I agree with the judge and the Patent Office, which "demanded to see
a working model." People who make this kind of claim are obliged to
prove it, unless they have some legitimate excuse. For example, if a
prototype would cost millions of dollars, the inventor cannot be
expected to make one, but the rest of us cannot be expected to
believe him, either. That is a tough situation, making it hard to be
fair to the inventor.
In this case, based on a cursory description of the gadget, I suppose
it would be easy to build a demonstration prototype, or pay someone a
few thousand dollars to fabricate one. The inventor should be willing
to do this, if he believes the gadget will work.
Along the same lines, a person who has invented a magnetic motor
should be willing to do some first principle physics demonstrations
to prove to observers that it is producing energy. Perhaps for some
reason the magnetic motor cannot self-sustain at this stage. But I do
not think we are moving the goal posts unreasonably when we ask for
something along the lines Grimer and I discussed yesterday; i.e.,
calibrating with an ordinary electric motor, or:
"A simple string and pulley system with a falling weight would show
how much windage and friction there was and the energy needed to keep
it going for three hours could be easily calculated."
If there is a reason why these particular tests cannot be done, the
inventor should describe the reason and try to come up with something
similar that will satisfy reasonable demands for proof. It is in the
inventor's own best interests to do so, because if he is mistaken,
and the gadget is not producing energy, he is wasting his time.
- Jed
- Re: [Vo]: Pensioner's UFO plans scuppered Jed Rothwell
-
