Perpetual Water Engine Invented. Please Advise.

[jdodson]

What difference does it make. A claim is a claim.

Once again, note the language:
"I have developed...", not "I am developing..."

I think its important to let others know, who may have expected to see evidence, that all he would have been able to share was a diagram and more than likely not a motor.

You noted the tense, that has no implications on what he had developed. I'm sure his diagram was finished, therefore it was developed. It would be interesting to see that diagram, but if he were to do that, there would be nothing to stop anyone from replicating, which may be why he never came back.

This claim is no different than 99.9% of the one's you'll find here. Note that it only took a few dubious photos, despite all the evidence to the contrary for Inventionmaster to turn some here into true believers.

Whats your point? It hasnt happened yet so it never will? That's a narrow minded point of view. Who exactly was a true believer in InventionMasters thread? I remember alot of people responding constructively eager to see results but I fail to remember anyone having complete belief that he had some form of free energy.

This isnt religion, being constructive and supportive doesnt make anyone a "follower" or "true believer". If you notice, most people here looks for results.

[Ein~+ein]

I think its important to let others know, who may have expected to see evidence, that all he would have been able to share was a diagram and more than likely not a motor.Whats your point?

Both the thread title and the OP imply at the very least a functioning prototype ALREADY exists. So wouldn't you agree, that as with Inventionmaster, to subsequently admit it doesn't nor ever did function in practice (only in theory/on paper) is to immediately discredit oneself? Or so one would think, but read this comment.

[Area 51]

Most people are gullible and will believe anything told to them because they really want it to be real or profit from it.
A trend is for several sheep to follow thinking they will get special inside info or the product themselves by defending the person.

[jdodson]

Both the thread title and the OP imply at the very least a functioning prototype ALREADY exists. So wouldn't you agree, that as with Inventionmaster, to subsequently admit it doesn't nor ever did function in practice (only in theory/on paper) is to immediately discredit oneself? Or so one would think, but read this comment.

Not necessarily...(real) Einstein knew about black holes on paper long before we found them with our telescopes...All equations could point to a working device on paper and once built, it could function and confirm the results it was intended to produce.

As far as I know neither perpetualmachine or inventionmaster came out and said their device/idea didnt function the way they intended. I believe they both simply disappeared. If they had said that their devices did not function properly then yes that design could be discredited.

That post by eWizard is a good post. He is simply being constructive telling others not to make assumptions about that which they do not know. As you can see, ewizard clearly states he doesnt know if invention master was honest or not, but that there is no point in being rude to the guy when you have no idea what actually may have happened to him.

(my personal opinion invention master didnt get the results he expected and didnt want to face being discredited...but thats just my assumption, which could be wrong)

Most people are gullible and will believe anything told to them because they really want it to be real or profit from it.
A trend is for several sheep to follow thinking they will get special inside info or the product themselves by defending the person.

welcome to the forum Area 51, I dont believe most people here are gullible. I think we all want it to be real but I think most people here want to actually see the results from devices first. I think people are mostly constructive here, people here should naturally be defended if they've done nothing to deserve being attacked. Anyone can claim anything here, that alone doesnt warrant an attack. Anyone trying to profit from a discredited design are the type of people who should be attacked.

[Area 51]

Thanks, I have been a member here for almost 5 years but rarely post.
I know not so much this forum but others especially certain groups namely on Yahoo tend to worship these people even without any kind of proof for years.

[wayne.ct]

Patent Advice

Unfortunately for anyone wanting to patent anything that smacks of perpetual motion, such patent applications are automatically segregated for special treatment. Such special treatment is NOT something the inventor wants to attract. I'm not a patent attorney, but I do have a U.S. patent and I did most of the work myself. With that understood, any mr. perpetual motion that wants to talk about patents and perpetual motion at the same time is not in control of good logic. My advice, for whatever it is worth, is to either drop the claims of perpetual motion or forget the idea of patenting your invention or idea. BTW, ideas are not patentable. Also, you are supposed to disclose your invention and how to replicate it. That, of course, is a huge stretch because Tesla patented a lot of stuff that nobody can replicate! Anyone who follows this forum can vouch for that.

So, there you have it. Either 1. drop the perpetual motion angle or 2. drop the patent aspiration. If you don't do one or the other you guarantee a life of disappointment and sorrow. Life is tough.