Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

All I can find is this application. Can you please give me a link to the actual granted patent at the USPTO?




Hello TK,
I understand it is not easy wading through all of these pages - The last time someone asked I shared the Progression of our patent "Application" it is a long process.
I have very good Patent attorneys taking care of it.
I do see your point in distinguishing between my patent - which is all the work our team and my attorneys put into it, and a "granted patent".
Rest assured - we are unique....recorded, filed and protected.
Our PCT has been granted, and we have sent those results to the US patent office as well.
Thanks Wayne

It's funny that you put scare quotes around "application"  and "granted patent" instead of around your patent.

But this Wiki says that only applications exist in the PCT, not "granted". The granting of the patent is the prerogative of the particular jurisdiction concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty

A PCT application does not itself result in the grant of a patent, since there is no such thing as an "international patent", and the grant of patent is a prerogative of each national or regional authority.^[2] In other words, a PCT application, which establishes a filing date in all contracting states, must be followed up with the step of entering into national or regional phases in order to proceed towards grant of one or more patents. The PCT procedure essentially leads to a standard national or regional patent application, which may be granted or rejected according to applicable law, in each jurisdiction in which a patent is desired.

Darn those lawyers and their big words anyway. So confusing and so clear at the same time.
Now, Koalas don't always believe everything they read on the internet... but en.wikipedia.org is generally fairly reliable.

Please... .let us be completely clear. I am having a lot of trouble sorting all this out. I've been back through the entire thread and I see many references by you to a patent. I also see conradelectro and johnny874 talking about the same issues.

Do you have a granted US Patent or a granted Patent in any other country? I am talking about a granted patent, not an application, a provisional patent, an application that includes another provisional patent by reference, a PCT application, or anything like that.

Do you have a granted US Patent? Note: this is a simple question that can be answered by a single word.

It is actually illegal, I think, to claim that you have a patent when you do not -- especially when talking to investors or potential investors -- and "have a patent" means a granted patent, not an application for one or even a provisional one. In those cases you are supposed to say "patent pending" or "patent applied for" and both of these terms have restricted legal meanings as well and can't be used falsely. And if you are referring to the document containing all the hard work you and your patent attorneys did, that actual document is a Patent Application, not a Patent, until it is actually granted.

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?

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.

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

Seriously, can you blame me for my confusion? 

If you do have a granted US or other country's Patent, please give us a link, and please accept my profound apologies for being so stupid. Koalas in general are not known for our intelligence and I seem to be somewhat of a freak. But please don't hold it against me.... just give the link to the actual granted US Patent.

[johnny874]

  Tk,
Mind if I point out Mr. Travis' over sight ?
If a cylinder has 10 sq. in. (25.4 sq. cm.) and is connected to a cylynder that has 5 sq. in. (12.7 sq. cm.), what can happen is the cylinder with 1/2 the area would have twice the pressure.
If the pressure were equal, then it's static head would have twice the height.
What needs to be remembered is that we are discussing a closed system.
And this is where I say compression slows the flow, increases pressure and if discharged to the atmosphere would have a greater velocity which could perform work because of f = ma.
If it's pressure were limited to

[AmoLago]

Hi,

I've been keeping up with this thread over the last few weeks and is very interesting, even if I don't understand it all! However, Google is your friend, and a US patent looks unlikely (see attached image from link given below), certainly from that application. Wayne has mentioned improvements, so maybe there is (are) as yet further unpublished patent/patent applications (that one took 6 months).

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Application number: 13292954


Edit: Looking again though, that status is almost 6 months old... how long does it take the USPTO to get their a**e in gear!?

[see3d]

Just to let everyone know that I have fixed my formulas so that they are now consistent.  It will take me another day to make all the corrections in the PDF and then I will republish it.  Whew!

~Dennis

[TinselKoala]

Input 65g lifted 6 1\2 inches
output 1 lb 1 inch
recovery,,,, 1\4 inch drop in reservoir to start and continued until bac kto start point

Centimeters, Grams, Seconds. Or, Meters, Kilograms, Seconds.   Consistent, accurately measured units throughout.

How are you measuring your masses, or rather their equivalent downward forces due to gravity? To what degree of precision, to what accuracy. Are the reference marks on your tubes that you have shown, the reference marks you use for your lift? How and to what degree of precision, to what accuracy, are you measuring your heights?

I ask because INPUT WORK: 65 g lifted 6 1/2 inches... means to me that your "lift" measurement is accurate to the half-inch, or perhaps to the quarter-inch, and your mass measurement is accurate to the gram, or perhaps half a gram.
And your OUTPUT WORK: 1 pound one inch... means again that your weight is accurate to the ounce, or perhaps the half ounce, and your lift measurement is accurate to the half-inch, or perhaps quarter inch.

I am of course here talking about that mysterious topic called "significant digits" and trying to remind us all that our calculations cannot be more precise... or more accurate... than the _least accurate, least precise_ measurement that goes into them.  What are the "error bars" on your four measurements that will be used in the work calculation?

Gaah. I can't use these weird mixed up units. Do you mind if I convert to SI, at least?

65 g of weight = 65g x .009807 Newtons/g = 0.638 Newton
6 1/2 inches =~ 6.5 inches x 2.54 cm/inch = 16.5 centimeters = 0.165 meter
so input work = 0.165 meter x 0.638 N = 0.105 Joule
1 pound of weight = 454 grams force = 4.45 Newton
1 inch = 2.54 cm = 0.0254 m
so output work = 0.0254m x 4.45 N = 0.113 Joule
and there is some "bouncing" or whatever, the 1/4 inch variation that you describe on the "recovery" but I don't understand your description.

So by these rough measurements and calcs, not including that last 1/4 inch of something,  it appears that you are having an overunity result by about 0.113/0.105 = 1.08, about, when  the expected value would be 1, or maybe just a bit less due to losses.

If I've done the math right, that is. Please.... please everybody, check my work, it's hard to punch a calculator with Koala paws, we are better at hanging onto treelimbs.

But if any of your input values, or our roundings, are in error by 8 or 10 percent ... then so can our result be. Note that if I were to respect sig digs and round according to convention the result reduces to about 0.110/0.108 = 1.02 or even less.

So, since you have this intriguing result, but your measurements may not be that precise or accurate, I'd like to see the measurement repeated if you don't mind, weighing everything in grams and to the tenth of a gram, and measuring everything to an accuracy of a millimeter. This will require some special care on your part, care that is entirely justified in an attempt to confirm your extraordinary result.