Aside: Precision and accuracy. Different things.

Precision is when all five of your shots go through the same slightly enlarged hole in the paper target.

Accuracy is when all five of those holes are actually on the center bullseye where you were aiming, not off in the corner somewhere.

They are separate things, separately controlled, corrected for, and measured. Using a millimeter ruler instead of one with  markings every  quarter inch will help with precision. Making sure you are starting your measurement from exactly the same place every time, and reading the markings consistently from the same viewing angle, and checking your numerical result by an independent measurement, all speak to attaining accuracy.

It should be clear that you can be precise as all get-out, but still not be hitting the side of the barn. And you can be very accurate... that is, every time you measure a foot, you get 12 inches... but you are not getting 12.000 inches by using that tape measure, are you.

So please, experimenters, strive for both accuracy and precision in your measurements, and don't try to overinflate the precision by using every digit that your calculator spits out. Your answer cannot possibly be more precise than your least precise measurement.

Also, when measurements yield results like Webby's that could be in the noise -- the imprecision/inaccuracy of measurement or apparatus vagaries, even temperature changes.... the experiment should be repeated multiple times, like at least 5 times, and the results from each trial averaged together to get arithmetic means and standard deviations. If the magnitude of the effect result is less than the standard deviation of the data, it is probably not reliable.

Finally.... sort of... .the issue of experimenter bias comes into effect. Is the measurement 0.51, or is it maybe 0.49, when the marking or needle is at 1/2? Ask two different observers, one whose theory depends on it being 0.49 and the other who likes 0.51, and you are likely to get different answers from the same trial. This is NOT a conscious process. It is called confirmation bias and is everywhere, we all suffer from it. The only way to control for it is first, to realize it exists and second, to take lots of measurements of different trials. Another way is to use a data-taker who has no stake or doesn't even understand the experiment but who can make the measurements accurately and precisely anyway.. and take lots of measurements of different trials. There are other experimenter biases as well, it's a fascinating subject and there are WIKI pages.

@AmoLago: that looks like the record from the first application which was incorporated by reference in the second one I think. It can take two or three years to get a patent granted, but if it's granted the protection goes back to the original date of filing.

Here is the USPTO official application for MrWayne's patent:

Hi TK,

That document and the one I linked to are one and the same. In fact if you click on the "Published Documents" tab, there is a link to the same page. You can tell, even from the images you and I posted...
Series Code / Serial Number = Application Number
File Date = Filing or 371 (c) Date
US Patent Application And Kind Code = Earliest Publication No.
May 17, 2012 = Earliest Publication date.

Also from the link I gave (currently under maintenance at time of writing, grrr), clicking on the "Continuity Data" tab will give you a link to the Provisional Patent filed back in 2010, from which this patent is based. Plus, if you click on the "Continuity Tab" from that Provisional Patent, it not only gives you the link back to the application we're looking at from USPTO, but alos give you a link to the PCT (WIPO) patent...
Application Number : PCT/US2011/060036
Publication Number: WO/2012/064877

None of it actually says granted though.

You'll also notice that it you search the Patent Full-Text Database (http://patft.uspto.gov/), "Travis Wayne S" returns with the above patent from the "AppFT: Applications" database search, but there is no mention of Wayne in the "PatFT: Patents" database.

Wayne, if you're reading this, and you're convinced you have an actual issued patent, I'd suggest you have a quiet word with your patent lawyers and just double check.

I have no idea at this time if Wayne has a full patent or not. It looks as if , as a minimum, he has applied for a patent. The nuts and bolts of his technology have been revealed. Frankly it is not important to me if a patent has been granted or not. Look at some of the ridiculous things that have been patented in the past. A patent is no guarantee that a thing works. I remember reading somewhere that there is a patent for a house without doors and windows. Entry and egress is by teleportation. "Beam me up Scotty." A granted patent is no guarantee that a thing works. Lack of a patent is no guarantee that a thing does not work.
        TK has talked about accuracy and precision in measurement. I have to agree with everything he says. On the other hand, Webby has just returned from a vacation, and probably quoted the first figures that came into his head. He probably has more detailed measurements on record that he can quote. I believe that Wayne said Weby had achieved a cop of 148%, but I may be wrong. Also Webby said that he built this rough model to help him learn to build a better one, and it is already giving him problems, even though it is the best replication built so far. Having said all that, Webby is more than capable of speaking for himself.

