.

1) It does not work as I would have expected considering the design.
2) He changed the design and has to re-patent it under a new design.
3) He was told to keep it quiet (MIB and all)
4) He was hired by some other corporation to patent this and block the technology because they strongly believe that someone somewhere will eventualy crack the design barrier and push this type of device into fully functional mode.

I feel that Numbers 1 and 4 are the most plausible. Reason for #1 is obvious but here's my reasoning for #4.

If I was to patent such a device, in order to not attract any undue attention, I would not have patented the whole system. I would have only patented the gear and inertia wheel combination stating only that this combination requires more power but produces greater motive power in a smaller package. Meaning you require less motor and more wheel. Or for whatever other reason, I would not have mentioned anything about free energy, etc. This way the gear/wheel is patented and you can then use it any way you deem fit.

To patent this specific device means you either have this device on hand or you plan to make it or you simpy plan to block others from making it, holding any potential maker in litigation for who knows how long.

But in essence what this action proves is some people out there are REALLY CONVINCED this device WILL WORK eventually.

Regards, wattsup





Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2007, 01:39:25 AM »
G'day wattsup and all,

Sorry wattsup but on the patent application it says: date of publication APRIL 13 2006, not JUNE 3 2005, which is the date it was filed.

Besides, on the granted patent it does describe a perpetual motion machine in the first paragraph.

And your paragraph 4 is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Hans von Lieven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2007, 01:39:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2007, 03:17:40 AM »
@Hans

The publication date of the application itself should have no bearing on this. It's just the date they published the document. The real dates to consider are there and the spread in time is OK.

Here's a picture of one of my test benches as per the figure 1 of the patent. Will not work, No way. As for the figure 2, have not tried it cause such an investment is too great and chances of success to slim to warrant.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3063.msg45592.html#msg45592

But I do get your point. Something smells not right, but I don't think there has been any expediency on the patent offices' part to push this through quickly or something of that nature. But again, powerful business interest have their way around the system and there is nothing actually that would surprise me.

Maybe I'll give the inventor a telephone call and see directly, from one OU'er to another.

But can I ask you this. Why all the interest? Is something cooking?

wattsup

Butch

  • Guest
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator, patent office is a joke
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2007, 04:24:18 AM »
I believe the problem is that the patent office is so overwhelmed with applications that they have people approving patents that would still approve them if they read them upside down. I believe the patent office is a joke and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It's just a cash cow for the government and patent attornies.
Butch LaFonte

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2007, 09:37:28 PM »
@Hans and all

OK, I spoke with Jesse McQueen this afternoon. He is a very nice sounding person and he was pleased that I called him regarding my e-mail and regarding the overunity.com thread.

He said he will be passing through the site to see what's go'in on.

The discussion lasted a good 20 minutes of which I asked him alot of questions regarding his devices, status of the devices, how he managed to patent the device, etc.

Some of the discussion I cannot talk about simply because he asked me to keep it under wraps for now.

But in essence, he states that Figure #1 has some errors in the drawing since he only saw the patent when it was finished. Even some of the claims have errors in function.

Originally, he had the verbiage in his application as a greater output than input producer, but the patent office explained they will not patent anything that is perpetual motion and suggested that certain things be changed in the verbiage.

Also, there was no special treatment in time factor for patenting the device. He had originally asked his patent attorney to patent this worldwide, but his attorney went ahead and only patented it in the USA.

As for the device, there is no device right now since he is waiting to conclude things with some investment groups to permit the R&D and bringing this "eventually" to market, since devellopment will be costly, all as I had figured, current lack of money and this type of R&D costs money. So even though he holds a patent, he is still some ways from having the device working as per spec and I can sense his reservations of going too public, too soon.

I asked him if he had a time limit from the patent office to produce a device. He said no, that he had 20 years coverage and removing the last three years leaves him with 17 years coverage left.

Now when I think of the extreme learning curve to devellop such a device, I can only wish him the best of success in his endeavours. It won't be an easy task.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2007, 09:37:28 PM »
Please support overunity.com and get your
LED TV Sets , Video stuff, Gadgets and Audio Equipment Christmas Gifts over here:

LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com
LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com LedTVforSALE.com

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2007, 04:32:55 AM »
 ::)

I shant say a word.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2007, 04:32:55 AM »

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Jesse McQueen's Power Generator
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2007, 11:08:03 AM »
G'day all,

Isn't it funny hat after all this we are at exactly the place where I started from. The guy does not have a working device, yet he does have a monopoly over any over-unity device involving the generation of electricity that anyone might invent over the next 17 years by courtesy of the US patent office.

If that is not a scam, can someone please tell me what it is??

Hans von Lieven

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


Make Money Online MoneyWorkHome.com

Money Work Home Make Money Online

Ebay offers