Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[LarryC]

Now, LarryC in a post way back seems quite sure that you have something that is "approved". Is this the same thing as a granted patent by the USPTO?
http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/msg325025/#msg325025

But that latter date given by LarryC is the date of publication of the current application, as far as I can see. Can anyone give me, please, the actual link to the actual patent? SO you must have an actual patent, and surely the date listed is wrong? Since that's the date of your present application's publication, not an actual grant of a patent? Or is LarryC's "false" itself false?

Your are correct in that I was mistaken in saying approved May 17, 2012, should have been publication date May 17, 2012.

But lets check Johnny's statement and my response:

Wayne,
You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !

Johnny,
False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section  of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.
You seem to be just looking to spin any point to attack Wayne.


I was correct in pointing out Johnny's false assertion that it was a provisional application.

Your statement:
LarryC's word "false" in the statement above is responding to johnny874's statement that there is only an application not a granted patent.

You should have stated 'provisional application' and not just the misleading 'application'.

Larry

[RebeLLz]

 

[mrwayne]

Your are correct in that I was mistaken in saying approved May 17, 2012, should have been publication date May 17, 2012.

But lets check Johnny's statement and my response:

Wayne,
You have intentionally misrepresented yourself in this forum. That is plain wrong !!!
To wit, you have a provissional patent. This is not to be confused with an actual patent.
What are the differences ? Namely a provisional patent requires no examination which you claim to
have been subjected to. Seriously, lying like that is not good. Would you like me to show you the post ?
A provisional patent costs $110 and is given just for paying the application fee and submitting a 2 page form.
The purpose of a provisional patent is to help inventors who might wish to market their invention while having
the protection of a PROVISIONAL patent. It requires no patent search, examination or any demonstration of
being an actual invention. The inventor(s) is given 1 year from I believe the filing date to convert the provisional
patent to an actual patent which would require going through the complete patent application process which you
claim to have done. Shame on you !

Johnny,
False. The provisional application filed on Nov 9,2010 is under the Related S.S Application Date section  of his standard Patent Application which was filed Nov. 9, 2011 and approved May 17, 2012.
You seem to be just looking to spin any point to attack Wayne.


I was correct in pointing out Johnny's false assertion that it was a provisional application.

Your statement:
LarryC's word "false" in the statement above is responding to johnny874's statement that there is only an application not a granted patent.

You should have stated 'provisional application' and not just the misleading 'application'.

Larry

Larry,
I do remember that conversation now: Who was that that made the fasle charges? The way you quoted it - I thought you were yelling at me lol.

I think the real question is:

If someone was interested in getting involved - to help Wayne and the ZED, are they helping the right inventor.

Asking TK is a hands off apporoach - yet they need to know what is the exact position of the protection - be it all forms of IP protection.

It is a business question: should not be covered "here" - in my opinion.

You are right - the last time this was brought up - it was an intentional misleading attack - and you corrected the attack then.

I believe TK is asking questions for others' sake - and brings clarity.

His drag-it-out-in-the-clear method - is dogmatic - just don't take it wrong.

Thank You
Wayne

[johnny874]

 mr. travis,
bottom line is that I believe you are claiming hydraulic theory allows for over unity. it doesn't.
even though you can generate a taller static head with more psi, psi times surface area would equal static heads that have the same potential to do work.
a sinkable float would generate energy without accepting someone's word that when they manipulate a static head that it's a new discovery. it's not.

[mrwayne]

mr. travis,
bottom line is that I believe you are claiming hydraulic theory allows for over unity. it doesn't.
even though you can generate a taller static head with more psi, psi times surface area would equal static heads that have the same potential to do work.
a sinkable float would generate energy without accepting someone's word that when they manipulate a static head that it's a new discovery. it's not.

Thank you for being civil this round.
You are welcome to 'believe' - for or against.
Good day.