Quote from: AmoLago on August 19, 2012, 05:21:44 AM
Hi TK,

That document and the one I linked to are one and the same. In fact if you click on the "Published Documents" tab, there is a link to the same page. You can tell, even from the images you and I posted...
Series Code / Serial Number = Application Number
File Date = Filing or 371 (c) Date
US Patent Application And Kind Code = Earliest Publication No.
May 17, 2012 = Earliest Publication date.

Also from the link I gave (currently under maintenance at time of writing, grrr), clicking on the "Continuity Data" tab will give you a link to the Provisional Patent filed back in 2010, from which this patent is based. Plus, if you click on the "Continuity Tab" from that Provisional Patent, it not only gives you the link back to the application we're looking at from USPTO, but alos give you a link to the PCT (WIPO) patent...
Application Number : PCT/US2011/060036
Publication Number: WO/2012/064877

None of it actually says granted though.

You'll also notice that it you search the Patent Full-Text Database (http://patft.uspto.gov/), "Travis Wayne S" returns with the above patent from the "AppFT: Applications" database search, but there is no mention of Wayne in the "PatFT: Patents" database.

Wayne, if you're reading this, and you're convinced you have an actual issued patent, I'd suggest you have a quiet word with your patent lawyers and just double check.

Thank You,
No - I am very clear where our patent stands - this discussion has been someone else's misunderstanding of my statements.
Since this is not part of the discussion of understanding the system - I would normally ignore it - but since it also is a natural step in the process of "Realization" I will cover it further.
Now:
This was TK's concern and question. I am learning from his efforts and questions - that is a gift from him and this site.

We are doing all of our due diligence - all of it - rest assured.

The patent question was hammered a while back - the last time it was claimed that anyone could file for $500 means nothing to have filed.....(my position was well understood and clear)  My response was the same as it is today - except I said our cost $38,000 - it is rising.

Then - an attack - not for clarity - I was attacked for only being in the application process as if that was nothing - it is true you can file a $500 patent for something that does not work, but when you have something that does - you better do it right.

I am sure most understand Patenting is a process and progression - as I said before - I will learn from this forum to be even  more careful. I do not think TK was trying to assert anything just digging for clarity.

Observation:
I also understand and have seen this many times now - The move from "does it work" to questioning the Patent always comes after "one" realizes the validity of our design - It is of course the first question interested partnerships ask - to protect their own interests.

Who wants to deal with an inventor if he does not have control of his own invention. It is also followed by some who might be unscrupulous - Sadly - part of due diligence - we are prepared for that as well.

Another point - legalese - I have not offered to sell anything here - and when a private question is asked - I carefully review the control and ownership - in all aspects - this forum is not the place for said discussions.

What I will offer in the discussion of  Ownership and control:

The inventorship has been clearly established: Travis, Wayne S.

The Proper and Due diligence has been properly processed in good faith and order. Time stamps - art work - and concept have been cataloged - as well as the rest.

This invention is unique - simple yet extremely complex  - it is not an improvement - it is not a reapplication of an old technology - original concept.

Finally - it works - it is not a Application in vain.

We are on track - the patent application has been accepted - and it is a process - a very expensive and long process.

And yes, our improvements are being taken care of properly and legally.

As I have said before - we have very carefully protected and researched the IP,
I have stated our position here, We are well covered.

To All,
We have worked very hard to protect the invention so that we can make sure the Energy Device gets to the market.

Not to stop others from helping bring the technology to their respective areas - but to ensure we have legal grounds to partner
with Win - Win - Win organizations.

A win for the organization who manufactures, distributes - a win for the consumers - and a win for the investors.

We are also very well prepared to challenge anyone who tries to step on, or stop - our mission is to be the group you would love to do business with - to be supportive and to make it a poor business decision to try to side step us.

Some will anyway - so falls that part of the world.

Now worries - it is a world with plenty of energy needs.

We will bring this Clean Energy forward, you can see the lights and breath fresh air, soon.

Wayne Travis