On Dec 8, 10:55*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:37:30 -0600, Jim Logajan wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:51:18 -0800, wby0nder wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

How about that: perpetual motion resurrected yet again.

Doesn't appear to be. One notable non-perpetual motion aspect appears to
be taking advantage of the temperature differential between the lower
atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. That point _is_ rather clever,
though whether it can be taken advantage of with sufficient efficiency
is another story.

If a powered compressor, driven by batteries, an IC engine or even
photocells on the top surfaces, was being used to compress the gas for
descent it might work, but using energy from forward motion to run the
compressor sounds like perpetual motion to me.

I looked again at the video and it seems that it and the fuellessflight web
site have very different emphasis. The video just isn't appropriate or
convincing - seems to miss the whole point of the novel aspect of the
invention as described on the web site.

The same scheme is being used successfully in undersea gliders for
oceanic research, but these all use battery powered pumps to control
buoyancy.

I wasn't familiar with that until you and someone else on the thread
pointed that out. It does seem to make the main point of the invention less
novel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I love novel engineering ideas, but there is a reason why the USPTO
office turns down hundreds (thousands?) of patents every year. Every
technology they use is plausible and does exist, but when you put them
together that way, it becomes a perpetual motion machine. The USPTO
is very well aware of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and everyone that
has money needs to learn it REALLY well to avoid scams like this. If
only we could get everyone to accept that PM machines can't work,
maybe we could get those creative energies applied to solving some of
the world's problems.

Jeff