Wish me good luck
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:46 amWish me good luck
I think I have invented, on papers, an atmospheric machine, to be precise a flying atmospheric machine, which produces an output more than the input. What encourages me is the patent application for this invention. The following is the last paragraph of the application:
“Theoretically fly lifting power of this flying machine becomes twice, or at least more, the efficient power of propellers. This sounds like a perpetual machine but it is not because in real world this is possible. For example a flying balloon can do that if it is lighter than air and has propellers propel it upward. A submarine can do that by emptying all its water tanks to become lighter than water and also uses propellers to come to the surface.”
No patent office accepts any applications for inventions to produce an output more than the input. But mine has been accepted. This is because an invention, producing an output more than the input, considered perpetual, which is against the law of the physics.
My flying atmospheric concept uses usual propellers to get fly-lifting. In addition to that it gets extra lifting power from atmosphere at no cost. Most of us have heard about the first practical atmospheric machine. This a link about this machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
This is a two stroke atmospheric machine, one atmospheric and one heated, the firs workable machine, used to pump out water from mines. But it was very inefficient. The atmospheric stroke cost a lot. To get the atmospheric power, you have to spray cold water to cool down the machine and reheated each time. My concept creates a none stop continuous atmospheric power use without any cost. The usual flying machines, but not helecopters, also get some free atmospheric power but not a lot.
If I am not mistaken British and Russian engineers tried to do the same thing, building a plane to use atmospheric power as a lifting and flying power mainly. Sorry I can not find the source. I read it on wikipedia during my research. British Engineers built a prototype and sent it to Nasa, which sent it back to UK. Now it is in a museum. Russians built three of them and used all the technology of the time. They fitted two giant jet engines to each one. I think both sides gave it up because they were not satisfied. In my view their experiments didn't work because they used the same body shape of usual aeroplane.
What is interesting about my concept is that it can work on land and water. If two or three of them work together with the help of a fly wheel, they could self-power themselves without external power after they put on and reach to a certain speed. This is hypothetical speculation for a good reason. I will prove and disprove my claim by myself soon. I will build a prototype from remote control hobby plane parts. I have done a good research.
So what is the benefit of this concept? If the machine can get atmospheric power to increase the efficiency to at least to 100% it will reduce fuel cost by more than half. Usually hot engines, which are used for most of our daily life, have an efficiency of less than 50%.
Wish me good luck.
I think I have invented, on papers, an atmospheric machine, to be precise a flying atmospheric machine, which produces an output more than the input. What encourages me is the patent application for this invention. The following is the last paragraph of the application:
“Theoretically fly lifting power of this flying machine becomes twice, or at least more, the efficient power of propellers. This sounds like a perpetual machine but it is not because in real world this is possible. For example a flying balloon can do that if it is lighter than air and has propellers propel it upward. A submarine can do that by emptying all its water tanks to become lighter than water and also uses propellers to come to the surface.”
No patent office accepts any applications for inventions to produce an output more than the input. But mine has been accepted. This is because an invention, producing an output more than the input, considered perpetual, which is against the law of the physics.
My flying atmospheric concept uses usual propellers to get fly-lifting. In addition to that it gets extra lifting power from atmosphere at no cost. Most of us have heard about the first practical atmospheric machine. This a link about this machine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
This is a two stroke atmospheric machine, one atmospheric and one heated, the firs workable machine, used to pump out water from mines. But it was very inefficient. The atmospheric stroke cost a lot. To get the atmospheric power, you have to spray cold water to cool down the machine and reheated each time. My concept creates a none stop continuous atmospheric power use without any cost. The usual flying machines, but not helecopters, also get some free atmospheric power but not a lot.
If I am not mistaken British and Russian engineers tried to do the same thing, building a plane to use atmospheric power as a lifting and flying power mainly. Sorry I can not find the source. I read it on wikipedia during my research. British Engineers built a prototype and sent it to Nasa, which sent it back to UK. Now it is in a museum. Russians built three of them and used all the technology of the time. They fitted two giant jet engines to each one. I think both sides gave it up because they were not satisfied. In my view their experiments didn't work because they used the same body shape of usual aeroplane.
What is interesting about my concept is that it can work on land and water. If two or three of them work together with the help of a fly wheel, they could self-power themselves without external power after they put on and reach to a certain speed. This is hypothetical speculation for a good reason. I will prove and disprove my claim by myself soon. I will build a prototype from remote control hobby plane parts. I have done a good research.
So what is the benefit of this concept? If the machine can get atmospheric power to increase the efficiency to at least to 100% it will reduce fuel cost by more than half. Usually hot engines, which are used for most of our daily life, have an efficiency of less than 50%.
Wish me good luck.
